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.
The Nazi party WAS alright, if you take out the world war etc.
Jesus Christ, can you get any more retarded?
, 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.
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)?The Nazi party WAS alright, if you take out the world war etc.
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.There was no real opposition towards it, until...
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.And the Nazis, if they hadn't killed anyone, would still most likely be a political party among others.
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! ^^.
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.
Hai Bugz! How's Warwick? York are making me do exams before Christmas.
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.
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
Please read a History textbook.
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.
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.
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! ^^.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No need to judge when someone knowingly puts the lives of others at risk?
I'm out. Guy is a fucking retard.
What would the harm be if no-one was hurt and the parents didn't know and no-one found out?
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
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.
Do you get £1 for everytime you type no harm no foul
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.
You said you would bang someone with HIV if there was no risk!!!!! There will always be a risk.
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..
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?