Forgive and forget?

[old.Tohtori]

You said "Also drink driving is okey as long as no-one gets hurt."

That IS a justification for drink-driving lol.

Justify: "how to be reasonable or provide adequate ground for," or "the act of defending or explaining or making excuses for by reasoning"

You are defending drink driving by using the reasoning of 'it is okey as long as no-one gets hurt.'

And you still don't listen. Have you read any of the thread?

It is not justification for drunk driving, UNLESS you take it completely out of the context.

That is not saying "you can go out, drink and drive". No.

GET IT? NO!

That is past judgement, after, when someone HAS driven drunk.

It's also only MY judgement of a situation, how I would treat it. It's not "the act of defending or explaining or making excuses for by reasoning", it's simply NOT judging.

If someone drove drunk, no one got hurt and they showed remorse, i wouldn't judge the action. Read it, understand it.

Do you get it?

 

[Bugz]

Err how the fuck can it be taken out of context? It was a sentence on it's own line, in your first reply on the topic.

The sentence I quoted was a judgment. There is no two ways about it. You are justifying drink driving on the basis of noone getting hurt.

I haven't at all seen you post this thread: "I am sorry. I worded it badly; I do not condone drink driving." Instead you twist your argument, resort to repeating the same shit over & over again (but perhaps a little adapted) and generally act like an idiot (I can't decipher what you mean from your other posts as the content is too wishy-washy - you dont argue coherently at all). The funny thing is, you don't see it but the rest of us do. Doesn't that make you think 'wow - I must be doing something wrong...' ? If you don't, its because your either too fuckin proud to admit your wrong or you enjoy having 90% of a forum hate you...

/rant.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Err how the fuck can it be taken out of context? It was a sentence on it's own line, in your first reply on the topic.

The sentence I quoted was a judgment. There is no two ways about it. You are justifying drink driving on the basis of noone getting hurt.

I haven't at all seen you post this thread: "I am sorry. I worded it badly; I do not condone drink driving." Instead you twist your argument, resort to repeating the same shit over & over again (but perhaps a little adapted) and generally act like an idiot (I can't decipher what you mean from your other posts as the content is too wishy-washy - you dont argue coherently at all). The funny thing is, you don't see it but the rest of us do. Doesn't that make you think 'wow - I must be doing something wrong...' ? If you don't, its because your either too fuckin proud to admit your wrong or you enjoy having 90% of a forum hate you...

/rant.

Well first, 90% isn't even close, it's been studied already

Second, it's in the same post, it's in the same context, seperate line means sh*t all except that i have an enter key.

Third, i don't need to apologize for others behaviour, i don't need to say I worded it badly if YOU read it like that AND i've said it clearly that i don't condone drink driving, many times, want some quotes?

Drink driving is bad,

Also there seems to be the moronic notion that i somehow think it'ss ok for drunk drivers to cause havoc, which is NOT what i'm saying.

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

Which i don't.

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.

NOT TO MENTION!

Toht, your original statement is correct in an hypothetical world...

And now you're suddenly claiming i justify drink driving?

And once mroe, just so you get it finally(Like you said; "If you don't, its because your either too fuckin proud to admit your wrong"...;

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.

So how do you like them apples b*tch?

Here's a questionf or you;

How can i justify someones action, if the question is how i would judge someones behaviour?

It was never a question of "would you drive drunk", was it?

Did i say somewhere i would drive drunk?

Did i say i would LET someone drive drunk?

 

[ST^]

"Also drink driving is okey as long as no-one gets hurt."

"Did i say drink driving is ok to do? No."

lol.

 

[old.Tohtori]

"Also drink driving is okey as long as no-one gets hurt."

"Did i say drink driving is ok to do? No."

lol.

Past tense, future tense, get the difference and shove that lol up your pimply hole.

I must be arguing with f*cking goldfish here...

 

[Bugz]

That's because what you said originally is true in a hypothetical sense. But justification exists in the real world & in the real world you are justifying drink driving as being okey if no-one gets hurt. There's a very big void between hypothetical agreement (where any conditions can be put in place) and justification of a real world issue.

Ofcourse Toht, what you don't realise is for every time you pluck up a quote to support your argument, I can pluck out a quote to dispell your argument (and those quotes are your own):

And if people haven't STILL figured it out; i have no morality, no feelings and NO sense of remorse unless something happens.

Justification for drink driving based on the idea of 'nothing happening' (aka. noone being hurt).

Why not? I believe drunk driving is ok if you don't hurt anyone. No harm is no harm, that is quite clear.

If people don't hurt anyone else, go for it, no matter what.

Can't you see Toht, we are all right. You twist and you adapt and you mould your argument so you can defend your viewpoint.

