Forgive and forget?

[Aoami]

It ahs nothing to do with egotism, but nice try on the twisting.

Egotism is a form of Consequentialism, which is basically defined as someone who believes that the 'end justifies the means'.

The difference between the two is that an ethical egotist will act in their best intrest if the end justifies the means, without caring about the welfare of anyone else.

I'm not twisting, i'm stating fact. You're an egotist, and your posts have shown it time and time again.

get over yourself.
QED.

 

[Genedril]

If someone is staggering home drunk & steps into the road causing a driver to swerve & crash his car thereby killing himself would anyone here consider that to be murder (or second degree murder)?

It's no different. How many of you have walked home drunk?

 

[Bugz]

Toht final question I promise (and then I'm out of here):

You say drink driving is okey as long as noone gets hurt.

You say that dropping a brick on a motorway is okey as long as noone gets hurt. In saying this is okey, since no-one throws bricks onto motorways for anything other than the intention of causing distress or commotion or injury I have to ask:

If you attempt to murder someone - is it okey as long as noone gets hurt?
If you shot a gun around a park aimlessly but no damage was sustained - is it okey?

By your other answers, it should be a yes?

 

[Calaen]

Bugz.... You can't educate Pork!!

 

[old.Tohtori]

Egotism is a form of Consequentialism, which is basically defined as someone who believes that the 'end justifies the means'.

The difference between the two is that an ethical egotist will act in their best intrest if the end justifies the means, without caring about the welfare of anyone else.

I'm not twisting, i'm stating fact. You're an egotist, and your posts have shown it time and time again.

get over yourself.
QED.

But i don't believe that end justifies the means

Atleast not in all places.

All i'm saying is that if nothing happens, no harm. No harm = no problem. It's not that difficult to get.

Stick to your dayjob, cause a psych you aint.

Toht final question I promise (and then I'm out of here):

You say drink driving is okey as long as noone gets hurt.

You say that dropping a brick on a motorway is okey as long as noone gets hurt. In saying this is okey, since no-one throws bricks onto motorways for anything other than the intention of causing distress or commotion or injury I have to ask:

If you attempt to murder someone - is it okey as long as noone gets hurt?
If you shot a gun around a park aimlessly but no damage was sustained - is it okey?

By your other answers, it should be a yes?

Shooting a gun scares people, that's not "nothing". That is harm.

Driving a car drunk, while looking like any other driver out there, causes no damage. No harm = no problem. It's very simple, but you don't seem to grasp it.

Now, how about you answer my questions for a change?

Genedril, that's a great point. Being drunk can cause problems too, yet people don't judge it before something happens.

 

[Aoami]

But i don't believe that end justifies the means

Atleast not in all places.

All i'm saying is that if nothing happens, no harm. No harm = no problem. It's not that difficult to get.

Stick to your dayjob, cause a psych you aint.

so saying driving to get to where you want to go, if drunk, is not the end justifying the means?

the end - getting to where you want to be
the means - driving drunk.

it's not that difficult to get.

 

[old.Tohtori]

so saying driving to get to where you want to go, if drunk, is not the end justifying the means?

the end - getting to where you want to be
the means - driving drunk.

it's not that difficult to get.

Can't be arsed with you and your twisting.

It's no more "end justifies means" then driving sober, IF NOTHING HAPPENS.

Driving drunk and driving sober, if driven the same way, what is the harm? Hmm? What in the gods f*cking arse is the harm if there is no harm?

Are you people ignoring the point on purpose?

 

[Dukat]

Hes back, he seems to be unchanged, so I guess that's that

Also:

 

[megadave]

me and megadave were in a car crash today it was great

It was pretty fun



I know someone who drinks and drives regularly and his being drunk doesnt make the slightest bit of difference. He's been doing it for 5+ years and never had the slightest problem. Not sure what i'm trying to say since i dont support it

 

[Aoami]

Can't be arsed with you and your twisting.

It's no more "end justifies means" then driving sober, IF NOTHING HAPPENS.

Driving drunk and driving sober, if driven the same way, what is the harm? Hmm? What in the gods f*cking arse is the harm if there is no harm?

