Forgive and forget?

[soze]

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

Get your numbers right.

My number are right i said people i asked. I said "Is drink driving ok as long as no one gets hurt" and everyone settled on no as an answer.

 

[old.Tohtori]

My number are right i said people i asked. I said "Is drink driving ok as long as no one gets hurt" and everyone settled on no as an answer.

And your people include the world? What a globetrotter you must be

Not to mention that's not the point, what you should ask is; "If someone drove drunk and no one got hurt, how would you treat them?"

 

[soze]

And your people include the world? What a globetrotter you must be

Not to mention that's not the point, what you should ask is; "If someone drove drunk and no one got hurt, how would you treat them?"

I said it was not the world view just that off 100% of the people i asked. Now who is mis quoting!!

And i have never had a problem with forgiving a friend for this i would do the same if he did not brag about it. I had a problem with this line.

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

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

It is a far too simplistic view for a very serious issue imo.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I said it was not the world view just that off 100% of the people i asked. Now who is mis quoting!!

And i have never had a problem with forgiving a friend for this i would do the same if he did not brag about it. I had a problem with this line.

It is a far too simplistic view for a very serious issue imo.

I know it was a misquote, just making a side-point there. Sorry

It may seem simplistic, but it's only if put in context with the rest of the post.

The post also includes "if they repent" and "drink driving is bad".

If taken only as "drink driving is ok", it's ofcourse going to sound bad.

Also i do think about things in a non-normal manner, i have a rather cold perspective on a lot of things, but it never harms anyone else and i never try to convert other people to my beliefs. In ways, i'd prefer to be a cold bastard then a judgemental bastard any day.

Just to show some fun stuff i noticed;

It must be flame bait, even on the INTERNETZ LOL people genuinly can't believe drink driving is ok as long as no one dies...I wonder what other crimes you could justify with that reasoning

This is completely out of context, i never said anything about people dying, i said getting hurt., No harm, no problem. Yet, carlos took it as "no death, it's ok!"

So carlos not misqoting is a bit of a stretch

I hope a drink driver crashes into his flat, destroys it and destroys everything he owns.

Marc really should be punished for hoping me harm. No wait...is that a misquote?

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.

Even after telling nath that "this is the case", its still not good enough

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Going back to the original post...

This is somewhat emotive. I agree that drink-driving is always bad, no matter the circumstance. No matter how flippant/glib some of the replies above, it does not justify it. I'm not saying that mistakes don't get made. There might be a morally grey area when you accidently are a little over the limit but there is zero grey area when you're smashed beyond the ability to stand up right and still insist on getting behind the wheel.

Your stance regarding your friend is a very simple one in my opinion. You don't need to destroy your friendship over it. You actually don't need to be involed at all or to take any judgemental stance on his behaviour.

However, I would reccomend that you refrain from colluding with his behaviour either passively or actively. If he's going to continue this behaviour step back from socialising with him. If enough of his peers do this he will eventually get the message.

Drunk driving isn't a question of 'if' someone will get hurt. Its a question of 'when' and 'how badly'. Realistically its going to happen at some point if it continues.

If you're old enough to drink in a bar or pub, you're old enough to make socially responsible choices. If you continue to drink beyond allowable limits and then drive you are making a *choice* that you are willing to put other people at risk.

I realise that this thread is an awesome place for obvious trolling and equally obvious moralising. The keywords that should be retained by all are "social responsibility".

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well put and if asked only the "is it socially responsible to drink and drive", i'd go with no.

Wouldn't kill the friendship, depending on drink&drive outcome, but it would put a strain on it especially if no remorse.

 

[Access Denied]

Toht please read my post crica page 3 and give me your rationale. I really want to know how you can twist logic enough to justify saying that if no one gets hurt it's ok to drink and drive. The guy I mentioned in my post was 4 times over the legal limit, so he knew he was drunk and still decided to get into a car and drive. The risk was there, and don't tell me that there's the same risk driving sober because it's an entirely different kettle of fish. When you've been drinking, and this has already been said, your judgement is impaired, your reactions are slowed and your co-ordination is shot. Driving when you've been drinking is tantimount to firing a machine gun in a shopping centre. Whether someone gets hurt or not it's dangerous, morally and legally wrong and anyone who does deserves to serve time.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toht please read my post crica page 3 and give me your rationale. I really want to know how you can twist logic enough to justify saying that if no one gets hurt it's ok to drink and drive. The guy I mentioned in my post was 4 times over the legal limit, so he knew he was drunk and still decided to get into a car and drive. The risk was there, and don't tell me that there's the same risk driving sober because it's an entirely different kettle of fish. When you've been drinking, and this has already been said, your judgement is impaired, your reactions are slowed and your co-ordination is shot. Driving when you've been drinking is tantimount to firing a machine gun in a shopping centre. Whether someone gets hurt or not it's dangerous, morally and legally wrong and anyone who does deserves to serve time.

Since you asked so nicely.

I never said that case would be ok, someone did get hurt and if i never would say "go out, have some drinks and drive". My point originally, and always through this thread, has been towards post-judging(as per topic).

As for you Toht. Try using that reasoning on me. When I was 11 my best friend died in my arms after being hit by a drunk driver who mounted the pavement. If he hadn't been drinking and driving she would still be alive. So don't give me that sort of crap. Drinking and driving is irresponsible in the extreme, dangerous, selfish and should carry a lifetime ban from driving, whether you hurt someone or not.

