5 ms·

I stopped myself from commenting so many times, but I just can't help myself. This is the dumbest fucking point of view. Do you think people who voluntarily ins

I stopped myself from commenting so many times, but I just can't help myself. This is the dumbest fucking point of view. Do you think people who voluntarily install equipment to stop them from driving drunk are the people that need it? Your stupid ass ideology is harming your ability to view the world practically. Clearly people who drive drunk are the ones who need this installed, and they wouldn't do it voluntarily. Now, I think cameras in our cars is something I hate and will fight against for other reasons, but your whole "do it yourself before mandating others" is a bad faith argument that makes no sense and is only used to distract from practical solutions in many areas.

curryst 5y ago
> Clearly people who drive drunk are the ones who need this installed, and they wouldn't do it voluntarily. And we already have systems for putting these systems in people's cars after they drive drunk. This new system is specifically targeting people who haven't been caught driving drunk. As such, MADD and Congress are absolutely in the targeted demographic for this bill. Frankly, given how often congresspeople get caught driving drunk, they should be probably be the first group to get them. I would be utterly stunned if Congress isn't somehow exempt though. They'll leave a loophole for themselves, probably via not requiring the sensors to be retrofitted on imported cars or similar.
LanceH 5y ago
> Do you think people who voluntarily install equipment to stop them from driving drunk are the people that need it? No, I absolutely don't think they need it. Nor do I need it. But the discussion is about putting it in cars for everyone. They think I need to have a more expensive car, but they don't want to make their own cars more expensive until they can mandate that I do as well. > "do it yourself before mandating others" is a bad faith argument It's not a bad faith argument, and I've tried to live my life like this. One major consideration when I left the military is that as I moved up in rank I was going to have to enforce rules that I wouldn't actually follow myself. People are very quick to use the force of law on others. > Your stupid ass ideology is harming your ability to view the world practically. I'll keep my ideology, thank you. Leadership isn't about driving the people before me.
dang 5y ago
Please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. You may not feel that you owe better to people you strongly disagree with, but you owe this community better if you're participating here. Of course I understand what it's like when you've been reigning in frustration and then it boils over, but still—we all need to take responsibility not for venting that into the threads here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines like this multiple times recently. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the intended spirit of the site more to heart? It's not ok to lash out at others, call names, go on the attack, etc., just because they're wrong or you feel they are. That doesn't help anyone.

curryst 5y ago

> Clearly people who drive drunk are the ones who need this installed, and they wouldn't do it voluntarily. And we already have systems for putting these systems in people's cars after they drive drunk. This new system is specifically targeting people who haven't been caught driving drunk. As such, MADD and Congress are absolutely in the targeted demographic for this bill. Frankly, given how often congresspeople get caught driving drunk, they should be probably be the first group to get them. I would be utterly stunned if Congress isn't somehow exempt though. They'll leave a loophole for themselves, probably via not requiring the sensors to be retrofitted on imported cars or similar.

LanceH 5y ago

> Do you think people who voluntarily install equipment to stop them from driving drunk are the people that need it? No, I absolutely don't think they need it. Nor do I need it. But the discussion is about putting it in cars for everyone. They think I need to have a more expensive car, but they don't want to make their own cars more expensive until they can mandate that I do as well. > "do it yourself before mandating others" is a bad faith argument It's not a bad faith argument, and I've tried to live my life like this. One major consideration when I left the military is that as I moved up in rank I was going to have to enforce rules that I wouldn't actually follow myself. People are very quick to use the force of law on others. > Your stupid ass ideology is harming your ability to view the world practically. I'll keep my ideology, thank you. Leadership isn't about driving the people before me.

dang 5y ago

Please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. You may not feel that you owe better to people you strongly disagree with, but you owe this community better if you're participating here. Of course I understand what it's like when you've been reigning in frustration and then it boils over, but still—we all need to take responsibility not for venting that into the threads here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines like this multiple times recently. Can you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the intended spirit of the site more to heart? It's not ok to lash out at others, call names, go on the attack, etc., just because they're wrong or you feel they are. That doesn't help anyone.