Forgive and forget?

[Marc]

What does that have to do with this?

Answer the question.

But you wont because you know exactly where im going with it.

 

[Garaen]

Why do you think people are arguing against your views "just because it's you"? That's not the case at all. People are arguing against you because your views are completely stupid and make you look mentally disabled.

At the very least if you truely believe what you've written you will have some form of mental disorder and I think you should get yourself looked at before you cause yourself or others harm from your inability to understand basic social values.

 

[old.Tohtori]

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.

I don't consider psychological consequences as relevant, as that's the next times problem. If you think driving drunk all the time is a good idea, it's your problem.

If nothing has happened, it's no harm, it's ok.

I was quite clear in that.

In my opinion, i don't judge, if nothing happens.

No harm no foul would cover it i guess.

Answer the question.

But you wont because you know exactly where im going with it.

Yes i do, and it's not relevant and not even true.

If i could have sex with an HIV person WITHOUT any problems, i would.

Why do you think people are arguing against your views "just because it's you"? That's not the case at all. People are arguing against you because your views are completely stupid and make you look mentally disabled.

At the very least if you truely believe what you've written you will have some form of mental disorder and I think you should get yourself looked at before you cause yourself or others harm from your inability to understand basic social values.

YOUR social values are not the same as the WORLDS social values, how about you get that in your head.

I don't judge drunk driving after it's done no harm, why is my opinion a problem to YOU?

Why don't you learn the basics of your own language and how discussion works, instead of insta-judging and ignoring what is said.

And yues, people argue just because it's me, it's clear in peoples way of answering. They don't even try to discuss it, it's just "Tohtori this or that".

Why don't you contact a psychologist and ask them to take a look at my posting then? If you're so sure i'm mental.

Sparx was right though, i did get attacked. Let's look at the original post shall we?

Drink driving is bad, but it's understandabe since you're...well...drunk!

We've all been in the situation where we do stupid things/people while drunk.

If he knows he f*cked up, be a friend.
If he thinks he did nothing wrong, decide.

Personally i've had friends of mine drive drunk and i have thought nothing of it since nothing happened, and i will ALWAYS let it go if they know they f*cked up.

I'm all for circumstances, if it's ok in your mind, let it go.

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

If shit doesn't happen, it doesn't. No point in "what if?".

I'm saying drink driving is bad, but understandable. Drinking impairs your judgement, you do stupid things.

If they know they f*cked up, i have no problem.
If nothing happened, i have no problem.


So, it's a simple case of "No harm no foul".

NOW...let's take a look at what the morons ACTUALLY read;

"Also i think drink-driving is ok."

And that's it, reason to all of this, reading one part out of context

EDIT: Ok to be fair, i should also ignore the moron flamers, so it's my fault too

 

[ST^]

How the fuck is it out of context?

 

[old.Tohtori]

How the fuck is it out of context?

Because it's somehow turned into "you think drink driving is ok".

Which i don't.

I simply don't consider what if's as an issue after things have happened.

Also uiot of context means that you ignore all that is said in the same thing, which would be that i don't think drink driving is ok

 

[Ingafgrinn Macabre]

 

[old.Tohtori]

No it's not 180, it's in my first post, it's very clear.

Don't even try to make it look like i've somehow said drink driving is ok.

I could misquote too, but unlike you lot, i don't have to

 

[TdC]

I'm saying drink driving is bad, but understandable. Drinking impairs your judgement, you do stupid things.

err sorry Toh me old mucker but I completely do not agree there. if you are over the legal limit, you should not drive period, ofc, it's your call to not do that, and if you had so many drinks that your judgement is so impaired that you no longer realize that you should not drive at that time, then I hope to heck that someone, a mate or a random stranger in the street, will stop you and call you a cab.

@Dukat, I feel you should forgive your mate, but perhaps make a pact with all friends that if you of you is that far out, then everyone chips in for a cab, just to make life more enjoyable for all.

two examples from Teedlife:
-I have a mate who drinks and drives. I myself consider this wrong but have not confronted the fellow. In his defence, this chap will stop having beers when he thinks he'll be in trouble and just drink soft drinks. Also, this chap never drinks anything other than beer, and the "regular" eg not strong or highly fermented, stuff etc. I have never seen him in a condition that I consider him unfit to drive, but I have an agreement with another mate that if we do, he's staying at one of our houses, or we are getting him a cab. In my defence, if I do see him in a condition that I consider dangerous, I will tell him that I am taking away his keys. He's a big lad, and he knows that if he gets pulled over or anything else he'll be in a world of shit.

