Teen Jokes About His Drunken Hit-and-Run on Facebook, Gets Busted by Cops

[Fishmonger]

Hows person A getting home in the first place? Drunk with her car parked outside the bar.

Person A could also call a fucking cab for person B or find/call someone who isnt fucked up for a ride.

You really didn't read the example very well at all. Moreover, are you really aren't able to extrapolate on your own from the example?

 

[mmabackyardigan]

Another example of cops infringing rights

 

[FrankNStein]

Nope. Self-centered is a possible reason why someone might drink and drive, but it's not the only possible reason. Additionally, a scumbag is another possibility as to why someone might drink and drive, but it's not the only type of person, who drinks and drives. "Endangering lives" is an overstatement. With your failed attempt at logic, one could say anyone is "endangering lives" when anyone drives a car because of all the deaths, accidents, and dangerous scenarios that result from cars being driven. Shit, one could even apply the phrase "endangering lives" that involves people and scenarios that conclude in death.

There are degrees to drunkenness. Also, there are levels of drinking and driving. Your view is overwhelmingly reductionist. Moreover, it's only an opinion.


You've also disregarded individuals' tolerance with alcohol amongst other things. Your perspective is too simplistic.

You have a pretty advanced vocabulary for being so stupid. Kudos to you.

 

[Fishmonger]

You have a pretty advanced vocabulary for being so stupid. Kudos to you.

As if you're a source of authority on intelligence or vocabulary...

 

[FrankNStein]

As if you're a source of authority on intelligence or vocabulary...

Well I certainly am more so than a troglodyte that thinks it's okay to drink and drive.

 

[Stump]

It's really not self-centered. Perhaps, you ought to define what you think "self-centered" is. Suppose person A takes that all that into account when offering a ride? There doesn't have to be a personal desire to help someone. A person can help someone else because of duty or other reasons besides desire. You didn't prove at all how self-centered is at the root of the scenario for person A. Moreover, if the paragraph above is your attempt, you failed to prove how self-centeredness is the basis.

these conceptions of duty are still desires. A single agent drives drunk, as a choice, regardless of reasons why. If you don't understand how that is an expression of selfish desire against the desires of others not to be runover, I'm not going to explain it again.

The mere act of being drunk does not result in harm to oneself or someone else. There is always the possibility of harm, but that's not out of the ordinary. If anything, the likelihood of harm can be increased.

This is getting ridiculous.

I don't think it's selfish to drive drunk necessarily. Selfishness entails only caring for oneself, interests, etc. A drunk driver is not compelled to solely think about himself/herself and his/her motives, interests, and so on. It depends upon the reasoning that determines a driver's mindset, whether it be selfish or not. You're asserting that there is only one reason, self-centeredness.

It's a selfish decision to endanger others for your own personal interests. A desire to help someone else who can't figure themselves out for a ride home is still a selfish interest when this help necessarily entails endangering others.

Also, it's not always personal reasons. The example I described disproves how it is "only personal reasons." I mentioned already mentioned that in the paragraph above.

They are always personal reasons. Your paragraph didn't disprove this by merely describing in detail the nature of those personal reasons.

More often than not, drinking and driving more dangerous than driving sober. To say it always is, or phrase it so absolutely as you did, is false. Indeed, it is a choice to drink and drive. Most decisions and actions in life involve choice. I never said anything close to "giving one license to do these things..." My response was merely to oppose your support to your thesis how "drinking and driving is self-centered."

More often than not? how about we use the word "categorically" here instead of this wish-wash. It is absolutely, positively, demonstably true that drinking and driving is more dangerous that driving sober.

Execute what decision? You ought to be more specific with that statement. What if one factors of all what you stated such as "the rights to safety of others" and so on, yet still drives? Are you implying that someone can still account for all of that and choose to drive anyways?

That's exactly what I'm saying. And it doesn't have to be calculated and accounted for. Everyone knows that drinking makes driving more dangerous, and this is an unnecessary choice for the driver. When someone disregards the rights of safety of others in a choice to drive drunk they have expressly made a decision of personal interest over and in direct conflict with the rights of others.

That's not necessarily disregarding safety for others or oneself no more than it is if someone is a shitty driver, who often causes accidents, deciding to drive. Again, it's not necessarily selfish to drive drunk. You're assuming that your claim is true and proceeding from there, instead of proving that it's selfish, then establishing it to be true.

