4 ms·
If you want to get really wormy, you can claim alcohol doesn't even cause DUI crashes; those are caused by the person who decided to drink and drive. The agen
by MichaelCollins 4y ago
If you want to get really wormy, you can claim alcohol doesn't even cause DUI crashes; those are caused by the person who decided to drink and drive. The agency lies with the drunk person, not with the substance they consumed.
But that's a meaningless distinction if you're concerned about the impact of DUI to the public. So "alcohol involved" is more accurate and gets to the meat of what we actually care about.
- deeblering4 4y agoThis is similar to a favorite argument from defenders of a certain US amendment
- MichaelCollins 4y agoTo be clear, my argument is that "alcohol involved" is not a weasel term. Trying to make the conversation about "cause" is a rhetorical trap which will turn the discussion into a quagmire about free will and particularly the agency of inanimate objects or substances. If you simply say "alcohol involved", then you avoid all that philosophical mess entirely. By analogy to the gun debate which you're alluding to, saying "gun involved" deaths would neatly circumvent the "but guns don't shoot themselves" quagmire. However in the case of the gun debate, the "cause" language is used anyway despite asking for that quagmire, because it's more emotive.
- notch656a 4y agoDispensing with causation is a very convenient approach indeed. In doing so I could say "higher concentrations of melanin pigmentation is involved with higher arrest rates in the US for homicide." If questioned I will be extra certain to make it clear I don't think being black makes you commit more crime, and totally didn't mean to imply anything close to that.