Started By
Message
re: How bad is a DUI?
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:26 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:26 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
As I thought
Because I didnt acknowledge that logical fallacy?
Come on man.
No you moved on to a straw man. Im not even arguing what you are trying to say Im arguing and here you are claiming some kind of victory.
I cant beleive that we are actually arguing this. Since 1982 DWI fatalities have dropped over 200% per year. Thats a good thing. That didnt happen because people stopped drinking.
My only real observation is that this clown got behind the wheel of a car after drinking and KNOWING the consequences and is here crying about it afterword. WHat I, you or anyone else thinks about the laws are moot. You think he would have done all this "research" about it had that not happened? No chance.
He is just being bitter about having to own his actions after the fact and hiding behind the guise of being some form of "social savior" for all us "sheep"
The fact the vast majority of Americans have the personal self discipline and control to NOT get behind the wheel of a car after drinking enough to be in doubt of widely and well known laws, at this time, doent in fact make us sheep and you a social pioneer, the reality is it makes us smart and you stupid and a couple grand lighter than the rest of us.
2
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:26 pm to kilo
I'll just let you stay ignorant. You want to engage me, you have to bring something to the table and prove your worth it.
Not inclined to banter with a halfwit in all honesty.
Not inclined to banter with a halfwit in all honesty.
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:29 pm to kilo
quote:
I cant beleive that we are actually arguing this. Since 1982 DWI fatalities have dropped over 200% per year. Thats a good thing. That didnt happen because people stopped drinking.
Seatbelts and seatbelt laws. People drive drunk just as much as they always have, they just arent going through windshields anymore.
This post was edited on 6/8/14 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:32 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
I'll just let you stay ignorant. You want to engage me, you have to bring something to the table and prove your worth it.
Not inclined to banter with a halfwit in all honesty.
Sure man. You know a good place to start with some honest discourse? It would start by you bringing some citations to back your claims supporting your argument. Hell, you even cited hard numbers. Those numbers had to come from somewhere. Lets see them. Once you provide them we can move on and have a discussion other wise you are just throwing around numbers to back your view that may or may not exist while calling everyone and anyone that calls you on this a "halfwit, sheep, ignorant" etc.
You know that when someone dips into the ad hominem bowl as often as you have its usually a sign of intellectual capitulation.
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:33 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Interesting theory but do you have anything to back that up? Particularly since non DWI fatalities have been going up as DWI fatalities have been going down.
People drive drunk just as much as they always have, they just arent going through windshields anymore.
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:33 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Seatbelts and seatbelt laws. People drive drunk just as much as they always have, they just arent going through windshields anymore.
Except the overall number of fatalities hasn't fallen at the same pace.
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:35 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Yes. And if you carelessly cause an accident while eating and driving and someone get's a serious injury or dies - jail
Do you favor eating and driving being criminalized?
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:37 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
Dude, just stay home if you need to drink. Call a hooker. They make house calls, you know.
It's illogical to think about drinking and driving in the black and white terms you've been laying out. The effects of alcohol on the brain are variable, depending on the physical state of your body at the time of drinking it.
The .08 minimum was set because, at that level, no one is likely to be impaired no matter what state their body is in at the time. It is not an arbitrary number.
It's illogical to think about drinking and driving in the black and white terms you've been laying out. The effects of alcohol on the brain are variable, depending on the physical state of your body at the time of drinking it.
The .08 minimum was set because, at that level, no one is likely to be impaired no matter what state their body is in at the time. It is not an arbitrary number.
This post was edited on 6/8/14 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:44 pm to Rebelgator
quote:
Does Kentucky not have a three strike law?
I'm not sure. If we do, it's paper thin. This was something that happened here recently and goes on more than you think.
quote:
File was sentenced to 14 years in prison for a 2009 drunken driving accident on River Road in Harrods Creek that killed his 18-year-old girlfriend, Caroline Minks.
File pleaded guilty to manslaughter and served just eight months of his 14-year sentence before he was granted shock probation.
According to KSP, File crashed his car on West Broadway in Eminence, Ky. Wednesday night. He drove his car from the scene of the accident to a nearby patrol car. They gave him a sobriety test, and arrested him on the spot.
KSP said in order to receive his specific charges, File needed to blow a 1.5 or higher in the breathalyzer test.
LINK
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:45 pm to kilo
quote:
Except the overall number of fatalities hasn't fallen at the same pace.
DD constitutes a small portion of total vehicle accidents, the fatality rate from a subset of a group is more prone to variation due to variables than the group as a whole.
This post was edited on 6/8/14 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:45 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The .08 minimum was set because, at that level, no one is likely to be impaired no matter what state their body is in at the time. It is not an arbitrary number.
Its almost comical that he doesnt understand this point. The whole premise for his argument stems from the .08 number. We are all the sheep and half wits though...
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:50 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The .08 minimum was set because, at that level, no one is likely to be impaired no matter what state their body is in at the time..
