Well, if you want to get into the question of choice then you don’t have to do anything but, you won’t have a choice with regard to consequences. Taking that into consideration, what’s your point? The government says you can do this and you can’t do that. You can choose to not comply but that same government will impose a consequence upon you.
1 Like
Those benevolent men!
We will not see eye to eye on this ever. You value the role of the state in an individuals life more than I.
But we aren’t talking about an individual’s life but the lives of individuals.
Just wondering, do you think drunk driving should be legal? It doesn’t inherently hurt anyone (only drunk crashing does). You are only increasing risk for others, there is no direct harm necessarily.
TBH, I would have said in the past that we should only forbid drunk crashing and not drunk driving. I am now of the opinion that increasing risk to another in certain circumstances is justification to forbid the action.
No. We’ve discussed earlier in the thread.
So you are for limiting some personal choices based on risk to others, but not all personal choices (which also have risk to others)?
How do you go about determining which ones to limit and which ones to leave alone?
If it is just opinion (special pleading), I think you would be guilty of inconsistent thinking.
1 Like
Ok Rosa.
Sorry I read your post quickly, thought it said illegal. I don’t believe drunk driving should be illegal.
And if you were left disabled because of a drunk driver, we both know you wouldn’t still believe that. When your edginess becomes silly, you might want to think like an adult.
Should we prosecute naked mouthers like drunk drivers?
What if if a Covid infection can be reasonably traced back to an unclean naked mouther? Held responsible for damages/manslaughter? Second degree felony.
Only 10k deaths to driving intoxicated. While, in the same year, 500k dead to infected while social.
It’s a different issue once it violates the life, liberty or property of another individual.
No. If it were not illegal, and you were disabled due to a drunk driver, you would have wanted it to have been illegal. Reality has a way of making utopia look childish.
But then it’s just an accident.
1 Like
Well, I don’t agree with you on this, but you are now consistent. Being consistent here can lead to some pretty crazy outcomes. Stuff like firing guns in the city being fine as long as you don’t hit individuals, or property. I thought about the outcomes of policy that was in line with my thinking, and decided it is okay to limit an action based on substantial risk to others (not just direct harm).
1 Like
You should be able to assemble a nuclear device in the middle of a city, on your property, left outside on your unguarded property, with a big red glowing button.
Your neighbors will be very quick to vote away their (and your) personal freedoms in that situation.
1 Like
Liberty haters.
2 Likes
Why wouldn’t he? What if he were left disabled because of a sober driver? Would he support prohibiting all driving, or only prohibiting driving while sober?
What if one can be traced back to an individual that felt it necessary to leave home while wearing a mask? He could have stayed home.
What should’ve happened to parents that purposely exposed their children to chicken pox infections back in the old days?
Or put them in reasonable fear of harm. @Alrightmiami19c is not talking about drunks being able to do anything they want; merely not penalizing them for the content of their blood.
1 Like