Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

[ok doser]

You're engaging in a behaviour ...

No, that's your failure to understand the scenario as presented. I am not "engaging" in a behavior - I am describing a behavior that has been engaged in - past tense. An ex post action for which the results are known, and as described no harm has ensued.

 

[ok doser]

This little thing called "evidence"...

What better evidence than a confession?

 

[7djengo7]

Your "reasoning" seems to be that because you haven't had an accident yet your actions shouldn't be deemed criminal which is bonkers.

Your "reasoning" seems to be your persistent stonewalling against the question of why driving drunk should be deemed criminal even without one's having had an accident.

Why should drunk driving be deemed criminal even without the drunk driver having had an accident?

Because it "has the potential to cause harm"?

Well, obviously not. You, yourself, already crossed that one out, when you said:

Driving a car while sober has the potential to cause harm but it's not a criminal act for obvious reasons.

According to you, an action's having "the potential to cause harm" does not qualify it to be rightly deemed criminal, thus, the action of driving drunk is not qualified by "the potential to cause harm" to be rightly deemed criminal. So, you've not yet answered the question:

What (if anything) about drunk driving qualifies it to be rightly deemed a criminal act?

Here are some "answers" you have farted out in your stonewalling against this question:

• Drunk driving should be deemed a criminal act because to not deem it so

is bonkers.

• Drunk driving should be deemed a criminal act

for obvious reasons.

• Drunk driving should be deemed a criminal act because

It's rightfully a criminal act.

L:freak:L

 

[ok doser]

It's just gobsmacking that anybody needs to think about this kind of stupidity.

But if they or theirs got hurt by a drunk driver, can you imagine the U-Turn ??

In the scenario being described the action occurred in the past tense and no harm ensued.

Can you answer this question: How just is a law that seeks to punish somebody for engaging in an action or behavior in which no harm ensued?

 

[Arthur Brain]

This came out of a discussion that Chair and I were having about being compelled to wear masks. I put forward the following scenario:

I have not worn a mask in April, May, June or July. In the beginning of August I was tested and found to be free of antibodies to the Coronavirus.
My question to Chair was this: Who was harmed by my refusal to wear a mask in April, May, June and July? The answer of course that he was exceedingly reluctant to give was no one. No one was harmed by my refusal to wear a mask.

Just as no one was harmed in the next scenario about driving drunk. Both scenarios were designed to point towards the overarching general question - how just is a law that seeks to punish someone for engaging in an action or behavior from which no harm ensues?

But conceptually this is far beyond the capacity of artie or quip or expos4ever to handle. Instead they must thrash about like children emoting.

Um, no. Your concept was simply asinine to begin with, hence the bemusement as to why you persisted with it. The only one emoting here is you because you're in an untenable position that you can't bluster your way out of. There's no justification for driving while drunk. You're irresponsibly putting people at risk. It's rightfully a criminal act.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What better evidence than a confession?

You're kidding, right?

:AMR:

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, that's your failure to understand the scenario as presented. I am not "engaging" in a behavior - I am describing a behavior that has been engaged in - past tense. An ex post action for which the results are known, and as described no harm has ensued.

An act that you engaged in that was irresponsible and put other people at risk because you were in no fit state to drive a car. An act that other irresponsible drivers have engaged in and caused accidents, injury and death due to such reckless behaviour. You don't get a pass because you haven't caused one yet. You indulged in criminal behaviour and there's no justification for it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your "reasoning" seems to be your persistent stonewalling against the question of why driving drunk should be deemed criminal even without one's having had an accident.

Why should drunk driving be deemed criminal even without the drunk driver having had an accident?

Because it "has the potential to cause harm"?

Well, obviously not. You, yourself, already crossed that one out, when you said:



According to you, an action's having "the potential to cause harm" does not qualify it to be rightly deemed criminal, thus, the action of driving drunk is not qualified by "the potential to cause harm" to be rightly deemed criminal. So, you've not yet answered the question:

What (if anything) about drunk driving qualifies it to be rightly deemed a criminal act?

Here are some "answers" you have farted out in your stonewalling against this question:

• Drunk driving should be deemed a criminal act because to not deem it so

• Drunk driving should be deemed a criminal act

• Drunk driving should be deemed a criminal act because

L:freak:L

Here, let me spell it out for you in simple terms. Being drunk and driving car bad. Drunk be like brain not working right. Slow like reaction times. Bigger risk of stuff going bad and crashes and stuff. That be why it criminal offence.

Ya got it now?

Yay, jolly good!

:thumb:

 

[7djengo7]

Why should drunk driving be deemed criminal even without the drunk driver having had an accident?