-recently I myself had a "moment" on the motorway: I was quite tired, and driving back from a late meal with a friend. I was nearly home with another 15 or 20 mins to go and it was about 1am. I had had one beer at about 1930, and drunk water for the rest of the night with two coffees after dinner, so I really was tired, not boozed. I was tired when I got into the car, but combated it with loud music and no heater on. And singing. That works hehe. Anyway, after an hour I had a vague moment and realised that I going into a sharp turn on the off ramp at a *much* too high speed. That particular turn is rated 50km/h and I was doing well over 100. Also, it's one of those nasty turns that keeps changing radius, so you can't just set the car in, you have to keep turning "into" the turn if you follow me. Well, I made it and didn't crash, but I WAS WRONG to not have parked the car in some service or rest area station half an hour earlier for some Zzz. So, frightening moment that scared the absolute shite out of me and no booze involved. I have learned from it. It won't happen again.

 

[tris-]

I don't want to confuse the basics of what we're arguing with the indications of risk assessments & the marginal propensity to cause accidents as you consume more drugs etc.

Let's keep it simple Tris as that's a discussion on people as opposed to alcohol.

it is hardly complicated. you were using those two points specifically to push your view. infact, those two points can apply to anything and so do nothing to strengthen your argument.

 

[old.Tohtori]

err sorry Toh me old mucker but I completely do not agree there. if you are over the legal limit, you should not drive period, ofc, it's your call to not do that, and if you had so many drinks that your judgement is so impaired that you no longer realize that you should not drive at that time, then I hope to heck that someone, a mate or a random stranger in the street, will stop you and call you a cab.

Ofcourse i'm not saying you should drive, but i can understand why someone drove drunk because they were drunk.

This ofcourse requires them to be regretful of it the next day, if they knew they were driving drunk, it's a different matter.

 

[CorNokZ]

Still this.. We've had this discussion before and it seems like Dukat got what he looked for

No reason to keep this troll thread going

 

[tris-]

Ofcourse i'm not saying you should drive, but i can understand why someone drove drunk because they were drunk.

This ofcourse requires them to be regretful of it the next day, if they knew they were driving drunk, it's a different matter.

the problem is you dont need to know that youre intoxicated to break the law. youve shown here how that if you are intoxicated then you might not even realise it. more reasons why the offence should not require guilty knowledge.

on the topic of being drunk, check this totally useless piece of shit law.

it is against the law to sell alcohol to someone who is drunk in england:

Licensing act 2003

"141 Sale of alcohol to a person who is drunk

(1) A person to whom subsection (2) applies commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly—

(a) sells or attempts to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk "

but you will also find that 'drunk' is not defined in law anywhere so that law is pretty fucking useless.

 

[Marc]

Yes i do, and it's not relevant and not even true.

If i could have sex with an HIV person WITHOUT any problems, i would.

Thats not what I asked.

Your question dodging is duly noted.

 

[Wonk]

I gave birth to a chipmunk yesterday.

 

[old.Tohtori]

the problem is you dont need to know that youre intoxicated to break the law. youve shown here how that if you are intoxicated then you might not even realise it. more reasons why the offence should not require guilty knowledge.

True, and yes, drunk driving is breaking the law, no matter if you're concious or not.

Thats not what I asked.

Your question dodging is duly noted.

It's just countering your trapping attempts, make your point without trapping or shut the f*ck up.

Because what i answered is a 100% equivelant to what i've said here; if no harm, no problem.

And that no problem is no problem to ME. My judging. I don't judge when there's no harm.

But hey, why should people have individual thoughts or ways of living, when they could conform to your ways right?

Not once have i judged peoples opinions here, you're all free to feel as you do, yet look at yourselves. I don't think like you, act like you or believe like you and i'm the anti-christ.

F*ck off on the high horse you rode in on.

 

[soze]

YOUR social values are not the same as the WORLDS social values, how about you get that in your head.

It may not belong to the whole world but it belongs to 100% of the people i asked about it.

 

[gohan]

I gave birth to a chipmunk yesterday.

which one?

 

[Marc]

True, and yes, drunk driving is breaking the law, no matter if you're concious or not.



It's just countering your trapping attempts, make your point without trapping or shut the f*ck up.

