A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Should BAC limits be left up to the individual driver?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old January 13th 05, 05:13 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:13:49 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:
>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:29:59 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>>>
>>>If you in any way feel compelled to drink you are an alcoholic, because
>>>that's what an alcoholic is, a person who _has_ to drink.

>>
>> You trivialize alcoholism. A desire to drink isn't alcoholism, any
>> more than a desire for ice cream is an addiction.

>
>Being compelled and having a desire are two different things. Please don't
>mix these up.


#1: It's not a matter of being compelled, it's a matter of _feeling_
compelled.

#2: In the widest sense -- and that IS how you used the term -- a
desire and a feeling of compulsion are the same thing.

>> It ain't quite that simple. I don't have to drink. But I want to
>> drink.

>
>Nothing wrong with that.


Except that you and the other neo-prohibitionists want to make it impractical.

>> I do have to drive if I want to get anywhere.

>
>No, you don't. There are taxicabs, public transportation or carpooling.


Thank you, Marie Antoinette.

>If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough
>money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight.


Not a matter of 20 bucks. A matter of no cabs at all. And I rarely
spend $20 on alcohol for myself at a sitting. Besides, how am I going
to get my car back?

Ads
  #142  
Old January 13th 05, 05:15 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:03:11 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:

>
>>>Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In
>>>traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of
>>>others, and that is completely unacceptable.

>>
>> On the contrary. Not only is it acceptable, it is unavoidable. By
>> merely being there you increase the risk of others.

>
>Yes, traffic has a certain basic risk of being killed, which you accept by
>participating in it. That does not mean that you have the right to
>increase this risk several times just to satisfy your desire to drink.


Your argument has no foundation; the principle of not increasing risk
cannot stand.

>> The principle "anything that increases others' risks should be
>> forbidden" cannot stand.

>
>The principle of 'not unnecessarily' (and consuming alcohol when you have
>to drive afterwards is entirely unnecessary) increasing the risk does
>stand.


Nope. That one doesn't stand either. By that principal, all
unnecessary driving would be forbidden.
  #143  
Old January 13th 05, 05:15 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:03:11 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:

>
>>>Increasing your own risks of being killed is completely acceptable. In
>>>traffic you not only increase your risk of being killed but the risks of
>>>others, and that is completely unacceptable.

>>
>> On the contrary. Not only is it acceptable, it is unavoidable. By
>> merely being there you increase the risk of others.

>
>Yes, traffic has a certain basic risk of being killed, which you accept by
>participating in it. That does not mean that you have the right to
>increase this risk several times just to satisfy your desire to drink.


Your argument has no foundation; the principle of not increasing risk
cannot stand.

>> The principle "anything that increases others' risks should be
>> forbidden" cannot stand.

>
>The principle of 'not unnecessarily' (and consuming alcohol when you have
>to drive afterwards is entirely unnecessary) increasing the risk does
>stand.


Nope. That one doesn't stand either. By that principal, all
unnecessary driving would be forbidden.
  #144  
Old January 13th 05, 05:17 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:10:24 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:

>
>>>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.

>>
>> Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up.

>
>Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are
>unsafe both drunk and sober.


So you'd prevent someone with a 0.00BAC from driving merely because
they are often drunk? Those neo-prohibitionist colors are shining
through true and strong.

  #145  
Old January 13th 05, 05:17 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:10:24 -0600, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> C.H. > wrote:

>
>>>They drive even more poorly when drunk. Significantly so.

>>
>> Habitual drunks drive more poorly when they sober up.

>
>Habitual drunks should be banned from driving cars altogether. They are
>unsafe both drunk and sober.


So you'd prevent someone with a 0.00BAC from driving merely because
they are often drunk? Those neo-prohibitionist colors are shining
through true and strong.

  #146  
Old January 13th 05, 05:25 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:37:43 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>
>>> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough
>>> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight.

>>
>> You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could
>> have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being around....

>
>Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you
>absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are
>either taxicabs or bars in walking distance.


There's that neo-prohibitionist again -- "Wanna drink? MOVE!". (of
course the neo-prohibitionist is careful to make sure that walking
while drunk - aka "public drunkenness" is also illegal, so that's not
really an option).

