- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,754
- Reaction score
- 68,740
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Reading comprehension is lacking in many of your posts. Here’s what I am saying: Your lax view of drunk driving is in line with your lax view of child molestation. Both positions are utterly absurd. I am not drawing any type of connection between the two crimes. At all.
I do not have a lax view on either. That is merely your opinion you're trying to present as fact. Before going off and making fun of people for "reading comprehension", perchance you should consider what it is that you’re actually writing. Your personal propaganda against my arguments does not change what they are. I am not “lax” on either drunk driving nor child molestation. Rather, I am merely unemotional on these subjects and seek proper punishment. Not over punishment and hysteria.
You are saying that these people are unintentionally harming others. If it’s unintentional, there is no fault involved. Fault assumes culpability which you have clearly denied in these cases.
Lots of things which are unintentional carry fault. Are you kidding? Reckless endangerment does not carry intent, but it carries punishment because while one may not have INTENDED to cause a certain outcome, through reckless behavior they have led to it. That’s non-intentional yet carries fault. Please, let’s stop with this lie. I know you’re trying to base a lot of propaganda off of it, but it just isn’t true.
There is no lie as you put it. You have argued in this thread that current laws need to be reversed which is idiotic, window-linking nonsense.
How about some of that reading comprehension you so smarmily called out on me at the beginning of your argument? I did not say the current laws need to be reversed. I said the punishments need to be brought into reasonable and proper levels. Are you done lying about my arguments yet?
While drunk, they are obviously in an altered state of mind, but not before getting drunk. This is where intention comes into it. After all, how many times does a person need to make the same mistake before it becomes intentional?
You can say they intended to drink and drive. But that doesn’t mean they are murdering in the first degree if they happen to get in an accident and kill someone as they do not intend to actually kill anyone. Now if someone said “I’m gonna get drunk and kill someone”, then that’s intent to harm. But under normal circumstances there is no intent to harm and punishment must reflect that.
Lol I doubt it. There are plenty of morons who think exactly like you. Meanwhile, people keep dying.
Nearly 11,000 people lose their lives each year because of drunk drivers. (according to the CDC) But the current laws need to be reversed according to you. Justice for those whose lives have been destroyed is “emotional tripe” in your opinion.
What you have written here is indeed emotional tripe. You’re arguing revenge punishment, but I do not believe revenge to be a proper proponent of justice. Proper punishment must reflect the crime. You cannot hold crimes of intent against a drunk driver less you can prove intent in a court of law. The act in and of itself does not mean intent.
Repeated offenses by drunk driving do not compare to any of your hyperbolic examples. I doubt you even bothered to stop and consider what I’ve actually proposed.
Punishment for DUI goes up with frequency. And it never comes off your record in some states. Everything I have written there is applicable to the discussion at hand. Your dismissal is just that, dismissal. Try a coherent argument next time, it will go further.
What proper punishment? You haven’t proposed any so far.
I’ve oft proposed what I would remove from punishment. The fines are excessive, the therapy is excessive, the classes for first time offense are excessive (though that covers a larger range of “classes” as it’s a favorite tactic of the government to drain more money away from people). Jail time for first time offense (if no property or personal damage is incurred) is excessive, etc. We should also separate out DUI which does not result in property and personal damage and that which does, as the former should not realize as many of the punishments as the latter.
Yes, your posts are a fine example of that.
My posts are quite the contrary. It is nothing but intelligence. Remove the emotion and argue rationally from a base concept. Drunk Driving, however, is an example of a crime which has been purposefully emotionalized to remove rational and logical thought in order to increase punishment beyond reasonable levels.