4 ms·

That’s exactly the same as saying “I was just drunk. I didn’t mean to run over that lady.” When the driver deliberately impairs their ability to drive, they ass

by gnu8 9y ago

That’s exactly the same as saying “I was just drunk. I didn’t mean to run over that lady.” When the driver deliberately impairs their ability to drive, they assume culpability for any accident that might occur.

tritium 9y ago
Ah, so every collision is the product of a willful decision to enter into circumstances that place others in harms way, and may be readily equivocated to handling a loaded gun, with the intent to possibly destroy things, yes? And I suppose collisions are thus to be perceived as, not merely likely, but having been inevitable once they transpire, at least in the eyes of the law. So, every traffic infraction is the result of someone waking up and trying to do harm, or in some way cause a problem they may have inflicted (or intended to inflict) upon the world. And especially so, when proven guilty by a trustworthy legal system, immune to manipulation. Everyone is suicidal, everyone is self destructive, everyone is negligent, and these collisions are just representative of the moments in which such people succeed in fulfilling their desires. I see how it works now. Thanks for the enlightenment.
- uoaei 9y ago
  Not sure where this malice comes from, but GP specifically said "impairs their ability to drive." You're striking at strawmen.
  - tritium 9y ago
    You're grasping for informal logical fallacies, because it makes you feel smart to level them at people on the internet. Within the context of this article, there's no real evidence of an impairment to the driver's ability, willful or otherwise. From TFA: ...remembers the driver [...] getting out of her car with a cell phone pressed against her ear... But there's no statement that this was a cell phone related accident. No evidence denoted that the driver was willfully negligent, even after being convicted of criminal charges, which likely would have surfaced any relevant call records from the cell provider. So, the very premise is bullshit with regard to this specific case, because GP's false quote not an actual statement from the situation at hand, in this case. It's hypothetical rhetoric. As far I can tell, this is not really any kind of criminal assault. The law is being manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. Maybe this is an accident, in violation of the three foot rule, but a court requires evidence, not mere suspicion. In reality, to classify this as assault is to equivocate this with intentional wrongdoing, which it isn't. Wrongful injury? Something deserving real consequences? Sure, but you'd never convince me of an assault charge, personally. Revocation of driver's license? Yeah! Fines? Damages? Yeah! Jail? Loss of rights? No way. This is not a very obviously violent person, to be removed from society on a whim. It's not a person who's behavior was so reprehensible that they get demoted from participating in civil society. Maybe they lose access to the roads, and vehicles therein, but this case is not deserving of further justice in the criminal sense. The conviction is really just a demonstration of contempt. It's not true justice, but the making of an example, and only to send a message, while the actual laws on the books remain an inadequate expression of social boundaries.
    - uoaei 9y ago
      GGGP was not discussing the article per se. When GGGP said "impairs the ability to drive" and you responded to it, you assumed they were talking about the article. I think it's clear enough that this comment thread has opened lines of discussion beyond the limited context of the article.
      - tritium 9y ago
        I disagree.

by gnu8 9y ago

tritium 9y ago

Ah, so every collision is the product of a willful decision to enter into circumstances that place others in harms way, and may be readily equivocated to handling a loaded gun, with the intent to possibly destroy things, yes? And I suppose collisions are thus to be perceived as, not merely likely, but having been inevitable once they transpire, at least in the eyes of the law. So, every traffic infraction is the result of someone waking up and trying to do harm, or in some way cause a problem they may have inflicted (or intended to inflict) upon the world. And especially so, when proven guilty by a trustworthy legal system, immune to manipulation. Everyone is suicidal, everyone is self destructive, everyone is negligent, and these collisions are just representative of the moments in which such people succeed in fulfilling their desires. I see how it works now. Thanks for the enlightenment.

uoaei 9y ago
Not sure where this malice comes from, but GP specifically said "impairs their ability to drive." You're striking at strawmen.
- tritium 9y ago
  You're grasping for informal logical fallacies, because it makes you feel smart to level them at people on the internet. Within the context of this article, there's no real evidence of an impairment to the driver's ability, willful or otherwise. From TFA: ...remembers the driver [...] getting out of her car with a cell phone pressed against her ear... But there's no statement that this was a cell phone related accident. No evidence denoted that the driver was willfully negligent, even after being convicted of criminal charges, which likely would have surfaced any relevant call records from the cell provider. So, the very premise is bullshit with regard to this specific case, because GP's false quote not an actual statement from the situation at hand, in this case. It's hypothetical rhetoric. As far I can tell, this is not really any kind of criminal assault. The law is being manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. Maybe this is an accident, in violation of the three foot rule, but a court requires evidence, not mere suspicion. In reality, to classify this as assault is to equivocate this with intentional wrongdoing, which it isn't. Wrongful injury? Something deserving real consequences? Sure, but you'd never convince me of an assault charge, personally. Revocation of driver's license? Yeah! Fines? Damages? Yeah! Jail? Loss of rights? No way. This is not a very obviously violent person, to be removed from society on a whim. It's not a person who's behavior was so reprehensible that they get demoted from participating in civil society. Maybe they lose access to the roads, and vehicles therein, but this case is not deserving of further justice in the criminal sense. The conviction is really just a demonstration of contempt. It's not true justice, but the making of an example, and only to send a message, while the actual laws on the books remain an inadequate expression of social boundaries.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    GGGP was not discussing the article per se. When GGGP said "impairs the ability to drive" and you responded to it, you assumed they were talking about the article. I think it's clear enough that this comment thread has opened lines of discussion beyond the limited context of the article.
    - tritium 9y ago
      I disagree.