You should know something is seriously fuckin wrong when I can pick quotes out of the air by you to disprove your own argument.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's because what you said originally is true in a hypothetical sense. But justification exists in the real world & in the real world you are justifying drink driving as being okey if no-one gets hurt. There's a very big void between hypothetical agreement (where any conditions can be put in place) and justification of a real world issue.

Ofcourse Toht, what you don't realise is for every time you pluck up a quote to support your argument, I can pluck out a quote to dispell your argument (and those quotes are your own):

Justification for drink driving based on the idea of 'nothing happening' (aka. noone being hurt).

Can't you see Toht, we are all right. You twist and you adapt and you mould your argument so you can defend your viewpoint.

You should know something is seriously fuckin wrong when I can pick quotes out of the air by you to disprove your own argument.

First; you can't say something being hypothetical and then judge it via real world.(even if it would be a hypothetical, which it's not)

Again misquoting;

"If people don't hurt anyone else, go for it, no matter what." was not towards drink driving, it was again towards judgement. Not to mention again, you can't say that of drunk driving without knowing the future.

"Why not? I believe drunk driving is ok if you don't hurt anyone. No harm is no harm, that is quite clear." again, judgement issue.

"And if people haven't STILL figured it out; i have no morality, no feelings and NO sense of remorse unless something happens." has nothing to do with justifying drink driving.

What YOU need to get is that you're trying to prove a wrong point.

You're trying to say i'm justifying, when i'm talking about judging.

Judging drink driving based on if people get hurt, CAN'T BE DONE BEFORE-HAND.

Judging and justifying are two different things, and since you like definitions so much;

Judging; To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration. 2.b. Obsolete To pass sentence on; condemn.
Justifying; To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid. 2. To declare free of blame; absolve.

Do you get it now?

 

[ST^]

Past tense, future tense, get the difference and shove that lol up your pimply hole.

I must be arguing with f*cking goldfish here...

Ok, let us get your point of view straight, because you're constantly contradicting yourself and I don't think anyone (including you) knows your standpoint anymore.

Before the act of drink-driving, you do not think it's "ok".

After the act of drink-driving, if nobody got hurt, it is "ok".

Is this correct? You see a problem with the act itself when the consequences are unknown, yet you are later able to forget about that and deem the act as acceptable as long as there were no ill consequences?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Before the act of drink-driving, you do not think it's "ok".

After the act of drink-driving, if nobody got hurt, it is "ok".

Is this correct? You see a problem with the act itself when the consequences are unknown, yet you are later able to forget about that and deem the act as acceptable as long as there were no ill consequences?

That has been my point all along, all my consequential posts are from that basic standpoint, which has not changed AT ALL.

"Deem it acceptable" meaning i don't give someone gripe about it, forget about it, let it go.

Where this viewpoint was skewed, is NOT my problem.

 

[ST^]

It was skewed when you said "ok" (or "okey", whatever). That doesn't mean you're not judging it, it actually means you're judging it as being acceptable.

 

[Bugz]

"Why not? I believe drunk driving is ok if you don't hurt anyone. No harm is no harm, that is quite clear." again, judgement issue.

"And if people haven't STILL figured it out; i have no morality, no feelings and NO sense of remorse unless something happens." has nothing to do with justifying drink driving.

Quote a: You can't see the effects of drink driving in terms of pain inflicted upon others until it happens. By then it is too late. Thus, we can quite rightly assume that the judgment comes before the event and thus is closely related to a justification. Your judgment of 'drink driving is okey' is backed up by the justification of 'as long as no-one gets hurt.'

Quote b: It has everything to do with drink driving becasuse drink driving isn't an on-going event in terms of accidents. Smash. Accident occured. The event of something happening is instantaneous. If you have no sense of remose unless something happens then you make the judgment of it being okey to do until the event happens. The same very much as a.

^^ This application comes from real world analysis. Hypothetically, you can indeed do a toht and twist it however you like.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It was skewed when you said "ok" (or "okey", whatever). That doesn't mean you're not judging it, it actually means you're judging it as being acceptable.

AFTER it has happened, yes, i find it to be an ok event for THAT event. It doesn't mean i'm ok with every incident of drunk driving, past, present and future.

Saying something is ok doesn't make it globally acceptable, just to me. I don't bother myself with events that did no harm, if the person knows they shouldn't do it again.

^^ This application comes from real world analysis. Hypothetically, you can indeed do a toht and twist it however you like.

It's very much real world Bugz, you just have to get the difference which i pointed out already, several times, to you.

Judging an event happens after someone has driven drunk, it can't happen before.

If you can't get that simple thing, you're beyond help.

Your quote analysis? Total crock of sh*t, filled with assumptions.

"You can't see the effects of drink driving in terms of pain inflicted upon others until it happens." i can. Easily. I've said already that i don't think drink driving is ok. This is due to risks and possibilities.

" It has everything to do with drink driving becasuse drink driving isn't an on-going event in terms of accidents." no it doesn't, because it's about judging an event, which can't be done before it happens.