<NO ANSWER>

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh, was my last still too difficult for you to comprehend even when totally dumbed down? Hmm, okay then, a more detailed version then. When a person gets drunk their brain is affected by the alcohol intake. This results in an impairment in judgement, a reduction in reaction responses and reflexes etc. The act of drink driving is rightfully deemed criminal because of a combination of all of the above. A person behind the wheel of a car is in no fit state to drive while impaired to the extent as described. It's law.

Now, if you still don't get either response then...well, that would be rather sad on your part wouldn't it?

 

[quip]

No, that's your failure to understand the scenario as presented. I am not "engaging" in a behavior - I am describing a behavior that has been engaged in - past tense. An ex post action for which the results are known, and as described no harm has ensued.

As such, (harmless ex post action) there is no lawful action against you; nothing to deem just nor unjust....you dodged a bullet thus your argument is rendered moot. :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

An act that you engaged in

A scenario that I described in a conversation with Chair to illustrate a point

that was irresponsible

describing a scenario to illustrate a point is not irresponsible

and put other people at risk

no other people were put at risk in the scenario I described

because you were in no fit state to drive a car.

In the scenario as described, I was in a fit enough state to drive home without causing harm to myself or others

An act that other irresponsible drivers have engaged in and caused accidents, injury and death due to such reckless behaviour.

Other drivers actions didn't figure in the scenario as described.

You don't get a pass because you haven't caused one yet.

In the scenario as described, which happened in the past tense, one will never be caused

You indulged in criminal behaviour

In the scenario as described, yes. But only because of unjust law.

and there's no justification for it.

The only justification I needed was to illustrate a point I was making in a conversation with Chair.

 

[ok doser]

As such, (harmless ex post action) there is no lawful action against you deem nothing to deem just not unjust....you dodged a bullet thus your argument is rendered moot.:idunno:

filedata/fetch?id=2760598&d=1597445160

You tell 'em, Gabby!

 

[ok doser]

Your concept was simply asinine to begin with ...

:yawn: emoting

 

[Arthur Brain]

A scenario that I described in a conversation with Chair to illustrate a point



describing a scenario to illustrate a point is not irresponsible



no other people were put at risk in the scenario I described



In the scenario as described, I was in a fit enough state to drive home without causing harm to myself or others



Other drivers actions didn't figure in the scenario as described.



In the scenario as described, which happened in the past tense, one will never be caused



In the scenario as described, yes. But only because of unjust law.



The only justification I needed was to illustrate a point I was making in a conversation with Chair.

"Scenario"? You've admitted to driving home while drunk on more than one occasion so this isn't some hypothetical here. This is stuff that you've actually done. Probably why you persistently refuse to answer as why, if you're indwelt with the Holy Spirit as you claim, you actually do it.

If you're drunk then you are not in a fit state to drive a car, period. Doesn't matter that in the "scenario" you posted, nobody actually got hurt. The point is they could have been because of your irresponsibility.

If you are caught driving while drunk then you are rightfully and lawfully prosecuted because you are no fit state to drive a car. There's nothing unjust about it but by all means, argue your case with state troopers if you're caught over the limit and see how far it gets you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

:yawn: emoting

Observation isn't emoting doofus. That's all you.

A simple solution. Don't be a tool and drive when drunk.

:thumb:

 

[ok doser]

Your "reasoning" seems to be your persistent stonewalling against the question of why driving drunk should be deemed criminal even without one's having had an accident.

of course, what it comes down to with the retarded children like artie and eider and quip is the following:

... putting people at risk (is) rightfully a criminal act.

And so, these tards eagerly embrace any new government edict that they can be convinced reduces risk, whether it is valid or not.

Restrict gun ownership and ban scary guns outright? Guaranteed to reduce risks, so they jump on board!

Shut down the economy, wear masks and hide in your basement? Guaranteed to reduce risks, so, You Bet!

Punish drunk drivers harshly even though no one was harmed? Gubmint sez we'll all be safer, so YES!

 

[ok doser]

"Scenario"?

Yes, a scenario used to illustrate a point I was making in a conversation with Chair

 

[7djengo7]

Drunk be like brain not working right.

So getting oneself drunk should be considered a criminal act? Because it

has the potential to cause harm

Since "brain not working right", one's judgement "has the potential to" become impaired, and in his being judgement-impaired he "has the potential to" temporarily lose his inhibition against driving drunk; and so, his inhibition against drunk driving (if he has such an inhibition) being temporarily lost, or overmastered, he "has the potential to" drive drunk......

So, as usual, you're one shallow, lying hypocrite in your reasonless shouting that accident-free drunk driving should be considered a crime against humanity while you sit there and give a green light to getting drunk, and refusing to say that getting drunk should be considered a crime against humanity:

If you want to get drunk then stay home with a crate or walk or use public transport to a bar.

 

[quip]

filedata/fetch?id=2760598&d=1597445160

You tell 'em, Gabby!

"indwelt with the Holy Spirit".....LOL. Not unless the measure of that spirit rests at 80 proof!