Are you people ignoring the point on purpose?

people aren't ignorning the point, they're providing counter points beacause yours is lunacy.

there is no harm done if no one is hurt, but the risk if someone getting hurt is greatly increased, it's simple as that.

And don't say you agree with the statement, because nowhere during the thread have you implied that you agree with anyone other than yourself.

 

[old.Tohtori]

people aren't ignorning the point, they're providing counter points beacause yours is lunacy.

there is no harm done if no one is hurt, but the risk if someone getting hurt is greatly increased, it's simple as that.

And don't say you agree with the statement, because nowhere during the thread have you implied that you agree with anyone other than yourself.

Ofcourse the risk is increased, i've not said otherwise.

But if nothing happens, there is no harm. It's the same as driving sober, NOT ONE difference.

Things that don't happen, shouldn't be mulled over.

If you think i said "there's no added risk when driving drunk", then you're a bigger moron then i thought. I never even implied that.

The reason i've not agreed with anyone much(i've agreed but you've ofcourse missed it), is because i'm discussing what peopel are putting forward.

None of you have answered questions or points i've put forward, in any manner and can't give one reason why driving drunk, when nothing happens, harms anyone.

Why? Because there is no harm.

 

[gohan]

has anyone ever told you your a massive cvnt?

 

[Dukat]

Ofcourse the risk is increased, i've not said otherwise.

But if nothing happens, there is no harm. It's the same as driving sober, NOT ONE difference.

Things that don't happen, shouldn't be mulled over.

If you think i said "there's no added risk when driving drunk", then you're a bigger moron then i thought. I never even implied that.

The reason i've not agreed with anyone much(i've agreed but you've ofcourse missed it), is because i'm discussing what peopel are putting forward.

None of you have answered questions or points i've put forward, in any manner and can't give one reason why driving drunk, when nothing happens, harms anyone.

Why? Because there is no harm.

You're right, when someone drink drives and manages to complete thier journey without any incident, they aren't harming anyone, I think most people would agree with you there since that is, I guess, fact.

The problem starts when you start saying "there's no difference" between drink driving and driving sober just because nothing happened in the journey. This simply isn't true. Someone who drinks and drives is putting themselves into a state where thier judgement and reaction speed is impared to a lesser or greater degree - this means that when something happens on the road that requires them to act, they are not going to be able to act as fast, or make decisions as quickly as if they were sober.

Its like playing a game with a handicap, the difference being when you lose there is the potential to cause great harm to yourself and to others - how can this fact be justified or ignored?

Its not because "driving drunk, when nothing happens, causes harm". Its because driving drunk puts the driver at a disadvantage and increases the possibility of something happening which could cause harm.

Basicly what people are saying is that even if it doesn't cause harm, its incredibly irresponsible.

 

[Ctuchik]

Depands if the police got involved.

if he crashed then they will automatically get involved.

 

[old.Tohtori]

has anyone ever told you your a massive cvnt?

Oh look, another one who can't discuss things without one liners like these.

You're right, when someone drink drives and manages to complete thier journey without any incident, they aren't harming anyone, I think most people would agree with you there since that is, I guess, fact.

The problem starts when you start saying "there's no difference" between drink driving and driving sober just because nothing happened in the journey. This simply isn't true. Someone who drinks and drives is putting themselves into a state where thier judgement and reaction speed is impared to a lesser or greater degree - this means that when something happens on the road that requires them to act, they are not going to be able to act as fast, or make decisions as quickly as if they were sober.

Its like playing a game with a handicap, the difference being when you lose there is the potential to cause great harm to yourself and to others - how can this fact be justified or ignored?

Its not because "driving drunk, when nothing happens, causes harm". Its because driving drunk puts the driver at a disadvantage and increases the possibility of something happening which could cause harm.

Basicly what people are saying is that even if it doesn't cause harm, its incredibly irresponsible.

Yes and i'm not saying that it's responsible behaviour, or am i? If i am, please show where, but if someone has driven drunk and nothing has happened, then there's no harm and it's ok.

There is no difference in driving drunk or sober IF nothing happens. It might be wrong, it might be irresponsible, but if nothing happens, the action has caused no changes and as such is the same act. Be it luck or bless of the gods, but if nothing happens, drunk or sober is same.