It is not comparable to a shitty driver. being a shitty driver is a result of a lack of experience, limited motorskills, low confidence, etc. These are not factors which can be fairly compared to the individual decision to knowingly become inebriated, and therefore a more dangerous driver.

My claim is true. Feel free to look up the results of studies on drinking and driving. Feel free to accept the obvious conention that someone acting for personal reasons to the direct detriment of others is acting, by definition, selfishly. Or self-centeredly, whichever you'd like.

Of course, the law is established to protect people from potential harm against drinking and driving caused incidents; however, it doesn't necessarily mean that the law is right in its actual application or execution of that idea.

This doesn't relate to what I wrote. Please read it again.

I've already stated how I support the notion of laws against drinking and driving.
You're completely ignoring the levels of drunkenness as I've stated multiple times, which is a major component to drinking and driving and the consequences of such activities.

What am I ignoring, and what are you proposing? You agree with drinking and driving laws, you agree that drinking and driving endangers lives - but whats the holdup? That the level of drunkenness should be taken into account in regard to an individual's particular tolerance to alcohol and weighed against their overall driving abilities and ability to hold their drink?

Again, you're going off the original subject and segueing into another one. The law has its purpose and is effective. I didn't dispute either of those claims; however, the actual application of the law can be questioned. There are plenty of alternatives. In the U.S. for instance, the U.S. federal and/or state governments could greatly develop public transportation so that public transportation is the common and rational means for traveling. Unlike western Europe, the U.S.' public transportation is pretty fucking shitty overall.

This proposal for increased public transportation would make it easier for someone to not be so self-centered as to drive drunk, I agree. At the end of the day, even if the only way home except driving drunk is to walk in the freezing cold, the decision to do so is one of self-interest.

Why are you even mentioning appraisal? I spoke nothing of that sort. I am insisting how the levels of drunkenness and degree of blood alcohol content vitally matter because tolerance is a defining difference between individuals. You're attempting to unjustly and erroneously confine my response into a fabricated and limited view. It depends on the blood alcohol content, tolerance, driving skills, etc. of the individual. The law merely attempts to enforce a generalized standard for the masses.

What else is it to do, the law? Are officers to administer roadside alcohol-tolerance tests alongside breathalyzers? If not, who is to appraise the level of inhibition of a drunk driver? it can only be the driver, before they choose to drive. This judgement can't be trusted. To insist it can - well, that's to be a scumbag, again.

"By my own admission?" I have stated multiple times how I think drinking and drinking often heightens the possibility endangering lives. It's not always the case that it does. It's not a scumbaggish and self-centered approach. It can be of that type, but it does not have to be. Moreover, it is not always scumbaggish and self-centered. You still haven't proven why your claim about "drinking and driving is scumbaggish and self-centered" might be be true. It's your opinion. Mine is different than yours.

Key concepts:
-self-centeredness as defined as a willingness to do something which endangers others for the purpose of a personal desire (even if that personal desire is related to a sense of "duty" or of helping someone who can't get home conveniently)

-driving drunk as irrefutably and categorically increasing the likelihood of endangering your own and others' lives.

-Engaging in this activity, known to endanger others for reasons that can't be anything but personal as acting like a scumbag.

I think I've made these clear. Perhaps we still disagree.

 

[Slick_36]

You have a pretty advanced vocabulary for being so stupid. Kudos to you.

He's not stupid. Everyone is wrong every once in awhile. He's one of the nicest guys on this forum in my opinion.

 

[Fishmonger]

Well I certainly am more so than a troglodyte that thinks it's okay to drink and drive.

This conversation has become so distorted.

My whole argument has been in opposition to the generalized claim that "drinking and driving is scumbaggish and self-centered." I don't think that it always is the case. What I just stated does not mean I think it's "okay to drink and drive." That is a different, interrelated subject.


Judge me and my thoughts how you will.

 

[Chuck Bass**]

lol at Fishmonger and Stump arguing over nothing

 

[Fishmonger]

He's not stupid. Everyone is wrong every once in awhile. He's one of the nicest guys on this forum in my opinion.

I'm most grateful for you statements, my friend. Perhaps, I am wrong indeed. I just happen to disagree with a certain conclusion. I could be wrong, no doubt. It seems as if those, whom I am disagreeing with, think that they are speaking "truthfully" when that has yet to even be determined. When one makes an assertion, the onus is on that actor to prove why that assertion is so. Thus far, I don't think the claim of "drinking and driving is scumbaggish and self-centered" has been proven...

 

[Fishmonger]

lol at Fishmonger and Stump arguing over nothing

Pretty much. You're right.

