What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is there a need for alcohol consumption that puts you over the legal limit to drive? (1 Viewer)

KCitons said:
I do, but thanks for your concern.

So, why is the penalty for possession of an assault rifle not in line with DUI? Or vice versa. Both are crimes.
Click to expand...
Because the comp you are thinking of would be the penalty for possessing an insanely high content alcohol. Or possessing canned vodka 12 packs or something similar that enables or encourages dangerous binge drinking. Alcohol is heavily regulated as is. 

 
Harry Manback said:
Because the comp you are thinking of would be the penalty for possessing an insanely high content alcohol. Or possessing canned vodka 12 packs or something similar that enables or encourages dangerous binge drinking. Alcohol is heavily regulated as is. 
Click to expand...
I get what you are trying to say. But you're comparing the worst example of alcohol to the worst example of guns. Whereas I'm comparing the loss of life. Which is the reason the discussion is even happening. 

 
KCitons said:
I get what you are trying to say. But you're comparing the worst example of alcohol to the worst example of guns. Whereas I'm comparing the loss of life. Which is the reason the discussion is even happening. 
Click to expand...
But you insist on ignoring the intent behind the actions that cause life, and the relationship between the predecessors in both examples.

 
Harry Manback said:
What you'd be proposing is ignition locks in cars people would need to use, that prevent driving if they blow a .08. Which is a far cry from banning all alcohol. The talk is of banning a very specific type of gun (not all guns) that can lead to mass loss of life easier than any other type of readily available weapon. 

But to be honest, as much as I've enjoyed trying to explain something to you that shouldn't have to be explained, it's giving me a headache, and quite frankly you're not worth it.
Click to expand...
Autonomous cars are going to make this discussion even more weird

PS Have a drink, it's Friday

 
KCitons said:
You see no value in discussing this? 

I invite Maurile to visit. I respect his input.
Click to expand...
I haven't read this thread or the gun-control thread, but I can answer the question in the thread title and offer my opinion on whether it's stupid.

"Need" depends on what goal a person is trying to achieve. If your goal is to become President, alcohol consumption isn't needed. If your goal is to get drunk, alcohol consumption is needed. I think the most reasonable interpretation of the question is along the lines of "If your goal is to live a good, ethical, rewarding life, or to achieve any other purpose that would generally be recognized as important, is alcohol consumption needed?"

The obvious answer is "No. That seems like a stupid question. Why in the world would you ask it?"

I suspect the answer to that is: "Yes, I know it's a stupid question. That's the point. Somebody in the gun-control thread asked whether assault rifles are needed (to achieve an important goal) as if a negative answer to that question justified banning them. The implied argument is something like:

1. Assault rifles aren't needed to achieve any important goal.

2. Things that aren't needed to achieve any important goal should be banned.

3. Therefore, assault rifles should be banned.

Whether or not I agree with the conclusion, I was showing that the argument is unsound because the second premise is false. I was showing the second premise to be false by applying it to alcohol, where the error is easier for most people to spot (because most people would disagree with the conclusion as applied to alcohol, and it's easier to spot errors in arguments with disagreeable conclusions than it is to spot them in arguments with agreeable conclusions)."

To that, my response would be: "Okay, point taken. Assault rifles should be banned, but it's not simply because they're unneeded. It's more complicated than that."

 
Harry Manback said:
But you insist on ignoring the intent behind the actions that cause life, and the relationship between the predecessors in both examples.
Click to expand...
We've already covered this. I get your point that a person who shoots into a crowd has the intent of killing numerous people. And that a person that gets behind the wheel while drunk is just intent on getting home. 

Yet the penalties for possesion of an assault rifle don't assume that everyone intends to use it to kill people. The same way a drunk driver doesn't intend to kill people. Yet the penalties are worse for the firearm possession even though driving drunk leads to more deaths overall. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I haven't read this thread or the gun-control thread, but I can answer the question in the thread title and offer my opinion on whether it's stupid.

"Need" depends on what goal a person is trying to achieve. If your goal is to become President, alcohol consumption isn't needed. If your goal is to get drunk, alcohol consumption is needed. I think the most reasonable interpretation of the question is along the lines of "If your goal is to live a good, ethical, rewarding life, or to achieve any other purpose that would generally be recognized as important, is alcohol consumption needed?"

The obvious answer is "No. That seems like a stupid question. Why in the world would you ask it?"

I suspect the answer to that is: "Yes, I know it's a stupid question. That's the point. Somebody in the gun-control thread asked whether assault rifles are needed (to achieve an important goal) as if a negative answer to that question justified banning them. The implied argument is something like:

1. Assault rifles aren't needed to achieve any important goal.

2. Things that aren't needed to achieve any important goal should be banned.

3. Therefore, assault rifles should be banned.

Whether or not I agree with the conclusion, I was showing that the argument is unsound because the second premise is false. I was showing the second premise to be false by applying it to alcohol, where the error is easier for most people to spot (because most people would disagree with the conclusion as applied to alcohol, and it's easier to spot errors in arguments with disagreeable conclusions than it is to spot them in arguments with agreeable conclusions)."