But people took it as something completely different and can't seem to acknowledge that they might have judged before thinking.

 

[Ctuchik]

Ofcourse the risk is increased, i've not said otherwise.

But if nothing happens, there is no harm. It's the same as driving sober, NOT ONE difference.

lol, ofc theres a difference.

you mentioned in in the exact same post...

doesent matter if your just "a little" drunk. you shouldn't drive a fucking car.

they are a huge risk even under the legal limit.

i mean, look at the ppl thats falling over while they are drunk, most if not all of them dont even realize it untill they are already on the ground their reactions are that fucking slow. and they dont have to be totally wasted either.

do you really wanna meet that kind of driver on the road?

/edit: with your reasoning you might just aswell blame the ppl or things the drunk drivers crash with for him crashing in the first place, i mean, if that child carrier/mother/house/mountain wall hadent been there he wouldn't have crashed and all would be fine....

 

[gohan]

Oh look, another one who can't discuss things without one liners like these.

cos its redundent.......


it's less constuctive than arguing with dorimor

 

[Dukat]

Oh look, another one who can't discuss things without one liners like these.



Yes and i'm not saying that it's responsible behaviour, or am i? If i am, please show where, but if someone has driven drunk and nothing has happened, then there's no harm and it's ok.

There is no difference in driving drunk or sober IF nothing happens. It might be wrong, it might be irresponsible, but if nothing happens, the action has caused no changes and as such is the same act. Be it luck or bless of the gods, but if nothing happens, drunk or sober is same.

But people took it as something completely different and can't seem to acknowledge that they might have judged before thinking.

I think the point where we're all disagreeing and refusing to acknowledge is the bit where you say "then there's no harm and it's ok".

Alot of people are using extreme examples to try to show you the reason's they're disagreeing - to show that just because an act doesn't cause harm, it doesn't mean its ok, and it doesn't mean that it's the same as driving sober.

This whole "There is no difference in driving drunk or sober IF nothing happens" thing is the bit that we have an issue with.

Driving drunk is irresponsible and dangerous, where as driving sober, while still not being the safest thing in the world, is alot less risky. They're not the same thing just because the end result is the same.

 

[Olgaline]

hmm...

I see the DUI in GB is still 0.8?

any of you ever tried driving at anything close to that ?
I have on a closed circuit...
cannot, be recomended

 

[old.Tohtori]

do you really wanna meet that kind of driver on the road?

/edit: with your reasoning you might just aswell blame the ppl or things the drunk drivers crash with for him crashing in the first place, i mean, if that child carrier/mother/house/mountain wall hadent been there he wouldn't have crashed and all would be fine....

It's not the same at all, but you read it as you want. Everyone else does

I could as easily say "Maha blaminablu ta dlabama" and people would read it like i hate babies and kick grannies. Mountains from molehills.

I never said drink driving is responsible, i'm not advocating drink driving, i'm not saying it's ok, but if nothing happens then there's no harm and it shouldn't be taken so seriously.

I think the point where we're all disagreeing and refusing to acknowledge is the bit where you say "then there's no harm and it's ok".

Alot of people are using extreme examples to try to show you the reason's they're disagreeing - to show that just because an act doesn't cause harm, it doesn't mean its ok, and it doesn't mean that it's the same as driving sober.

This whole "There is no difference in driving drunk or sober IF nothing happens" thing is the bit that we have an issue with.

Driving drunk is irresponsible and dangerous, where as driving sober, while still not being the safest thing in the world, is alot less risky. They're not the same thing just because the end result is the same.

The event and actions are the same if nothing happens. It's just a fact.

Possibilities don't come into play when discussing what happened.

If nothing happens, asking what MIGHT have happened is pointless.

Oh and people had a problem with my oint BEFORE i said it's the same, don't confuse it.

---
Not to mention, this is a biggie, why do you people get so hellbent about how I judge things.

I said "in my books it's ok", which means that I WOULND'T judge someone for ddriving drunkn(if they didn't f*Ck up), why is MY way of judging(or there lack of) such a problem for YOU? Hmm?

