vladimir wrote:I agree about drunk driving, and so do most sensible people.

I've driven drunk before, and I'm the first to admit it was totally wrong and plain stupid. In a city like Phnom Penh, where there is 24/7 cheap alternative transport available, why would you do it?

Because you're an idiot at that point in time, no other answer.

Kill yourself by all means, just don't involve innocent people.

I fail to understand how one can rage against a khmer guy who drove over two people and put a range Rover through a wall, and in the same breath defend his choice to drive drunk.

Define hypocrisy...

And there IS such a thing as too much freedom. Loads of dead expats from bad drugs prove that.

Rock on, Senor Vlad! And I thought that you were a card-carrying damn-the-torpedoes-and-children diehard Libertarian - like Mr. OD...surprises abound in life....

dagenham wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

dagenham wrote:Dear OD, religious fervor for the bottle is what is driving your defense strategy...obviously...we are both guilty as charged...

Not really. I don't care if someone drinks or not... or if I do or not for that matter. You'll see me in my favorite bar on many an evening having orange juice or earl gray tea. Your full of assumptions, and most of them are dead wrong.

What I do care about is someone trying to bring the "nannyness" of the places we all left, often because of it, here with them. Grow up and mind your own business, and let others mind theirs.

Call that "libertarian rhetoric" or whatever you like... I call it common sense. If someone does something wrong to someone else, punish them for it. But no minority report precrime judgements, and let grown adults make grown adult decisions without you trying to be their mother.

This. In defense of fleeing "nannyness" - defined as allowing drunks the "right" to decide to drive drunk. If you or your wife ever gets injured by a "Liberated" drunk driver will your little "personal freedom at all expense" tune change?

He "chose" to get massively drunk at a bar so he can "choose" to drive drunk. It's his "right" after all! It's his business, so you can fuck off and if you or your loved ones get injured so fucking what? That's life...for the true "Libertarian"...

It aint about drinking as I have stated several times, it is about driving drunk...

You seemed to, as usual, completely disregard the part about punishing people for things they've done to others... not things they "might" do to them.

OrangeDragon wrote:

dagenham wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

dagenham wrote:Dear OD, religious fervor for the bottle is what is driving your defense strategy...obviously...we are both guilty as charged...

Not really. I don't care if someone drinks or not... or if I do or not for that matter. You'll see me in my favorite bar on many an evening having orange juice or earl gray tea. Your full of assumptions, and most of them are dead wrong.

What I do care about is someone trying to bring the "nannyness" of the places we all left, often because of it, here with them. Grow up and mind your own business, and let others mind theirs.

Call that "libertarian rhetoric" or whatever you like... I call it common sense. If someone does something wrong to someone else, punish them for it. But no minority report precrime judgements, and let grown adults make grown adult decisions without you trying to be their mother.

This. In defense of fleeing "nannyness" - defined as allowing drunks the "right" to decide to drive drunk. If you or your wife ever gets injured by a "Liberated" drunk driver will your little "personal freedom at all expense" tune change?

He "chose" to get massively drunk at a bar so he can "choose" to drive drunk. It's his "right" after all! It's his business, so you can fuck off and if you or your loved ones get injured so fucking what? That's life...for the true "Libertarian"...

It aint about drinking as I have stated several times, it is about driving drunk...

You seemed to, as usual, completely disregard the part about punishing people for things they've done to others... not things they "might" do to them.

Damn dude, for a highly educated Libertarian you can be incredibly dim...if there isn't a huge disincentive for all "Libertarians" to do exactly what they want to do (i.e. the god-given "right" to drive drunk if they damn well please - fuck you nanny-state faggots all! and maybe this doesn't apply to you personally but I know of many "LIbs" that feel that way for sure) then they will do exactly what they want to do - damn the consequences. Driving drunk has potentially massive consequences for innocent people. Fact.

So, you the "Libertarian", says leave us the fuck alone until...we actually kill someone - until then I will drive when and how I want to. I aint done nutin'...yet...

Yes, I am saying punish the shit out of every asshole drunk driver that's caught to teach them a very severe lesson. No punishment is too severe in my book, short of execution - ha! For first offense - put them in jail for 6 months, take their license, fine them $20,000. and seize their car/motorcycle.

Then watch how many people think a bit longer and harder about "chancing" that 1 time to get home plastered out of their mind. Drunk drivers kill people everyday. It aint no semantics "personal liberty" game...even fuckwit short-sighted pleasure-seeking selfish Libertarians might reign in their "freedom rides" then...

The consequences should be for the result, not for the precursor. I hear people who don't like religions are known to start genocide... should you be arrested for genocide, or should we wait until you act on it?

The fear of the potential outcome, and results of that outcome, should be the deterrent. People sometimes stab people with kitchen knives, but we don't ask that police raid kitchens across the world arresting people for owning knives.

Sorry you're so eager to live under totalitarian rule (so long as the totalitarian gov't likes the same things you like, right?)... perhaps you should move back.

OrangeDragon wrote:The consequences should be for the result, not for the precursor. I hear people who don't like religions are known to start genocide... should you be arrested for genocide, or should we wait until you act on it?

The fear of the potential outcome, and results of that outcome, should be the deterrent. People sometimes stab people with kitchen knives, but we don't ask that police raid kitchens across the world arresting people for owning knives.

Sorry you're so eager to live under totalitarian rule (so long as the totalitarian gov't likes the same things you like, right?)... perhaps you should move back.

You are taking the piss, right? You're not that stupid...really now...defending all things alcohol you are - driving drunk as long as you aren't caught or kill someone, etc...you do love your bottle, eh?

As said by someone else, perfectly:

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

dagenham wrote:Damn dude, for a highly educated Libertarian you can be incredibly dim...

Genuine question, help me out here - in Australia Liberal and Labor (yes, without the u for some odd reason) are the two major political parties, although nobody cares any more. What do YOU mean when you say 'Libertarian' in this context?

Dages, another genuine question, did someone close to you get harmed or killed by a drunk driver?

StroppyChops wrote:

dagenham wrote:Damn dude, for a highly educated Libertarian you can be incredibly dim...

Genuine question, help me out here - in Australia Liberal and Labor (yes, without the u for some odd reason) are the two major political parties, although nobody cares any more. What do YOU mean when you say 'Libertarian' in this context?

He means Randian Libertarian. Specifically a policy that a victimless crime isn't an actual crime, and that the self can never be the victim of ones own actions in a criminal sense.

I'm with Dagenham on this one. The rest of you are selfish murdering cunts.