Forgive and forget?

[Sparx]

im glad i stayed well away from this thread, im not even going to read any posts cause i know exactly what it'll be about and i will only get wound up

 

[ST^]

But is it really?

If you take away morality, social teachings, the reason why drink driving is bad(accidents etc). Take all that away and think of a drive from point A to B.

Sober; car goes from point A to B, no harm.
Drunk; car goes from point A to B, no harm.

It's not to say things could have happened, but if they didn't, it's all the same from the outside, calculative POV.

It goes something more like this.

Drunk; car goes from point A to B, no harm. Driver now believes they are competent drivers, even while drunk. Future risk to public health and safety +100.

 

[Marc]

The Nazi party WAS alright, if you take out the world war etc.

Jesus Christ, can you get any more retarded?

 

[Calaen]

Jesus Christ, can you get any more retarded?

No it's ok Marc, because raping someone is ok if you take the physical/mental torment of the victim out of the equation!!!!!!

It's always fine if you remove all the bad things, which means it's always pointless.

As ST covered above, the risk increases when someone drives home drunk because they then think they can do it whenever they want.

 

[Ch3tan]

, you're just.. I don't know what you are. For now, I'm going with a guy who's not too bright but has a lot of time on his hands to pontificate and ends up coming up to incredibly absurd conclusions.

Either that or narcissistic personality disorder.

He's a flawed Devil's Advocate.

Can we move on now, I'm sure Toht's ego has been stroked enough (again). Just put him on ignore, and Nath, shame on you.

 

[Thorwyn]

Well... since Godwin already happened...

The Nazi party WAS alright, if you take out the world war etc.

I assume the "etc." covers the pogrom, the Warsaw ghetto, deportation and killing of jews, communists, oppositional people, christians, gypsies, freemansons, homosexuals, mentally and physically handicapped people, slavs, poles and criminals as well as state decreed euthanasia and the ideas of a superior race (with all the consequences)?

There was no real opposition towards it, until...

Hitler was never elected. The NSDAP scored their best election result in 1933 where they got 43,9%. At that point, he was already "president of the german reich", but his promotion was a clear break of the existing constitution and definitely NOT based on a general or public agreement.
The opposition against the NSDAP was always significant, but the Nazis managed to silence them by threats, violence and legal tricks such as protective custody.

And the Nazis, if they hadn't killed anyone, would still most likely be a political party among others.

In my opinion, this is the perfect example against your "don´t judge until something happened" theory. If people would have judged the Nazis *in advance* by their actions and words, they might have been able to prevent what happened. Instead, (too) many people played the "Well, yeah, they said it but we couldn´t possibly know that they would really do what they said, could we?" card.

...that´s what happens when you´re waiting for the result.

Sorry if my reply sounds patronizing and pedantic, but your statement was so oversimplified and lacking background that I couldn´t help but set it straight.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

The Nazi party was insidious. Of course it didn't start out with a mission statement saying "Lets kill Jews and start wars". They very cleverly played on the minds of the German masses after WW1 and their campaign for power was expertly handled. One of the lesser discussed facts is that it wasn't actually Hitler that was the architect of the party, he bought into it and the once in a position of power altered certain goals and had the real architect(s) of the party's manifesto removed.

I would never buy into 'they were alright', but what I would be willing to conceed is that they didn't start out as mass murderers. They became that. What is chilling is that ordinary people bought into it. Ordinary everyday people went along with it. Until it got to the point where the ordinary everyday people that hadn't gone along with it but had done nothing were to afraid to then confront the Nazi regime. (I refer here to within Germany itself).

While I understand Toh's point which runs along the lines of ' If no harm's been done, then why worry', I disagree because if we don't learn from past mistakes and if we don't learn from the various bad things that have happened, we can never work at improving ourselves as a species.

And so, while they are rather different topic discussions, subjects such as drink driving and Naziism have in common that if we DON'T learn from their examples and our experience of their outcomes, we are condmened to repeat the mistakes again. This is in part why although I find the discussion process interesting, I still disagree with Toh's conclusions.

 

[soze]

I still think Thot has broken it down to its most simplistic view "if not one gets hurt what's the harm" What i didn't like is that its far too simplistic. But you can't argue the point he is making as in black and white he is correct.

 

[Bugz]

It is simplistic. We all took it to mean something else as Toht's post was borderline child-like in stating simple facts if he meant the reasoning he gave.

So the lesson to be learnt is - take everything Toht says as true child-like level and we won't read deeper into his straight, simple comments! ^^.