"If you have no sense of remose unless something happens then you make the judgment of it being okey to do until the event happens." i pointed out in post 1, go read it, that remorse is required.

Try, please, try to get it already and stop spouting sh*t about something i never said.

Just to make it crystal clear to anyone still not getting this simple thing;

If for some unforseen event, friend of mine drives drunk and tells me, i won't judge it IF they know they f*cked up and IF no one got hurt.

This was an answer on "how would you judge" by the original post.

now why YOU lot take it as something bigger, global or a "fact of life" is beyond me.

 

[Ch3tan]

 

[mooSe_]

Toht is always vague with his words, you have to try and understand what he is getting at rather than taking him literally on his word.

 

[Bugz]

I spotted the fail when Toht said you can only judge something after it has happened.

Judging an event happens after someone has driven drunk, it can't happen before.

What a shortsighted and totally inaccurate view on the world and really sums up the 'world' that Toht lives in.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Gods Bugz, you really can twist anything to sound what you want and ignore everything else posted...

Do you judge people before they have done something?!

Judging in this context does not mean evaluate

Moose, i'd be fine with being vague, just when after explaining in this much detail, people still don't get it, there has to be something else wrong.

Oh and nice trick to change the link to the post you quote, into something else. We wouldn't want people to check where you grab those now would we?

 

[fettoken]

Dun worry Toht, explaining things to some ppl here is like trying to get a logical point through to the Labour party. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Bugz]

Tell me where in your definition of 'judging,' the word 'hindsight' is used (or any indication that judgment occurs after an event):

Judging; To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration.

So answer me this, why can't judgment come before the event, as long as you've carefully considered the scenario? Oh wait...it can.

P.S note carefully the word 'estimation.'

 

[old.Tohtori]

Dun worry Toht, explaining things to some ppl here is like trying to get a logical point through to the Labour party. It doesn't work that way.

Yeah, i've noticed. They choose a side and stick to it, any explanation or correction to misunderstandings is not possible

Bugz, in the context of this discussion about what i said, it's very clear that judging does not include pre-judging.

It's neither here nor there either, since you accuse me of justifying things and even insinuate that i would drive drunk until i hit something :lol:

 

[Sparx]

 

[Bugz]

Judging is pre-judging is judging.

The phrase: 'drink driving is okey as long as no-one gets hurt' is a judgment based on a justification.

Is it your attitude pre-getting into the car, or is it your attitude after getting out of the car?

In fact - don't even fuckin answer. I hope our little discussion of you running rings around yourself has provided some enjoyment to the 85% of forum-mites will hate you (sorry - 90% was too high )

 

[old.Tohtori]

Judging is pre-judging is judging.

The phrase: 'drink driving is okey as long as no-one gets hurt' is a judgment based on a justification.

Is it your attitude pre-getting into the car, or is it your attitude after getting out of the car?

In fact - don't even fuckin answer. I hope our little discussion of you running rings around yourself has provided some enjoyment to the 85% of forum-mites will hate you (sorry - 90% was too high )

Well first, it's 23%(around'ish). There was a poll

If you can't get what i mean (after event has happened), then you can't be helped.

It's quite clear in the few posts even before this.

It's even a crystal clear one line in previous page(did you read it?); "If for some unforseen event, friend of mine drives drunk and tells me, i won't judge it IF they know they f*cked up and IF no one got hurt."

It's not justification, i'm not justifying anyones actions, i'm just not judging them. I have given no reason what so ever why drink driving would be ok to do, i have given reason HOW i wouldn't judge it.

Like i said, judging, justifying, different things.

Not judging is not justifying.

Sayign "I don't mind vegemite", does not mean "Oh my god vegemite is the bomb! If you don't like it, you should DIE!"

 

[Talivar]

You are saying no point crying over spilled milk and they are saying why take an extra risk in spilling it in the 1st place!

 

[old.Tohtori]

You are saying no point crying over spilled milk and they are saying why take an extra risk in spilling it in the 1st place!

Right, and i never disputed that one shouldn't risk spilling milk.

They are, in effect, arguing something i'm not against

 

[Talivar]

Think it all boils down to how much value u place on the milk

 

[Marc]

Gods Bugz, you really can twist anything to sound what you want and ignore everything else posted...

I think my ironyometer is going to explode!!!

But thats alright as long as no one injured.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think my ironyometer is going to explode!!!

But thats alright as long as no one injured.

Maybe you should check what irony means then

Also i'd suggest learning about what twisting things means.

I've also always answered what is asked and considered the whole post, but you've shown time and time again the opposite.

 

[Garaen]

I was going to write something but then gave up after the first sentence.

Also, Marc used the word irony perfectly.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Also, Marc used the word irony perfectly.

Care to elaborate how?

 

[Raven]

This "look at me I am weird" thing is getting old.