5 ms·

In case (1) you are the victim. The rapist bears responsibility for what they did to you knowing your mental state. In case (2) you are the offender. In your s

In case (1) you are the victim. The rapist bears responsibility for what they did to you knowing your mental state. In case (2) you are the offender. In your sober state, you're expected to know your limits. While sober, you had a chance not to take the action (i.e. taking the first drink) that eventually resulted in you losing your faculties and hurting innocent people, yet you did anyway. That makes you responsible.

Obscurity4340 3y ago
And I'm sure all the analogue-no heuristics/moralistic crusade crowd will feel the same way once they realize they blocked the suggestion that could have prevented their dead loved one (regardless of perp/victim status). I might be mixing up the points here and implementationetc but its asinine we dont just find a way that is the last invasive to prevent instead of waiting for destruction and the PUNISHING the CULPABLE OFFENDER. Why should the law and traffic policy be so reactive as opposed to enlightened and as privacy respecting as possible proactive in nipping the issue in bud. To say nothing of all the criminal cases that are fundentalh the stand in for treatment that as a society we both shame people in seeking before the fact and refuse to offer same and also after the fact when its wayyyy too fucking late (sorry for swearing but its passion) and that there exists enough technically-based or mental health related defenses to so as to render the process in my view a giant joke and waste of time
Obscurity4340 3y ago
Can I ask how you feel about the larger proposition/regime I'm suggesting? Do you feel criminal trials are the best forum to dea with impaired drivingor or should we maybe update the social contract and traffic policy/car manufacturing etc so we can move on to more practical interventions that stop it before it "happens" (please don't nitpick about "well u already are guilty cuz u started the car", like just answer rhe darn question with as much good faith as it was asked ny me which is completely in)
- ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
  Sorry but I disagree. > maybe it should pull over, lock, and contact assistance to the extent the law allows for you to be pulled aside and deal with a simple ticket/instant fine, no need for due process (instant feedback + administrative approach to offences). My own property should hold me hostage on the side of some random street if a pothole causes a false positive for drunk driving in some inscrutable algorithm? Not in a million years. Don't punish me for other people's failings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy#Example_2:_Drunk_drivers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy#Example_2:_D... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    There's already a social/legal contract in terms of seat belts that a certain demographic already bitches endlessly about. You'll be in good, voluminous (if scumbaggy) company :( Sorry, with all due respect, i could not care less about your convenience. If you can't already appreciate the convenience over that whicb came before and you're really that selfish fundamentally, I'm not going to spend more time sitting with you trying to teach you to do what Jesus would do (if you're religious or just being a good world neighbour in general, its pointless anyway. At the end of the day, theres a disconnect between people who do what fails and doesn't work (using the criminal justice system where its just not an effective tool) and want to punish their way out of everything, or there's people like Einstein who suggest when something isnt working its insane to continue thusly, and to find a new approach. Not my finest example but you get the point. I'm washingmy hands of this lol Its not always about just your convenience respectfully and obviously the tech has to be refined to reduce that absolutely, its def some bullshit but we need to find a lateral solution to this stupid persisten issue and punishing often sick people protestant style clearly isnt working, sorry Sorry again, I know how much everyone likes to be dismissive of a rational and balanced discussion and use `sorry` as a glib silver bullet to escape scrutiny and resonance but here we find ourselves. I care about you in any case but this selfish and lack of collegiality or desire to problem-solve is a cancer and I will pull every stop to quarantine and stifle it :( Nothing personal, its just my selfish conceit that I have to prioritize above your feelings in turn. At least we can speak the same language temporarily :/
Obscurity4340 3y ago
All of the logic of (2) does not magically not apply to (1) even if the legal standard doesn't recognize that btw. Like legally speaking you are correct, I'm just pointing out it makes no sense if you actually think about it
Obscurity4340 3y ago
But how is your sense of agency denied in one sense (1) and affirmed in the other (2), particularly in the impaired driving example where your BAC is way higher and you're more conparittively far more "sloshed", likely completely fucking (sorry) blacked out?

Obscurity4340 3y ago

And I'm sure all the analogue-no heuristics/moralistic crusade crowd will feel the same way once they realize they blocked the suggestion that could have prevented their dead loved one (regardless of perp/victim status). I might be mixing up the points here and implementationetc but its asinine we dont just find a way that is the last invasive to prevent instead of waiting for destruction and the PUNISHING the CULPABLE OFFENDER. Why should the law and traffic policy be so reactive as opposed to enlightened and as privacy respecting as possible proactive in nipping the issue in bud. To say nothing of all the criminal cases that are fundentalh the stand in for treatment that as a society we both shame people in seeking before the fact and refuse to offer same and also after the fact when its wayyyy too fucking late (sorry for swearing but its passion) and that there exists enough technically-based or mental health related defenses to so as to render the process in my view a giant joke and waste of time

Obscurity4340 3y ago

Can I ask how you feel about the larger proposition/regime I'm suggesting? Do you feel criminal trials are the best forum to dea with impaired drivingor or should we maybe update the social contract and traffic policy/car manufacturing etc so we can move on to more practical interventions that stop it before it "happens" (please don't nitpick about "well u already are guilty cuz u started the car", like just answer rhe darn question with as much good faith as it was asked ny me which is completely in)

ForkMeOnTinder 3y ago
Sorry but I disagree. > maybe it should pull over, lock, and contact assistance to the extent the law allows for you to be pulled aside and deal with a simple ticket/instant fine, no need for due process (instant feedback + administrative approach to offences). My own property should hold me hostage on the side of some random street if a pothole causes a false positive for drunk driving in some inscrutable algorithm? Not in a million years. Don't punish me for other people's failings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy#Example_2:_Drunk_drivers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy#Example_2:_D... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJYaXy5mmA8
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  There's already a social/legal contract in terms of seat belts that a certain demographic already bitches endlessly about. You'll be in good, voluminous (if scumbaggy) company :( Sorry, with all due respect, i could not care less about your convenience. If you can't already appreciate the convenience over that whicb came before and you're really that selfish fundamentally, I'm not going to spend more time sitting with you trying to teach you to do what Jesus would do (if you're religious or just being a good world neighbour in general, its pointless anyway. At the end of the day, theres a disconnect between people who do what fails and doesn't work (using the criminal justice system where its just not an effective tool) and want to punish their way out of everything, or there's people like Einstein who suggest when something isnt working its insane to continue thusly, and to find a new approach. Not my finest example but you get the point. I'm washingmy hands of this lol Its not always about just your convenience respectfully and obviously the tech has to be refined to reduce that absolutely, its def some bullshit but we need to find a lateral solution to this stupid persisten issue and punishing often sick people protestant style clearly isnt working, sorry Sorry again, I know how much everyone likes to be dismissive of a rational and balanced discussion and use `sorry` as a glib silver bullet to escape scrutiny and resonance but here we find ourselves. I care about you in any case but this selfish and lack of collegiality or desire to problem-solve is a cancer and I will pull every stop to quarantine and stifle it :( Nothing personal, its just my selfish conceit that I have to prioritize above your feelings in turn. At least we can speak the same language temporarily :/

Obscurity4340 3y ago

All of the logic of (2) does not magically not apply to (1) even if the legal standard doesn't recognize that btw. Like legally speaking you are correct, I'm just pointing out it makes no sense if you actually think about it

Obscurity4340 3y ago

But how is your sense of agency denied in one sense (1) and affirmed in the other (2), particularly in the impaired driving example where your BAC is way higher and you're more conparittively far more "sloshed", likely completely fucking (sorry) blacked out?