To that, my response would be: "Okay, point taken. Assault rifles should be banned, but it's not simply because they're unneeded. It's more complicated than that."
Click to expand...
This thread seems off topic for FFA

 
KCitons said:
Driving to a bar with the intent if drinking for hours and then driving home shows intent. Studies show alcohol impairs driving. Impaired driving can cause accidents and loss of life. 

Satisfied?
Click to expand...
in this scenario liability can, and likely would, fall upon the person(s) who overserved the driver, and the owners of the establishment where it took place. 

anyone (e.g. bartenders) who has taken a "Responsible Pouring" seminar sponsored by the ABC would be aware of this. 

 
why not just start a what kind of assault rifle is everyone shootin tonight thread and continue to dazzle us with your intellectual brilliance at conflating unrealted issues take that to the bank brochachos 

 
The state legal limit is well below what someone is considered drunk

It's like warnings on ibuprofen.   You can take way more than it says

 
SWC said:
why not just start a what kind of assault rifle is everyone shootin tonight thread and continue to dazzle us with your intellectual brilliance at conflating unrealted issues take that to the bank brochachos 
Click to expand...
Someone needs a trip to Panera.

 
This entire approach is severely flawed.   If the goal is to prevent drunk driving, why not advocate for all vehicles to be required to have an interlock device?   

 
the rover said:
This entire approach is severely flawed.   If the goal is to prevent drunk driving, why not advocate for all vehicles to be required to have an interlock device?   
Click to expand...
That would be one approach. Would there be a way that people would be able to circumvent the interlock?

 
KCitons said:
That was a hundred years ago. Maybe things would go better this time.
Click to expand...
Hypothetical:

the Federal Government announces tomorrow that as of July 1, 2018, the production, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages (i.e. beer, wine, and spirits) is illegal in the United States. do you think people will be buying, and stockpiling, more or less alcohol in the next nine months? how much tax revenue would be lost to local, state, and federal entities? how many jobs would be lost? how would this affect the world economy? what are some of the unintended consequences?

i'll wait patiently for specific, logical, answers to those questions. 

 
People are inherenetly dumb overall, and will do things like drive a car after drinking alcohol. Doesn't mean we need to ban alcohol for everyone who doesn't get behind the wheel after drinking. If you do drink and drive and are caught and/or harm someone else, you should suffer the most severe of consequences.

Who is really disagreeing with this logic?

 
Quint said:
Hypothetical:

the Federal Government announces tomorrow that as of July 1, 2018, the production, manufacturing, distribution, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages (i.e. beer, wine, and spirits) is illegal in the United States. do you think people will be buying, and stockpiling, more or less alcohol in the next nine months? how much tax revenue would be lost to local, state, and federal entities? how many jobs would be lost? how would this affect the world economy? what are some of the unintended consequences?

i'll wait patiently for specific, logical, answers to those questions. 
Click to expand...
I agree. It would be too great of an economical and social loss. My alternative solution is to increase the penalty (and keep increasing it) toe the point that people stop drinking and driving. 

However the death penalty doesn't seem to be working for convicted murderers. So, I'm not sure it would be effective.

 
mquinnjr said:
People are inherenetly dumb overall, and will do things like drive a car after drinking alcohol. Doesn't mean we need to ban alcohol for everyone who doesn't get behind the wheel after drinking. If you do drink and drive and are caught and/or harm someone else, you should suffer the most severe of consequences.

Who is really disagreeing with this logic?
Click to expand...
I agree. But what would you consider severe? 

As a side question. Is there anything we can do about 2nd and 3rd offense drivers to keep them from repeating? Basically, if a 19 year old kid can get someone to buy them booze, then a 40 year old man should be able to as well. 

 
KCitons said:
I agree. But what would you consider severe? 

As a side question. Is there anything we can do about 2nd and 3rd offense drivers to keep them from repeating? Basically, if a 19 year old kid can get someone to buy them booze, then a 40 year old man should be able to as well. 
Click to expand...
Felony first offense, which sends the message clearly: absolutely, under no circumstances do not do this thing you are about to do.

Multiple offense drivers: felony and permaban on driving. It's a privilege, not a right. If you are that dumb, you cannot be on the road.

 
No to more severe penalties for drunk driving until other similar offences catch up, like texting while driving.  We need to normalize; less severe for dui, more sever for twi.

 
KCitons said:
I would like to. Not much more can be said. But people still feel the need to personally attack me for my opinions. 
Click to expand...
The world should not be a place where every opinion is treated equally. Some ideas are stupid and should be treated as such. You're not being attacked. Just your dumb idea. We probably all have dumb ideas on some things. 