 

[Marc]

Toh, would you have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toh, would you have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV?

What does that have to do with this?

 

[Soazak]

Also i think drink-driving is ok unless you hurt someone.

i'm not saying it's ok,

I said "in my books it's ok",

heh

 

[Dukat]

why is MY way of judging(or there lack of) such a problem for YOU? Hmm?

To be honest, Toh, think whatever you want, "its a free country" and all that.

I dont think many of us really care all that much. Its just that there's this thread going, and people have brought thier points of view to the table and each of us are discussing them, some people disagree with others, its not that anyone particularly has a 'problem' with anyone else.

The main sticking point, I would imagine, is that this whole "toh vs the world" situation we've got seems to have been happening over and over again, regardless of the subject we're talking about, for a good couple of years now.

I seem to remember having written something almost identical to this about a year ago No doubt you're reply will be much the same as before too.

Oh well. Same time next year I guess?

 

[Lethul]

Toh, would you have unprotected sex with someone who has HIV?

I think he would grab whatever he can get

 

[old.Tohtori]

heh

Yes?

I don't think drink driving is acceptable, but if it's happened and nothing was hurt, it's ok.

Out of context is heh indeed.

To be honest, Toh, think whatever you want, "its a free country" and all that.

I dont think many of us really care all that much. Its just that there's this thread going, and people have brought thier points of view to the table and each of us are discussing them, some people disagree with others, its not that anyone particularly has a 'problem' with anyone else.

The main sticking point, I would imagine, is that this whole "toh vs the world" situation we've got seems to have been happening over and over again, regardless of the subject we're talking about, for a good couple of years now.

I seem to remember having written something almost identical to this about a year ago No doubt you're reply will be much the same as before too.

Oh well. Same time next year I guess?

Yeah, it started out of some thing and has escalated to a point where people just argue me 'cause it's me

Some still discuss things in a nice way, actually listening and answering. Should just ignore the one liner trolls.

This thread here? I merely pointed how I judge things, that shouldn't have even caused this.

Lethul, even if i had an HIV female in my bed, it'd still be mroe then you manage

 

[Lethul]

Lethul, even if i had an HIV female in my bed, it'd still be mroe then you manage

You don't think I could handle you and a HIV female? Pfff

 

[Calo]

has anyone ever told you your a massive cvnt?

no but many people told it to you :england:

 

[old.Tohtori]

no but many people told it to you :england:

Not to mention, i could be the Master Vagina, giving vagina to all the needy people, housing all the cocks in the world, keeping everyone satisfied in my massive vagina and i'd still leave gohan outside to mend the garden

 

[nath]

Christ knows why I'm getting involved but here goes.

I think part of the problem is defining what you mean when you say "But if nothing happens, there is no harm. It's the same as driving sober, NOT ONE difference." This is only true if you define what differences you're looking for. If you're talking about the physical outcome, yes no one was hurt in either scenario but there's more to it than that.

That said, as Carlos Bananos has pointed out you're saying completely opposite things, and those quotes were not even remotely out of context.

So, I can't quite work out what your position is here. If it's "chill out, no harm no foul" then there's not much to discuss, it's simply a different point of view, one that most people seem to disagree with. If it's "there's no difference if you get home safe" then that would almost (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure you will) seem to imply that you don't think people should be arrested for drink driving, after all most of the time when they're arrested they've not harmed anyone *yet*. So clearly there is a difference. If you drive home sober in as safe a state of mind and body as possible then all's well. If you drive home drunk, you have a greater chance of causing an accident and a)the police should catch and arrest/punish you, b) friends, family and coworkers should well be angry with you for being so irresponsible. After all, if I gave an active grenade to a toddler his/her mother would well be within her rights to be really rather angry with me. Saying "but he didn't pull the pin, so the little tyke is fine!" would be the most absurdly stupid thing to say.

Yes, if you drive home drunk and no one gets hurt the consequences *can be* similar to that if you drive home sober - if you exclude the psychological consequences that others have mentioned such as the possibility of thinking "well that wasn't so bad, next time I won't be so concerned about doing it". But that doesn't make them the same in every aspect imaginable. Of course they're not.