 

[KneetoLiver]

Wow

 

[Fishmonger]

these conceptions of duty are still desires. A single agent drives drunk, as a choice, regardless of reasons why. If you don't understand how that is an expression of selfish desire against the desires of others not to be runover, I'm not going to explain it again.

Your first statement is absurdly false. Duty is different from desire. Duties are not desires. I understand what you're saying, although I disagree that it is necessarily "selfish" to drive drunk.

This is getting ridiculous.

Why...

It's a selfish decision to endanger others for your own personal interests. A desire to help someone else who can't figure themselves out for a ride home is still a selfish interest when this help necessarily entails endangering others.

Again, you're being too presumptuous and close-minded. It's not necessarily a "selfish" decision. One can consider other interests and simply conclude to do whatever such as driving without being selfish. The act of helping someone does not have to be a desire. You ought to learn the difference between duty and desire. They are fundamentally different. Additionally, there might be other motives/reasons to assisting someone besides duty and desire. You're yet again wrong when your usage of "necessarily" because it is only potentially. In order for it to be necessarily, harm inevitably occurs or is required in the scenario, which it isn't in either regard.

They are always personal reasons. Your paragraph didn't disprove this by merely describing in detail the nature of those personal reasons.

You really ought to stay on the subject that you're supposed to be proving and defending, which is that "drinking and driving is scumbaggish and self-centered." Your aforesaid point is interrelated, but you're straying from the core topic. We're entering a floodgate of definitions, philosophy, etc. Duty is not necessarily a personal reason. Desire is a personal motive. Based off of the differentiation of duty and desire, there might be non-personal reasons. Additionally, the mere act of me failing to disprove your claim does not mean your claim is true. That's a fallacy to insist upon such flawed attempt at reasoning.

More often than not? how about we use the word "categorically" here instead of this wish-wash. It is absolutely, positively, demonstably true that drinking and driving is more dangerous that driving sober.

No. I am emphasizing upon the degree, rather than inserting an absolute. If you wish to implant another synonym such as "frequently" or "primarily," feel free to do so. That really isn't true. There are horrific drivers out there, who drive worse than some drunk drivers. Your sweeping generalizations are glaringly flawed. Do you not understand how there are degrees of drunkenness? One does not have to be blacked out or completely drooling and eyes rolling back to the head drunk to be considered a "drunk driver."

That's exactly what I'm saying. And it doesn't have to be calculated and accounted for. Everyone knows that drinking makes driving more dangerous, and this is an unnecessary choice for the driver. When someone disregards the rights of safety of others in a choice to drive drunk they have expressly made a decision of personal interest over and in direct conflict with the rights of others.

Well, that's not disregarding others and others' interests. It's actually considering others and others' interests and still making a decision based off of the pertinent information. That's not what "disregard" means. You're being overwhelmingly reductionist. It's not so absolute. For the most part, drinking and driving is dangerous; however, it's not always dangerous. Moreover, it doesn't mean that there is always a necessarily increased "endangering harm" of others and for onself. It frequently does, but not always.

It is not comparable to a shitty driver. being a shitty driver is a result of a lack of experience, limited motorskills, low confidence, etc. These are not factors which can be fairly compared to the individual decision to knowingly become inebriated, and therefore a more dangerous driver.

...Yes, they can be compared because of overlapping attributes. Shitty drivers make conscious decisions to go on the road. Additionally, they might make conscious decisions, which results in accidents. Conversely, drunk drivers make conscious decision to go on the road. Also, they might make conscious decisions, which result in accidents. If you're implying not every action of a shitty driver is conscious, the same is applied to drunken drivers. Even though that's a brief comparison, it's really not so different. One can still be intoxicated and be rational. You honestly seem to be someone who is unfamiliar with alcohol. Being drunk doesn't necessarily make someone irrational or terrible driver. There are other factors that you are ignoring, which I repeatedly noted.

My claim is true. Feel free to look up the results of studies on drinking and driving. Feel free to accept the obvious conention that someone acting for personal reasons to the direct detriment of others is acting, by definition, selfishly. Or self-centeredly, whichever you'd like.

...It's really not true. You're inserting your opinion and assuming it to the position of truth. The statistics are true and most of what you say is true, but when you declare that "drunk driving is scumbaggish and self-centered," it is nothing more than opinion.

This doesn't relate to what I wrote. Please read it again.