 

[Azurus]

It is simplistic. We all took it to mean something else as Toht's post was borderline child-like in stating simple facts if he meant the reasoning he gave.

So the lesson to be learnt is - take everything Toht says as true child-like level and we won't read deeper into his straight, simple comments! ^^.

Hai Bugz! How's Warwick? York are making me do exams before Christmas.

 

[mooSe_]

omgstfu I'm pretty sure I solved this thread several pages ago. But now we're talking about nazis so whatever

 

[Marc]

The Nazi party was insidious. Of course it didn't start out with a mission statement saying "Lets kill Jews and start wars". They very cleverly played on the minds of the German masses after WW1 and their campaign for power was expertly handled. One of the lesser discussed facts is that it wasn't actually Hitler that was the architect of the party, he bought into it and the once in a position of power altered certain goals and had the real architect(s) of the party's manifesto removed.

conclusions.

The Nazis were slaughtering jews long before World War 2 started.

 

[Bugz]

Hai Bugz! How's Warwick? York are making me do exams before Christmas.

Finished last week till mid-Jan.

Had two exams so far - each worth something stupid like 10% & 12.5%. How many exams are York making you do?

 

[old.Tohtori]

The aftermath is far from the only measuring point for acting irresponsibly.

By your logic, if a babysitter took someones child out absailing, shooting, rock climbing, bungee jumping, to a religious point of prayer disjointed from their own beliefs or whatever, a parent would have no reasoning behind going ape shit at them, even if they had of done so without their express permission. One could argue that so long as they hadn't of explicitely outlined exactly what can and can't be done, there is no harm as there is no misuse of trust... even this weak barrier cannot be used for driving a car while under the influence. You simply endanger lives beyond the point that you agree to when getting behind the wheel of the car; you get a licence only to act within the bounds of the law within the country you're in at the time and by being on the roads, you agree to them.

Again you're using an example which does harm. A drunk driver drivign from A to B with no problems, has not harmed anyone and if he doesn't tell anyone, no one even would know. Also you're ignoring all the things said in post #1 that go with my comment.

There seems to be a trend. When a discussion of this nature comes up, you say some absurd things, people argue with you, your position appears to change all the way throughout the discussion and people get annoyed. At the end of it you play the wounded soul card and claim that if people were reasonable from the start this would have never happened

Glad to tell you, you're completely wrong. It's easier for you to blame me, no need to look at yourself. That is all.

Please read a History textbook.

Please stop doing the same thing that lead to that example. Get the context.

It goes something more like this.

Drunk; car goes from point A to B, no harm. Driver now believes they are competent drivers, even while drunk. Future risk to public health and safety +100.

What i said above; if no one knows and no one gets harmed, there's no need to judge it afterwards. What the guy does in the future, hasn't happened, that is another problem.

No it's ok Marc, because raping someone is ok if you take the physical/mental torment of the victim out of the equation!!!!!!

It's always fine if you remove all the bad things, which means it's always pointless.

Again someone who takes something out of context with an extreme example. Nothing new from Calaen though.

It is simplistic. We all took it to mean something else as Toht's post was borderline child-like in stating simple facts if he meant the reasoning he gave.

So the lesson to be learnt is - take everything Toht says as true child-like level and we won't read deeper into his straight, simple comments! ^^.

Its actually nothing even near that, but if you act like a child, ofcourse you'll see the world as one.

After all explained, after all definitions given, after everything said, people still don't get the first post as an answer to a question, i can't help that, i can't explain it any more thorough.

Same goes with the nazi bit, just an example and SURELY not meant as anything but an answer to ONE person. But hey, you need to take it into something bigger right?

But that's the UK way ti seems; if you can attack some point of view, you do it with everything you got and disregard anything else said. You've made up your mind, you chose your side and anything else said is irrelevant.

I still think Thot has broken it down to its most simplistic view "if not one gets hurt what's the harm" What i didn't like is that its far too simplistic. But you can't argue the point he is making as in black and white he is correct.

Evidently people can. I wouldn't mind you saying "That view is too simplistic for my taste", but saying i'm a retard, because you thought i meant drink driving is ok and then throwing in examples of nazi parties and rapists? And i'm the problem?

 

[old.Tohtori]

While I understand Toh's point which runs along the lines of ' If no harm's been done, then why worry', I disagree because if we don't learn from past mistakes and if we don't learn from the various bad things that have happened, we can never work at improving ourselves as a species.

