Wow!

I went shopping today with a coffee cup filled with vodka and O.J.

I had a blast.and I drove home just fine.

Neoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I know this person personally and he's like the
> nicest guy you'll ever meet. That said he does
> have a mental illness and that may have made him
> come across as a drunk when he wasn't.

Which you failed to leave out of your first story when using it to be critical of DUI laws. Theres always more to the story and officers there cant be expected to know everyones mental health/ability.
> Not saying its not a problem. But for the third
> time, no one who drinks and drives ever thought
> any of this would happen. By the time these
> statistics emerge, it's too late. That's why it's
> too late to impose strict penalties on people who
> were arrested out of ignorance and meant no harm
> in the first place. If you want to change this,
> stop it before it happens with better
> education...which MADD is failing to do because
> they are too busy painting a negative picture of
> who society thinks the stereotypical drunk driver
> is to gain financial resources and political
> support for their (good) cause - bad campaigns
> mean nothing to the person who thinks they are
> okay to drive after one large margarita for
> instance when they're not. We can't even accept
> the fact that alcholism is a result of depression
> and may be genetic - we treat alcoholics like
> losers. It's a sad situation all across the
> board.

So because they didnt mean to do it they should be let go free so that they can continue to do it and just say my bad whenever they kill anyone. Great plan there.

Look I tried but you obviously are anti cop and think that no one should be punished for anything. People are going to drive drunk whether they know it or not the outcome is and should be the same. By your logic if they didnt mean to we cant charge them for killing someone because its to late so why bother. Actually by your logic nothing is a crime because its to late its already happened so why bother to punish someone.

In your mind DUIs are nothing more than police abusing the system. If thats what you want to think its your right. But thats not what they are and not what is happening. If you did take the time to educate yourself on the issue you would feel a lot better about what is actually happening with this issue.

I just drove home to sterling from crystal city Restaurant. must have drank a 12 pack, then went to the sports pub for a few more.

I just had to check my car for fresh dents. whew, what a night.

1. If you are quoting "scientific research" list your sources. Sounds like you just pulled some rhetoric from a MADD website.

2. Knowing the circumstances is the only way you could possibly judge someone to have done something that could have killed someone. What if he was moving his car to a non-tow zone in an empty parking lot before he caught a cab home?

poopstick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. If you are quoting "scientific research" list
> your sources. Sounds like you just pulled some
> rhetoric from a MADD website.
>
> 2. Knowing the circumstances is the only way you
> could possibly judge someone to have done
> something that could have killed someone. What if
> he was moving his car to a non-tow zone in an
> empty parking lot before he caught a cab home?


Poopstick, If you're honestly ignorant or foolish enough to try and argue against ALL the studies that prove a link between alcohol and impaired driving, then I'm not even going to bother debating it with you. It's like trying to argue with a person that refuses to admit that the earth is round, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

If you REALLY need to examine studies about the correlation between driving drunk and accident/mortality rates, just Google it. There are about 25,000 different articles, studies, tests, that you can choose from. Since you've made it obvious that you will refuse to believe any of them, I don't hold out much hope for you.

I'm also not going to waste time playing the "What if?" game with you......... (What if the OP drove drunk but was driving on a frozen track in the Arctic Circle where there aren't ANY PEOPLE around? Then would he have put lives at risk?...... What if the OP was moving his car from his own garage to his driveway while drunk? THEN would he still have endangered people?........ Duh de Dur!)

"Your ignorance cramps my conversation." ~ Anthony Hope

Nobody is debating that there is a correlation between alcohol and impaired driving. What we are debating is the level of impairment that comes from having a low BAC level. You pulled some quotes which make some very generalized statements about the level of impairment at low BAC levels and site them as "scientific research". How were these tests preformed, who preformed them, what were the differences in reaction time between sober vs impaired individuals? Just saying "significant" isn't considered scientific research.

And how do these levels compare with other driving distractions such as talking on the phone, texting, playing with the radio, or just being tired? There is plenty of evidence out there that these can be just as bad if not worse than drinking and driving.

Why are the penalties for these other offenses just as strict as the penalties for drinking and driving? Why did policy makers decide .08 was where they would draw the line? Why can they arrest someone for DUI if they are below that limit? Why are you so obsessed with rattling your saber against anyone who has a few drinks and drives?

I'm not playing the what-if game, I'm just saying you have no moral ground to stand on unless you know the circumstances. Dickface.

Anthony Hope? Clearly you just googled "ignorance quotes" and picked one. Good job buddy. The quote doesn't really make sense though because you're not having a conversation with anyone, you're just railing against anyone who doesn't think like you think. Your 'arguments' have the same quality and eloquence as the Lamb Center poster.
Attachments:

poopstick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody is debating that there is a correlation
> between alcohol and impaired driving. What we are
> debating is the level of impairment that comes
> from having a low BAC level. You pulled some
> quotes which make some very generalized statements
> about the level of impairment at low BAC levels
> and site them as "scientific research". How were
> these tests preformed, who preformed them, what
> were the differences in reaction time between
> sober vs impaired individuals? Just saying
> "significant" isn't considered scientific
> research.
>
> And how do these levels compare with other driving
> distractions such as talking on the phone,
> texting, playing with the radio, or just being
> tired? There is plenty of evidence out there that
> these can be just as bad if not worse than
> drinking and driving.
>
> Why are the penalties for these other offenses
> just as strict as the penalties for drinking and
> driving? Why did policy makers decide .08 was
> where they would draw the line? Why can they
> arrest someone for DUI if they are below that
> limit? Why are you so obsessed with rattling your
> saber against anyone who has a few drinks and
> drives?
>
> I'm not playing the what-if game, I'm just saying
> you have no moral ground to stand on unless you
> know the circumstances. Dickface.
>
> Anthony Hope? Clearly you just googled "ignorance
> quotes" and picked one. Good job buddy. The quote
> doesn't really make sense though because you're
> not having a conversation with anyone, you're just
> railing against anyone who doesn't think like you
> think. Your 'arguments' have the same quality and
> eloquence as the Lamb Center poster.

Lol. Your use of the name "Dickface", and telling me to "Eat Shit", because I don't agree with YOU only serve to further prove the fact that there's no point in trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. Once you've devolved into pedantic name calling and crude expletives, (when I've used none toward you), you simply reenforce my suspicions that you just aren't capable of having an adult conversation.

P.S. There's no such word as "preformed", (unless maybe you're attempting to bolster your argument by talking about concrete work or perhaps certain types of artwork and castings). I would suspect it to be a typo except for the fact that you keep making the same error. Perhaps while you're Googling "Anthony Hope", you can also Google the correct usage and spelling of this common word, (I don't want to spoil the fun by just giving the spelling to you.) It's a very simple word and your inability to get it correctly makes you look even more ignorant then you already do.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/2012 07:22PM by Taylor.

You really need to post more often, Taylor. Good arguments and nice style.

@Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really need to post more often, Taylor. Good
> arguments and nice style.

(Deep bow)

Why, thank you! That's the nicest thing I've heard all day. :)

Don't worry about Taylor, he's a moron. Well played good sir.

@poopstick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't worry about Taylor, he's a moron. Well
> played good sir.


How do you know I'm a "he"?

And the fact that you immediately devolve into the petty name calling certainly explains why Poopstick is more to your level of intellectual debate. (Assuming that this isn't Poopstick posting.)

@Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really need to post more often, Taylor. Good
> arguments and nice style.

Concur!

Kilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Taylor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You really need to post more often, Taylor.
> Good
> > arguments and nice style.
>
> Concur!

Again, I thank you.