>I am all for personal freedom as long as this freedom does not unduly
>restrict the freedom of others. But getting killed by an idiot, who was
>too drunk to drive _is_ an undue restriction of my freedom. Not much
>freedom in a coffin.


You don't get to bind my fist just because you fear for the safety
of your nose.

>driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic
>fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted.


You slipped up... "Alcohol.... thus needs to be restricted." Yep,
that's the neo-prohibitionist zealot coming through.

>If you want to experience the 'great effects of being drunk' do so in a
>safe environment, in other words, at home.


Drinking at home is a sign of alcoholism.

  #147  
Old January 13th 05, 05:25 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:37:43 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>
>>> If you have 20 bucks to blow on alcohol and claim you don't have enough
>>> money for a cab you need to get your priorities straight.

>>
>> You don't seem to understand the concept that there are NO CABS. He could
>> have a $1000 to spend on a cab ride, but without the cabs being around....

>
>Then call a friend and offer him a 20 to drive you to your bar. Or if you
>absolutely have to have alcohol at a bar, move somewhere where there are
>either taxicabs or bars in walking distance.


There's that neo-prohibitionist again -- "Wanna drink? MOVE!". (of
course the neo-prohibitionist is careful to make sure that walking
while drunk - aka "public drunkenness" is also illegal, so that's not
really an option).

>I am all for personal freedom as long as this freedom does not unduly
>restrict the freedom of others. But getting killed by an idiot, who was
>too drunk to drive _is_ an undue restriction of my freedom. Not much
>freedom in a coffin.


You don't get to bind my fist just because you fear for the safety
of your nose.

>driver Y thinks it's fun? Alcohol causes a very large number of traffic
>fatalities a year and thus needs to be restricted.


You slipped up... "Alcohol.... thus needs to be restricted." Yep,
that's the neo-prohibitionist zealot coming through.

>If you want to experience the 'great effects of being drunk' do so in a
>safe environment, in other words, at home.


Drinking at home is a sign of alcoholism.

  #148  
Old January 13th 05, 05:29 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:02:52 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>
>>> Nice conspiracy theory. Everyone is against the poor drunk (or if you
>>> want half-drunk) drivers.

>>
>> Then what you are saying is that the people who did the imparement
>> studies back in the 1980s were completely incompetent?

>
>No, just greedy.
>
>> Why should we believe they are more competent now? that these studies
>> are any more valid than the ones done then?

>
>Because the alcohol manufacturers don't have quite as much influence.


ROTFL. Who's coming up with conspiracy theories now, eh?
  #149  
Old January 13th 05, 05:29 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
C.H. > wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:02:52 -0600, Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, C.H. wrote:
>>
>>> Nice conspiracy theory. Everyone is against the poor drunk (or if you
>>> want half-drunk) drivers.

>>
>> Then what you are saying is that the people who did the imparement
>> studies back in the 1980s were completely incompetent?

>
>No, just greedy.
>
>> Why should we believe they are more competent now? that these studies
>> are any more valid than the ones done then?

>
>Because the alcohol manufacturers don't have quite as much influence.


ROTFL. Who's coming up with conspiracy theories now, eh?
  #150  
Old January 13th 05, 07:18 PM
Olaf Gustafson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:16:11 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:55:14 -0700, Olaf Gustafson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:54:52 -0800, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>COMPETENCE AND ALCOHOL ARE A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS! (was that loud enough
>>>for you?)
>>>
>>>If you had any alcohol your ability to assess your driving capabilities
>>>decreases to the point of non-existence,

>>
>> Which is why I always test my driving skills out on a video game
>> before I leave the bar. If I get a crappy score, I'll call a cab.

>
>You really think some playing around with a driving simulator is an
>indicator of whether you are capable of driving? You indeed need help.
>


One of your problems is you can't tell when someone is being
facetious.

Your type is so easy to wind up.

>Chris


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
528i vs 530i vs 540i USA Versions FSJ BMW 37 January 16th 05 07:38 PM
MFFY Driver Get His Come-Uppance Dave Head Driving 25 December 25th 04 07:07 AM
Speeding: the fundamental cause of MFFY Daniel W. Rouse Jr. Driving 82 December 23rd 04 02:10 AM
There I was, Driving in the Right Lane... Dave Head Driving 110 December 18th 04 03:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.