When did i say you shouldn't learn from mistakes? I think post 1 said quite clearly that you need to know you f*cked up, for me not to get involved.

Peopel on this thread also took what i said as a future suggestion; "Sure, drive drunk if you don't hurt anyone."

When that is not the case.

It's "You drove drunk? Did you hurt anyone? Know you f*cked up? Cool."

Ofcourse people will just come up with some poor excuses and more insults, would be silly to expect such "bright individuals" to actually show me where i've said drink driving in general is ok(before it happens), or where i've even changed my mind.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh and one mroe point;

If you look through the thread, only reasons for me being wrong that people give are;

"Drunk drivers kill people."
"Driving drunk is irresponsible."
"Driving drunk decreases this, does that and increases risk like that."

Now, could someone show me where i disagree with any of this?

Or COULD IT BE, that people are arguing something i didn't say?

Not to mention, i've only replied to people, i haven't even had time to comment on other peoples opinions.

So you prove me wrong here, you show me where i disagree with these points and i'll gladly admit that i'm wrong.

Otherwise, maybe it's YOU who need to admit that you didn't read the post and are arguing something that i wasn't against, which is (insert favorite word here).

I know many people who check the thread will go "Oh f*ck, he's right", but don't worry, jsut call me a child, moron or something else so you don't have to admit it

 

[ST^]

What i said above; if no one knows and no one gets harmed, there's no need to judge it afterwards. What the guy does in the future, hasn't happened, that is another problem.

No need to judge when someone knowingly puts the lives of others at risk?

I'm out. Guy is a fucking retard.

 

[kirennia]

By your logic, if a babysitter took someones child out absailing, shooting, rock climbing, bungee jumping, to a religious point of prayer disjointed from their own beliefs or whatever, a parent would have no reasoning behind going ape shit at them, even if they had of done so without their express permission. One could argue that so long as they hadn't of explicitely outlined exactly what can and can't be done, there is no harm as there is no misuse of trust... even this weak barrier cannot be used for driving a car while under the influence. You simply endanger lives beyond the point that you agree to when getting behind the wheel of the car; you get a licence only to act within the bounds of the law within the country you're in at the time and by being on the roads, you agree to them.

Again you're using an example which does harm. A drunk driver drivign from A to B with no problems, has not harmed anyone and if he doesn't tell anyone, no one even would know. Also you're ignoring all the things said in post #1 that go with my comment.

What would the harm be if no-one was hurt and the parents didn't know and no-one found out?

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

When did i say you shouldn't learn from mistakes? I think post 1 said quite clearly that you need to know you f*cked up, for me not to get involved.

Peopel on this thread also took what i said as a future suggestion; "Sure, drive drunk if you don't hurt anyone."

When that is not the case.

It's "You drove drunk? Did you hurt anyone? Know you f*cked up? Cool."

Ofcourse people will just come up with some poor excuses and more insults, would be silly to expect such "bright individuals" to actually show me where i've said drink driving in general is ok(before it happens), or where i've even changed my mind.

Perhaps its the language thing but its very easy to take the posts you made as implying that its ok to drink-drive so long as nobody gets hurt. I think thats one of the reasons you got some very strong reactions on here.

Taken in isolation, the points you make have self contained (and interesting) logic but in the real world I don't think they hold weight. Like I said above, they challenge the comfy beliefs and, if they are thinking it through, in answering your statements a person is forced to examine why they believe drink-driving is wrong rather than just giving dogmatic and moralising answers.

I don't mean to imply you said people shouldn't learn from mistakes - you didn't

 

[nath]

Glad to tell you, you're completely wrong. It's easier for you to blame me, no need to look at yourself. That is all.

You're mistaken there, it's actually easier for you to blame masses of other people rather than look inwards and discover that you're talking nonsense. Maybe you should take some time off again and really think about how you come across, you might learn something this time.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No need to judge when someone knowingly puts the lives of others at risk?

I'm out. Guy is a fucking retard.

Knowingly is a matter of how drunk the person was and this is also where the "did you know you f*cked up?" comes to play.

Did i also tell YOU not to judge? Hmm? No. I said how I would judge it.

What would the harm be if no-one was hurt and the parents didn't know and no-one found out?

Well that depends on how it effects the child.

If the child had no mental issues from all that, then there would be no harm ofcourse.

I would ask if the child carer knew that was wrong and if they were going to do it again. If they were, i'd note that they shouldn't be caring for the kid.

Perhaps its the language thing but its very easy to take the posts you made as implying that its ok to drink-drive so long as nobody gets hurt. I think thats one of the reasons you got some very strong reactions on here.