Because what i answered is a 100% equivelant to what i've said here; if no harm, no problem.

And that no problem is no problem to ME. My judging. I don't judge when there's no harm.

But hey, why should people have individual thoughts or ways of living, when they could conform to your ways right?

Not once have i judged peoples opinions here, you're all free to feel as you do, yet look at yourselves. I don't think like you, act like you or believe like you and i'm the anti-christ.

F*ck off on the high horse you rode in on.

lol so disagreeing with an imbecile who think its ok to drink drive as long as no one gets hurt equates to us being on a high horse?

There is a reason for all the various dont drink and drive campaigns you cretin.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It may not belong to the whole world but it belongs to 100% of the people i asked about it.

Not even on this thread there's a 100% disareement on what i said.

Get your numbers right.

lol so disagreeing with an imbecile who think its ok to drink drive as long as no one gets hurt equates to us being on a high horse?

There is a reason for all the various dont drink and drive campaigns you cretin.

Again you don't even listen.

Drink and driving is ok if no one gets hurt, that doesn't equate to "you can drink and drive as long as you don't hurt someone".

You can't know if you WILL hurt someone, but if you didn't, it's bygones.

I'm not advocating, NEVER HAVE, drink driving, but if you do it and no one gets hurt, it's ok in my books.

Try to get that in your head.

The high horse comes from the insults and the general behaviour of being better.

But hey, nice of you to forget your "big hiv point". How convinient.

Once mroe you show how nothign can be your fault and you can't be wrong in anything. Well done, here's a brush for your horse.

 

[nath]

Once again Tohtori displays an inability to stick to his point when argued with. Constantly changing it to get out of whatever logic trap he's faced with, regardless of his previous position.

Ah well, I'm out.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Once again Tohtori displays an inability to stick to his point when argued with. Constantly changing it to get out of whatever logic trap he's faced with, regardless of his previous position.

Ah well, I'm out.

Show me one place where i change my view.

Just one.

And don't do it by taking just three words out of a post

Did i advocate drink driving? No.
Did i say drink driving is ok to do? No.
Did i say that i don't judge someone if they hurt no one? Yes.
Did i say i require them to realise they f*cked up? Yes.

So please for the love of f*cking any high being, show me wheere i've changed my mind.

 

[Marc]

Once again Tohtori displays an inability to stick to his point when argued with. Constantly changing it to get out of whatever logic trap he's faced with, regardless of his previous position.

This.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Prove it or shut the f*ck up.

 

[nath]

Prove it or shut the f*ck up.

We've been here oh so many times before. You aren't capable of accepting the proof as proof. Carlos Bananos even showed the massive inconsistencies of your posts and you brushed it off as taking things out of context. They weren't.

 

[Marc]

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

So if you dont hurt someone then its ok in your book, ergo, you are advocating it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So if you dont hurt someone then its ok in your book, ergo, you are advocating it.

No, if you've driven drunk and you didn't hurt someone, i don't judge it.

The topic of this thread was "what would you do". Ergo, how would i judge someone if they drove drunk.

In the same very first post i said that drink driving is bad.

Nath if you take carlos post and see where those quotes are from, you can see just how out of context they are.

 

[Marc]

I give up. Ive pointed out that you posted "Drink driving is ok" but you still cant admit what you posted. Like Nath, im out.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I give up. Ive pointed out that you posted "Drink driving is ok" but you still cant admit what you posted. Like Nath, im out.

Yes and that's a misquote, anyone with two braincells can see it.

I can't say "You'll be ok behind the wheel drunk if you don't hurt someone", because that's seeing the future. I CAN say that if someone drove drunk and didn't hurt anyone, that it's ok in my books.

Bygones, no harm no foul etc.

 

[Aoami]

So what would your reaction be if one of your mates drove home drunk and killed someone?

The same guy could've driven home drunk and driven home ok the day before.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So what would your reaction be if one of your mates drove home drunk and killed someone?

The same guy could've driven home drunk and driven home ok the day before.

I would judge them like anyone else. They f*cked up, big time.

I wouldn't judge them on the action day before IF they knew they f*cked up(like i've said all along) and if they did it again and killed someone, i'd say they should get punished for it.

After a while, if it seemed they've learned their lesson and enough time had passed and IF it was a good friend, i wouldn't shun them out.

By the way; That's the kind of replies i don't mind, it's the name calling, one liner moronics that do my head in.