4 ms·
The discussion of cigarette sales/taxes is clearly a strawman. If you believe that we shouldn't have laws unless we are willing to kill to enforce them, you sho
by tprynn 10y ago
The discussion of cigarette sales/taxes is clearly a strawman. If you believe that we shouldn't have laws unless we are willing to kill to enforce them, you should be able to defend this argument against a law which the vast majority of people will support. For example, I would not choose to kill someone for driving drunk, but strongly support laws which ban drunk driving and remove the ability to drive from convicted drunk drivers.
- cheald 10y ago> The discussion of cigarette sales/taxes is clearly a strawman. I'd suggest that Eric Garner's case very explicitly proves otherwise.
- tantalor 10y agoAre you trolling? "Strawman", really? Are you not aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner? > I would not choose to kill someone for driving drunk You have completely missed the point of OP; it's not the punishment for the crime which results in death, but the enforcement of the law.
- necessity 10y agoIt is not the death penalty for drinking and driving that is on the table, but the possibility of the offender being killed as a result of a confrontation with the police over the act of drinking and driving. Engendering innocent lives is a serious felony and I imagine most people would support the police stopping the car with tire slashes and confronting the offender in case of further resistance, even though he might be killed (which is not the objective, but a possible consequence).
- tprynn 10y agoThanks for your clear argument. I was definitely arguing 'past' the parent, and this helped me to see that. Won't hide my shame at completely missing the point.