Taken in isolation, the points you make have self contained (and interesting) logic but in the real world I don't think they hold weight. Like I said above, they challenge the comfy beliefs and, if they are thinking it through, in answering your statements a person is forced to examine why they believe drink-driving is wrong rather than just giving dogmatic and moralising answers.

I don't mean to imply you said people shouldn't learn from mistakes - you didn't

Exactly, and i wouldn't mind peoples strong reactions if they listened to the explanation WHEN they understand it wrong. But even after all is explained, people still refuse to accept what i mena, and insist on taking it as "drink driving is ok".

That's where the self-examination comes to play, which for many, is a very problematic thing. See example below.

You're mistaken there, it's actually easier for you to blame masses of other people rather than look inwards and discover that you're talking nonsense. Maybe you should take some time off again and really think about how you come across, you might learn something this time.

I don't have to look inwards, because i've explained that people see it as a wrong point. Some have even expressed that they get what i mean.

How about you in your great wisdom show where i go against the points people put forward?

"Drunk drivers kill people."
"Driving drunk is irresponsible."
"Driving drunk decreases this, does that and increases risk like that."

None of those i've contradicted and those are the only points against my post.

I have taken time off to see how i come off, have you?

I suggest you start here, where you ask for a definition("Is it no harm no foul"), which i give ("Yes, that's the case"), yet you still make it a problem.

 

[Calaen]

Do you get £1 for everytime you type no harm no foul

 

[old.Tohtori]

The funniest part here is though, people are arguing and trying to prove me wrong on how i, me, me alone, would judge a situation.

This strong opposition to someones way of judging, which effects your lives in no way and isn't even a commentary on "how things are", is somewhat amusing.

It's like a mob of people screaming at someone because that person likes marmite, why the hell do you care?

I'm not driving drunk.
I'm not telling anyone else to drive drunk.
I'm not saying drinking doesn't make you a bad driver.
I'm not saying that drunk driving is even ok.

I simply gave an answer to the original question, which then was turned to something completely different :lol:

Do you get £1 for everytime you type no harm no foul

If you got £1 every time people understood it, you'd still have £0

 

[Bugz]

Toht, your original statement is correct in an hypothetical world where the end result is viewable from the beginning & the means to the end can be analysed and so on before the end result occurs.

Real life does not work like that and hence why we all disagree with you. We all argue in real life scenarios because to us, they count. Obviously, you are happy to throw out purely hypothetical statements which are indeed correct but do not get pissed when we try to shoot down those hypothetical situations.

The problem is - you've shown your hypothetical situation is true hypothetically. I acknowledge that and it is correct. But when you force your hypothetical situation into real life scenarios it becomes incorrect & it is this point we are trying to combat your statement.

If you had said originally: "I meant hypothetically. Obviously in the real world it won't be the case," it'd have not made it to 200 replies. You have stated this but in a whish-wash of other statements & so on that force us to consider whether you are indeed talking about the real world (like the Nazi joke - which you cleverly didn't respond to Thor's very true description of the actual events).

Funny thing is - I use to do exactly the same shit but now I handle what I say & how I say it. I realise when to adapt things & when to forget about arguing or 'being right' & when to set the record straight or admit my original viewpoint is more limited than I may wish to believe.

P.S - Yes people are taking this a bit too far & using it to bash you. It's part of the reason I opted out earlier because I don't enjoy sitting here bashing back & forth.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Bugz you're right, in a way.

First i'd like to point out that i didn't respond to Thorwyns Nazi thing, because as i said, this is not about Nazis and it was only a response to the Nazi comment made. Nothing more.

Second, and this is where you're wrong in your assuumption that it's hypothetical;

It's not about a hypothetical situation, it's a real world situation.

Where the confusion comes, is that people think i mean that BEFORE an action has happened, but as it is a judgement to something that HAS happened, the "if no harm" becomes a valid way of looking at things.

So, to make it clear;

People thought i meant "You can go out and drive drunk...", when the statement is "If you drove drunk...."

My mistake here is that i didn't realise it sooner where peoples misconception came from, which IS kind of hard when the replies are in the way of "You're a retard". When i did, people had their minds set and won't listen.

Also i have noticed a trend in people, especially on the internet; people seem to be hellbent on claiming what others mean. Surely that is something only the person saying it would know.

 

[Calaen]

You said you would bang someone with HIV if there was no risk!!!!! There will always be a risk.

 

[kirennia]

Well that depends on how it effects the child.

