There's no requirement to be asked you weirdo.

People rarely ask for your wise and much repeated offerings either.

Did it make you feel like a big man when you asked if FoldN's rape victim was mentally ill? Did you get a good laugh out of that? Make you feel better about the last time you got shot down after a few drinks?

Human

Trash

...but you DID rape that girl, right? Didn't you later apologize for your behavior and say you didn't realize what you had done or something? Then try to excuse it by suggesting it was bro time in the sports forum so we should give your telling of a rape glorification anecdote a break?

Uh, no. Lol, this is the sort of thing that happens though when you have little crazy bitches like LG and Fly, and now you apparently just making **** up and spreading it around. Pretty much makes the point I was trying to make in the sports forum when I stupidly made that post.

Yeah. He talked about having sex with a girl (his friend's sister, no less, because he's that type of scumbag) too drunk to consent and whined how "bitches be crazy" and started causing problems after by telling her brother he raped her.

FoldN actually using the phrase "bitches be crazy" while telling that story on a public forum, even if he somehow doesn't think he raped her, tells you all that you need to know about FoldN. Well, that and the humblebrags about drunk driving and whining about how he shouldn't have to stop if people drive tired.

Noted forum tone policeman and "strong liberal", chez, of course with zero to say about the story or using "bitches be crazy" besides mockingly asking if the victim was really mentally ill.

The drunk driving anecdotes were actually directed at DS's silly idea that the law should punish all drunk drivers the same as drunk drivers who kill people. But it was fun to get a rise out of the level one thinking db's like LG.

Oh OK, the reason you told the story really matters. Not the actual drunk driving or rape.

I'm only speculating. I've only ever actually taken a breathalyzer once, and I blew 0.068. That shocked me though, because I hadn't drunk anything in a couple hours and felt very alert. It was probably the red bull. Anyway, the limit is so low, and since you can't always tell I assume I've exceeded it, and driven drunk.

I don't think I should be punished in the same way someone who causes a fatal accident should. Internet harassment seems about right.

LOL

"It's hard not to drive drunk so I shouldn't be punished for it unless I hit someone" sure thing Proph...

This is also a half-truth version of FoldN's posts on the subject.

So you agree with DS then, I should be punished the same as someone who commits vehicular manslaughter?

I don't actually have a problem with that. Would it make a difference in the choices you make around drinking and driving?

Sure it would. There's a really good reason the laws aren't written this way though. Can you figure out why?

Seems to me it achieves the objective of making ****wits think twice about getting drunk and driving.

The penalties for drunk driving have been substantially increased over the years. I don't think there's any particular reason it should be less than manslaughter but there may be a point of diminishing returns on the deterrent value.

Not all drunk driving is equal though just like not all speeding is equal.

One guy opens fire on a crowd, hits no one, and is apprehended.

Another guy opens fire on a crowd, kills 20 people, and is apprehended.

Guy number 1 should not be criminally less culpable just because he is worse at aiming than guy number 2. Similarly, DUI violators shouldn't be judged on their luck, though the traffic density on the roads they choose could be one of several mitigating factors which would tend to scale the punishments to the outcomes to some degree.

Should we also punish people who get in fist fights the same as murderers, even if they only give each other shiners? Our just drunken fist fights...

Lets not let Rape McGee here fool everyone into thinking that he was doing some dispassionate criminal justice analysis and that's what he got called out for. He made a bunch of posts about how his drunk driving actually wasn't a bad thing.

Yeah I've had this conversation with JJ before and while his point is well made and in principle there is little to distinguish the culpability of the actors in cases where they act similarly consequences matter.

In your case the guys who fires on a crowd can be sentenced similarly on account of guy 1 being charged with multiple cases of attempted murder. There seems an adequate response in this case but I don't think it's the case. Two people throw identical punches two people are hit one slips and dies. What is the morally relevant distinction between the acts. In terms of act there is little but while I accept that retribution is a weaker motivator of sentencing there does seem to be a reasonable case for a distinction. In one case a person dies.

In the event that drunk driver 1 is apprehended without having caused any harm and a drunk driver 2 is apprehended after causing a death they may be equally worthy of our moral opprobrium but to sentence drunk driver 1 and 2 identically you either over sentence driver 1 or fail to acknowledge the impact of the death caused by driver 2. We sentence actors for acts, their intent isn't the only motivating factor the consequences of the act matter.

The usual idea is to base it on the risk rather than the outcome. So if you punch someone the punishment is much the same for everyone who similarly punches someone whatever the outcome may be.

A lot of people do oppose this idea and there are good arguments both ways. imo its more about moving towards that idea a bit but still including a fair chunk of the punishment related to the outcome. Maximizing deterrent is a key part of that calculation.

Laws need to be practical and just. DS's law is neither.

I also have no problem with this either. The punishment for drunk driving should be harsh, the punishment for drunk driving and causing damage should be harsher. Foldn's original post made it sound like he thought he shouldn't be punished unless he hurt someone, which is dumb.

Knowing DS it's an idea, sometimes these things become more practical over time. Not sure about just - suppose as you got in the car it calculated how much of a risk you were based on large samples of data. Then would it be just if when caught the punishment was proportional to that risk whatever the outcome?

I think someone, possibly dereds, raised the objection that the risk of being caught isn't independent of whether you have an accident.

Yeah I agree with this though I think it's more Proph's argument that the driver who doesn't cause an injury doesn't commit an offence. It's a function of Proph's ACism unless of course the guy who owns the sky roads stipulates they can't be driven on by drunk drivers then it's a breach of contract and subject to sanction.

I don't actually read Foldn's posts so I don't know the extent to which he's on board with Proph but if he is lol Foldn doubtless it's a flag of convenience. That said if we think driver 1, who hits someone, is a ****ty person for driving drunk drunk driver 2 is equally as ****ty irrespective of whether they do.

Right, if you're caught, it's likely because you were swerving, speeding, or otherwise driving in an unsafe manner. The blood alcohol level is an indirect method of determining dangerous driving. The law is written around a specific problem that effects every driver who consumes alcohol, but it effects everyone to different degrees based on body chemistry, age, gender, experience, and so it is not a precise way of measuring the risk of dangerous driving.

If the law were to be put into effect, the prisons would be filled with dumb rednecks, and that would make the roads safer, but at an enormous cost to the system. It would be impractical.

Furthermore, there are plenty people who, when at the BAC limit of 0.08, would still be safer drivers than many other drivers on the road. I'll point at first year drivers and last year drivers as two examples of groups I could personally outperform in a drivers safety test after a few beers. So the law would lock up large numbers of drivers who were less dangerous than many others who are allowed to drive legally. That would be unjust.

The only way I would get behind DS's law would be if a better, more direct and objective method of measuring a driver's driving ability were developed. Perhaps some sort of reactivity test would do.