3 ms·

Think preventing the car from starting is worse than it simply being illegal and that is the point. What about a drunk girl trying to get away from an assailan

Think preventing the car from starting is worse than it simply being illegal and that is the point. What about a drunk girl trying to get away from an assailant? Or any other situation where the risk of getting pulled over is worth it?

fzeroracer 8y ago
We're not just talking about the risk of 'getting pulled over', we're talking about someone driving drunk and risking the lives of everyone else on the road. The fact that people are downplaying the dangers of drunk driving to try and invent a scenario where driving drunk is justified is incredibly silly. In your example, what if that drunk girl proceeded to kill a family of four in her attempt to drive away? Or started driving on the wrong side of the highway in order to escape? You could make up any number of scenarios to justify breaking any law. The obvious solution in this case is to add an emergency override which unlocks the car and also calls the police. Because if you're going to bypass the drunk sensor, you better have a damn good reason for it.
- jakeogh 8y ago
  Extend your logic a bit. How long until you argue to apply it to hardware inside a human?
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. By your argument anything that takes away any control ever is a bad thing and could lead to thought crime.
    - jakeogh 8y ago
      As if steps in some direction are always just fine. Incrementalism (aka "the slippery slope") is the most common route to totalitarianism. How convenient for the centralization of power to label the obvious as a "fallacy". Your sentence makes little sense btw, your orig arg is for prior restraint, which history has rightly tossed in the failed ideologies bin over and over.
      - fzeroracer 8y ago
        There is no 'centralization of power' labeling slippery slope as a fallacy. It's a fallacy because it's a non-argument, it can be applied to anywhere at any time and does nothing to actually prove your point. You're essentially arguing for the status quo, that nothing should ever change because otherwise you immediately slide down a slippery slope.
        jakeogh 8y ago
        "that nothing should ever change because otherwise you immediately slide down a slippery slope." Incorrect. I am explicitly arguing that restrictions are imposed incrementally. People are not going ignore a obvious direction (more rules not less). Purporting to have caught someone in a logical contradiction because they can use a compass is ignoring the fact that rules are countable. You are for prior restraint here, why not implement it in future body mods? Prior restraint _is_ to centralize power.
- mruts 8y ago
  By your logic, we might as well just take away free will as well.

fzeroracer 8y ago

We're not just talking about the risk of 'getting pulled over', we're talking about someone driving drunk and risking the lives of everyone else on the road. The fact that people are downplaying the dangers of drunk driving to try and invent a scenario where driving drunk is justified is incredibly silly. In your example, what if that drunk girl proceeded to kill a family of four in her attempt to drive away? Or started driving on the wrong side of the highway in order to escape? You could make up any number of scenarios to justify breaking any law. The obvious solution in this case is to add an emergency override which unlocks the car and also calls the police. Because if you're going to bypass the drunk sensor, you better have a damn good reason for it.

jakeogh 8y ago
Extend your logic a bit. How long until you argue to apply it to hardware inside a human?
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. By your argument anything that takes away any control ever is a bad thing and could lead to thought crime.
  - jakeogh 8y ago
    As if steps in some direction are always just fine. Incrementalism (aka "the slippery slope") is the most common route to totalitarianism. How convenient for the centralization of power to label the obvious as a "fallacy". Your sentence makes little sense btw, your orig arg is for prior restraint, which history has rightly tossed in the failed ideologies bin over and over.
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      There is no 'centralization of power' labeling slippery slope as a fallacy. It's a fallacy because it's a non-argument, it can be applied to anywhere at any time and does nothing to actually prove your point. You're essentially arguing for the status quo, that nothing should ever change because otherwise you immediately slide down a slippery slope.
      - jakeogh 8y ago
        "that nothing should ever change because otherwise you immediately slide down a slippery slope." Incorrect. I am explicitly arguing that restrictions are imposed incrementally. People are not going ignore a obvious direction (more rules not less). Purporting to have caught someone in a logical contradiction because they can use a compass is ignoring the fact that rules are countable. You are for prior restraint here, why not implement it in future body mods? Prior restraint _is_ to centralize power.
mruts 8y ago
By your logic, we might as well just take away free will as well.