If the child had no mental issues from all that, then there would be no harm ofcourse.

I would ask if the child carer knew that was wrong and if they were going to do it again. If they were, i'd note that they shouldn't be caring for the kid.

Where the confusion comes, is that people think i mean that BEFORE an action has happened, but as it is a judgement to something that HAS happened, the "if no harm" becomes a valid way of looking at things.

There in lies the problem though. Before the act takes place, it isn't possible to gauge the levels of harm done by the action, thus it is always wrong to put others in danger in this way. Going back to the original statement, it simply isn't possible to know whether harm will come when getting behind the wheel drunk; it is the driver who imposes on all those they may meet on their travels, the higher risk of injury while in a personal sense, only adding a smaller risk to themselves... they are afterall in a cage.

I realize that you are arguing the aftermath but in a real world situation, when the said aftermath is impossible to gauge yet the probability of a negative occurance is risen dramatically, no-one has the right to impose on others, this ellevated possibility. That's just the point. Simply by having been on the road, you have put others in danger and so it should always be looked down upon. You've imposed risk on others, without their consent...

It's an interesting view however, worthy of note that it isn't just applied to drunk driving but 'no harm, no foul' for a wider spectrum of cases. Personally, I beleive that to increase someonelses risk of danger while in a relative sense increasing my own to a much lower extent, even if no harm comes from it, it is morally wrong.


As for the comment by... I think it was Roo saying that we're only arguing because it opposes our world view, originally conceived by popular trends; if we were talking about turning on the hadron collider or something like that whereby we simply can't understand its intricaces (sp?), your point would stand. For the effects of alcohol on a persons judgement, the statistics don't lie and even if you dismissed them, it's plainly obvious when you go into a pub or club, the level at which alcohol has impaired a persons judgement. I wont say no-one while under the influence should get behind the wheel of a car as there are of course situations where drunk driving is applicable but for the vast majority of cases, that simply does not ring true.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You said you would bang someone with HIV if there was no risk!!!!! There will always be a risk.

Ofcourse there is, but if nothing happened, then i don't judge it.

Past, gone, deed is done.

I NEVER said that it's ok to get behind the wheel of a car drunk. Never, i even said it's bad in my original post.

I never said it's not endangering people.

I never said it's not impaired judgement.

Only thing i said was how i would judge someone if i heard they drove drunk...and here's the important part...AS PER TOPIC.

There in lies the problem though. Before the act takes place, it isn't possible to gauge the levels of harm done by the action, thus it is always wrong to put others in danger in this way. Going back to the original statement, it simply isn't possible to know whether harm will come when getting behind the wheel drunk; it is the driver who imposes on all those they may meet on their travels, the higher risk of injury while in a personal sense, only adding a smaller risk to themselves... they are afterall in a cage.

I realize that you are arguing the aftermath but in a real world situation, when the said aftermath is impossible to gauge yet the probability of a negative occurance is risen dramatically, no-one has the right to impose on others, this ellevated possibility. That's just the point. Simply by having been on the road, you have put others in danger and so it should always be looked down upon. You've imposed risk on others, without their consent..

No one can gauge the risks, but when the action has taken place, then the risks become meaningless and only the end result means something.

I couldn't possibly say "Go out and drive drunk, just don't hurt anyone", that would be the retarded thing to say because we can't know, as yiu say, if someone would get hurt. In that place, risks are known and should be considered.

BUT, when the action is done, there is no more speculation on risks, it's only "you could have, but didn't" and if you look at my first post, you see that i demand remorse from the person to leave it be.

From my first post you can see;

I don't approve drunk driving (Said it in first line)
I need remorse from someone who didm for it to be ok (need to know they f*cked up)
I also need to know that no one got hurt.

I'm in no way, no where, not once have argued that you can LET someone drive drunk, only the judgement and how i would act IF someone DID.

There's nothing hypothetical there and it's very well in the real world.

 

[Azurus]

Finished last week till mid-Jan.

Had two exams so far - each worth something stupid like 10% & 12.5%. How many exams are York making you do?

Just the one, 'The Democratic Tradition: Power and institutions', fascinating stuff I'm sure you'd agree. We are the only course to do exams before xmas here, the faggy economists don't have to do any till Summer. I changed to Politics + Economics for the lulz.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Now to put this dead horse to the glue factory;

If someone can argument how i'm wrong in not judging someone AFTER they have driven drunk, haven't harmed and do show regret, i'm open to hear it as it would actually be something that is relevant