 
KCitons said:
That would be one approach. Would there be a way that people would be able to circumvent the interlock?
Click to expand...
People may be able to circumvent the interlock, but only a small percentage.  This would really reduce drinking and driving.

And the real goal should be reduction because we know that it is impossible to completely eliminate it.

 
Alcohol is a beverage designed for human consumption and enjoyment. 

Assualt rifles are weapons designed to be more effective than other weapons at killing people. 

Sure, both can be abused to yield bad results. But they’re fundamentally different from the get-go. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hilts said:
The world should not be a place where every opinion is treated equally. Some ideas are stupid and should be treated as such. You're not being attacked. Just your dumb idea. We probably all have dumb ideas on some things. 
Click to expand...
i would believe this, but the post below was made today without any response. No personal jabs at parasaurolophus. It looks like people are ok with the message, just not the messenger. Also, other posters have engageed in discussion about the topic. Is that not beneficial?

Sorry parasaurolophus, not looking to make you a target, just pointing out the facts. 

parasaurolophus said:
I think KCitons is actually making a valid point and he isnt coming from the angle I think everybody jumped to conclusions about. 

I am not a gun nut. I own one pellet gun currently. I turned in my rifles long ago when I became a vegetarian. I grew up target shooting on a regular basis during summers. It is fun, but I lived in an area that was mountains and desert so we could always find safe places to shoot. I don't enjoy it enough that I would drive any kind of distance for it. 

I support bans on bump stocks, ammo registration, background checks, higher taxes, fees, etc, but I can at least understand the other side of the argument. I don't care about the argument, since I am a selfish person and would prefer these things not exist since I get zero benefit from them, but I at least understand the viewpoint. 

Alcohol is a fair comparison. How many people are killed every year around fourth of july from drunk driving and drunk boating?Probably at least 58 of them. I dont see threads about that or people getting up in arms. I don't start those threads either, nor do I campaign against alcohol when it happens. I enjoy drinking. I have a ridiculous home brewing setup and have capacity for 10 kegs all with their own tap lines. So of course I dont want more laws in place.

I at least see alcohol for what it is. It is for my recreation and enjoyment. It serves no legitimate purpose other than that and it causes quite a few casualties when misused. Sure you can do other things with it, but it isn't what you would go buy to do those things properly(killing bugs? Nice try henry) or they are just a preference. Just because I can use a gun as a paperweight, doesn't make it a paperweight. But, but you can make vodka sauce!! 

I find it weird to want to go out on the weekend and shoot 1000 rounds or to hunt deer using that kind of firepower. I also realize there are perfectly good hearted responsible citizens that do this and enjoy it. They may think I am crazy for what I do involving alcohol.

I think if we can all acknowledge that fact and be mindful of it, we would be far more likely to actually come up with some better laws that would help catch the real psychos. Sure it may put more of a burden on hobbyists financially and documentation-wise, but it wont eliminate what has until now been a perfectly legal right. 
Click to expand...

 
Otis said:
Alcohol is a beverage designed for human consumption and enjoyment. 

Assualt rifles are weapons designed to be more effective than other weapons at killing people. 

Sure, both can be abused to yield bad results. But they’re fundamentally different from the get-go. 
Click to expand...
So nobody uses assault rifles for enjoyment? There must be millions of attacks every day. 

 
tonydead said:
It's pointless otherwise.  But, so is this thread in more ways than one.
Click to expand...
Don't these two quotes contradict each other? If its pointless, why do you feel compelled to make a comparison to texting and driving?

tonydead said:
No to more severe penalties for drunk driving until other similar offences catch up, like texting while driving.  We need to normalize; less severe for dui, more sever for twi.
Click to expand...


Also, Id bet there are thousands of families that disagree with you that it's pointless. 

 
Hilts said:
The world should not be a place where every opinion is treated equally. Some ideas are stupid and should be treated as such. You're not being attacked. Just your dumb idea. We probably all have dumb ideas on some things. 
Click to expand...
I respect the way you worderd your post. It may be dumb to some, but I think it's worth discussing as a large number of people are still killed annually.

 
KCitons said:
Don't these two quotes contradict each other? If its pointless, why do you feel compelled to make a comparison to texting and driving?

Also, Id bet there are thousands of families that disagree with you that it's pointless. 
Click to expand...
It's been pointed out to you several times that the way you phrased the question it doesn't require you actually drive drunk. If you couldn't drink enough to feel the effects of the alcohol, yes it would be pointless. By your logic all cell phones should be banned too so you couldn't possibly text and drive. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am 6-1 210....Had 6 pints of Miller Lite...but that probably would not put me over the limit.  Not even buzzed.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Paddington
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here!
39 40 41
Replies
2K
Views
71K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
gianmarco
Don't drink alcohol on the plane to the UAE or you go to jail
2
Replies
56
Views
3K
Christo
C
Otis
4/20 Day Post on Facebook
Replies
40
Views
3K
Chadstroma
Chadstroma

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top