This is the multiple time you divert from the argument at hand. Stick to proving your original argument. My response was to your remarks about the law and ignorance of the levels of drunkenness. It's not as if drunk drivers are all shitfaced and cannot keep their eyes open. The law tidbit is not really significant.

What am I ignoring, and what are you proposing? You agree with drinking and driving laws, you agree that drinking and driving endangers lives - but whats the holdup? That the level of drunkenness should be taken into account in regard to an individual's particular tolerance to alcohol and weighed against their overall driving abilities and ability to hold their drink?

You're ignoring what I've been stating countless times about levels of drunkenness. Are you unaware of the effects of alcohol and the degrees of its effects? The point of contention is the "self-centered" and "scumbaggish" proclamation. There is a difference between being blacked out, shitfaced, and buzzed. Consequently, the quality of driving is affected.

This proposal for increased public transportation would make it easier for someone to not be so self-centered as to drive drunk, I agree. At the end of the day, even if the only way home except driving drunk is to walk in the freezing cold, the decision to do so is one of self-interest.

Self-interest is not the only basis for living one's life, making decisions, executing actions, and so on. Necessity is also at hand. An example would if someone is out in the freezing cold after a bar and has no ride home with no money for a cab. If one were to stay, one could die from the cold. Thus, one is compelled to walk home become of the freezing cold. You're very close-minded as to reasons and motives for traveling after drinking. Self-interest is often a role, but I wouldn't claim it's the only one.

What else is it to do, the law? Are officers to administer roadside alcohol-tolerance tests alongside breathalyzers? If not, who is to appraise the level of inhibition of a drunk driver? it can only be the driver, before they choose to drive. This judgement can't be trusted. To insist it can - well, that's to be a scumbag, again.

Stop straying for your argument. Stick to proving your assertion about how "drunk drivers are self-centered and scumbaggish." What you're asking about is a different, interrelated issue. I am in accord about representatives of the law enforcing the law. For the most part, drunk individuals should not attempt to determine if s/he should drive. You're right about that. Most people are fucking stupid. As a result, they often choose poorly, especially after alcohol. I'm not saying that there aren't scumbags, who drink and drive. I just don't think that always applies. Conversely, you think so. I think you're wrong. Stay on the original argument.

Key concepts:
-self-centeredness as defined as a willingness to do something which endangers others for the purpose of a personal desire (even if that personal desire is related to a sense of "duty" or of helping someone who can't get home conveniently)

-driving drunk as irrefutably and categorically increasing the likelihood of endangering your own and others' lives.

-Engaging in this activity, known to endanger others for reasons that can't be anything but personal as acting like a scumbag.

I think I've made these clear. Perhaps we still disagree.

Your "key concepts" list is already flawed as noticed multiple times. Desire is not duty. The two fundamentally differ. Learn the two concepts. I wouldn't even say your definition of self-centered is complete, but it is somewhat accurate.

There's another discord. Driving drunk increases the likelihood of endangering one's own life and others' lives for the most part.

I don't think it's scumbaggish. It can be. You still haven't proven why it is irrefutably so. It's your opinion. Indeed, we disagree. It's not a matter of truth or fact (objectivity). It's a matter of subjectivity.

 

[FrankNStein]

He's not stupid. Everyone is wrong every once in awhile. He's one of the nicest guys on this forum in my opinion.

Being fair, I'm sure you're right. Reading through this whole thread, he's obviously an intelligent person. Seems like this whole debate could've been avoided with a simple 'in my opinion'.

 

[Fishmonger]

Being fair, I'm sure you're right. Reading through this whole thread, he's obviously an intelligent person. Seems like this whole debate could've been avoided with a simple 'in my opinion'.

Haha, dude, if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure I made that distinction early on.

 

[PalharesIsHulk**]

Fishmonger is one of the better posters, though I don't agree with him here.

 

[SafyreSchool**]

Jesus christ, this is an example of someone unwilling to admit how wrong they are and able to twist things in their mind in any way they can to preserve their personal dignity.

Drinking and driving do not mix, no matter what. One drop, 20 cans, it doesn't matter. Getting in a car under the influence of something that is proven to inhibit reaction time is a lose-lose situation.

 

[Fishmonger]

Fishmonger is one of the better posters, though I don't agree with him here.

I respect your opinion man. Your words are ever so humbling. Again, perhaps, I am in the wrong.

 

[tkotom]

The guy that got caught must have been facebook friends with Jon Jones.

 

[Sum]

I'd prolly turn in my friend too tbh. I hate drunk drivers with a passion