This is false. There is no substantial science behind the .08 number. Its a misconception that arises from the belief that BAC level is what determines how drunk you.
quote:
It is not an arbitrary number.
Yes it is.
Your BAC doesnt determine how drunk you are, your tolerance does. A 250 pound male who drinks regularly can be completely functional at a BAC double the legal limit, while a 90 pound woman could be completely incapable of safely driving at 0.5. Its all about how responsive your inhibitory neural receptors are to alcohol. Regardless of how high your BAC, you brain will respond based on tolerance.
Ive had completely coherent conversations with people in the hospital who has a BAC around .2
This post was edited on 6/8/14 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:51 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
DD constitutes a small portion of total vehicle accidents, the fatality rate from a subset of a group is more prone to variation due to variables than the group as a whole.
This is so wrong.
1982 49,345 Total 26,173 DWI related.
2011 32,367 Total 9878 DWI related.
Ctitations are fun
Also note that Texas leads the way in DWI deaths. Congrats.
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:53 pm to kilo
1/3rd is significantly lower than the whole is it not?
Perhaps saying small disguised the point, which is still valid. A population of 9000 is more prone to variation than one of 32,000. There is no reason to believe people drive drunk less, or more for that matter. They get caught more now but that isnt indicative of much.
Perhaps saying small disguised the point, which is still valid. A population of 9000 is more prone to variation than one of 32,000. There is no reason to believe people drive drunk less, or more for that matter. They get caught more now but that isnt indicative of much.
This post was edited on 6/8/14 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:54 pm to BluegrassBelle
No, Kentucky does not have a three strikes law but your link is proof that we should. What a miserable excuse for a human being is in that link.
This post was edited on 6/8/14 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:54 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
On phone. Again do your own research or stay ignorant. Not gonna hold your little hand.
Same ole song and dance. Idiot makes an outlandish claim that is refuted by several studies, when asked to provide reference to reputable sources, resorts to "look it up yourself" defense.
Your DUIs were well justified, IMO.
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:58 pm to kilo
Google .05 bac reduce traffic fatalties.
First link is where I pulled the stats and they have a detailed charts from 2000-2011 when .08 became law.
Second link is USA today article saying it's a bad idea.
Few more links down is an article from reason.org. Read it. It has some good stats as well. One I like that co-oberaters the first links stats is that dui related traffic fatalties INCREASED when the law went from .1 to .08. Of course it wasn't due to the law but just to show you the lower limit isn't about safety at all.
As for mine, it was over ten years ago. Yes it was a hassle. Yes it cost me some money and I had to pay the courts about $1k. Big deal. I blow more than that on a random night out at a casino andmake enough in a few days to cover it. I'm not crying about what it did to me. No employer I've had has ever given a shite either. What it did do is open my eyes to reality. You come acrossas young and naive. Like I said, that is fine.
Now, I do have stuff to do and need to prep for the arse beating the heat will be putting on the spurs shortly and will be excusing myself from this conversation for a while.
Eta: sorry for typos. Typing on phone is annoying, not gonna fix.
First link is where I pulled the stats and they have a detailed charts from 2000-2011 when .08 became law.
Second link is USA today article saying it's a bad idea.
Few more links down is an article from reason.org. Read it. It has some good stats as well. One I like that co-oberaters the first links stats is that dui related traffic fatalties INCREASED when the law went from .1 to .08. Of course it wasn't due to the law but just to show you the lower limit isn't about safety at all.
As for mine, it was over ten years ago. Yes it was a hassle. Yes it cost me some money and I had to pay the courts about $1k. Big deal. I blow more than that on a random night out at a casino andmake enough in a few days to cover it. I'm not crying about what it did to me. No employer I've had has ever given a shite either. What it did do is open my eyes to reality. You come acrossas young and naive. Like I said, that is fine.
Now, I do have stuff to do and need to prep for the arse beating the heat will be putting on the spurs shortly and will be excusing myself from this conversation for a while.
Eta: sorry for typos. Typing on phone is annoying, not gonna fix.
This post was edited on 6/8/14 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:58 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Same ole song and dance. Idiot makes an outlandish claim that is refuted by several studies, when asked to provide reference to reputable sources, resorts to "look it up yourself" defense.
Yep. Like I said earlier, its just a guy angry about getting a DWI and having to pay the price.
At its most fundamental level, regardless of laws, he made a choice with full knowledge of the laws and he is crying after the fact. I hope its a lesson he learned well and the next time he will make the choice to find alternate transportation.
Posted on 6/8/14 at 2:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:And yet for statistician this is easy to figure out. They would go I wonder if something is happening outside of variability and run the numbers.
DD constitutes a small portion of total vehicle accidents, the fatality rate from a subset of a group is more prone to variation due to variables than the group as a whole.
With you however if the thought goes through your head that is proof enough for you
Posted on 6/8/14 at 3:03 pm to Roger Klarvin
I concur with your reasoning and agree with the NTSB that the maximum BAC for driving should be set below .05.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News