It IS irresponsible, dangerous and so forth.

I can (however)understand how someone would drink&drive IF they knew they f*cked up, that means they weren't of sound mind when they did it. So if someone said "I f*cked up and drove drunk, i can't believe how i could do that", i would understand it, it's not them, it's not how they would act without alcohol.

I would even sugges to them that maybe they should stop drinking or make sure their car keys are on a sober friend every time they take even one drink.

I hope you get what i mean, it's not about telling "you can drink and drive", it's about "You drank and drove, but no one got hurt, so i'm not judging."

 

[mooSe_]

Maybe I'm just confused but isn't toht simply arguing that if you don't cause any harm, then no harm has been caused? Which is necessarily true.
No one seems to be suggesting that it is responsible or without risk to drink and drive, so why the hell is there an argument?

 

[Calaen]

I doubt anyone knows what he is aruing about any more, I see swings and roundabouts, and a few u turns

 

[old.Tohtori]

I doubt anyone knows what he is aruing about any more, I see swings and roundabouts, and a few u turns

I'm not actually arguing anything, i'm replying to people over-reacting to a statement

Defending isn't arguing really.

Moose got my post completely, i don't even know why people bring killer drivers, responsibility and other such elements into it when i'm not against those points.

 

[Jeros]

honestly, i just don't give a f*ck unless you do something.

If you judge me by that, fine.

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

It's me, deal with it, i'm still the guy who can pick up a dead 4 year old with no problems where rest of you couldn't. This world needs people like me!
You know it's true.

ha ha

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

I think a lot of people miss that Toh's discussion points actually follow a certain type of logic, even when he's enjoying provoking a reaction. The subject on this thread is hugely emotive but if you look at his logic dispassionately, there's a certain Shrodinger's Cat (yeh, I know its spelled wrong) type causality at work in the argument.

The heated reaction seems to partly come from having certain beliefs challenged which seems to have caused much discomfort.

Why is something bad? We believe its bad. Why do we believe its bad? We were taught it was bad? Ok, so is it actually bad, or are we mistaken in the belief of it being bad?

This is uncomfortable stuff unless you have a very balanced mind capable of considering questions which challenge our beliefs.

Most of our beliefs are second-hand beliefs i.e. they were taught to us by others, either family, culture, friends, etc. Having such things challenged is a rocket trip out of the comfort zone.

So the question of someone being pissed as a fart and still driving but nobody gets hurt screams bad bad bad. Yet if we take a moment to examine it, we can coolly arrive at valid reasons for it, without getting heated about it.

Now, I'm confident Teh Seel sits on his icefloat and chuckles a lot at the reaction. It is after all in someways a classier type of trolling. But nonetheless, it poses an interesting question because in analyzing why his argument is so badly wrong, we're forced to examine why an opposing argument is deemed correct.

As seen above, some of the reactions are just to do the textual equivilent of shouting it down and yet I found it interesting to follow the logic through, treating it as an excercise in working out why its wrong.

 

[ST^]

I think a lot of people miss that Toh's discussion points actually follow a certain type of logic, even when he's enjoying provoking a reaction. The subject on this thread is hugely emotive but if you look at his logic dispassionately, there's a certain Shrodinger's Cat (yeh, I know its spelled wrong) type causality at work in the argument.

The heated reaction seems to partly come from having certain beliefs challenged which seems to have caused much discomfort.

Why is something bad? We believe its bad. Why do we believe its bad? We were taught it was bad? Ok, so is it actually bad, or are we mistaken in the belief of it being bad?

This is uncomfortable stuff unless you have a very balanced mind capable of considering questions which challenge our beliefs.

Most of our beliefs are second-hand beliefs i.e. they were taught to us by others, either family, culture, friends, etc. Having such things challenged is a rocket trip out of the comfort zone.

So the question of someone being pissed as a fart and still driving but nobody gets hurt screams bad bad bad. Yet if we take a moment to examine it, we can coolly arrive at valid reasons for it, without getting heated about it.

Now, I'm confident Teh Seel sits on his icefloat and chuckles a lot at the reaction. It is after all in someways a classier type of trolling. But nonetheless, it poses an interesting question because in analyzing why his argument is so badly wrong, we're forced to examine why an opposing argument is deemed correct.

As seen above, some of the reactions are just to do the textual equivilent of shouting it down and yet I found it interesting to follow the logic through, treating it as an excercise in working out why its wrong.

Complete and utter bollocks.

 

[cHodAX]

Actually I completely agree with what Roo said. Thot often raises interesting points and sparks debate but far too many people on here prefer to follow the trend of shouting him down rather than thinking about what he has said. Kneejerk reactions aplenty on these forums, I am occasionally guilty of it myself.

 

[Corran]

Actually I completely agree with what Roo said. Thot often raises interesting points and sparks debate but far too many people on here prefer to follow the trend of shouting him down rather than thinking about what he has said. Kneejerk reactions aplenty on these forums, I am occasionally guilty of it myself.

i just like throwing stupid examples at things from time to time just for the sake if it.

Toht probably says things in a way that cause outrage even though he has a point simply for the fun of it. He could put the point across clearer in the first place to prevent an arguement but he feeds on the situation so he doesnt do that

 

[Aoami]

waffle

i don't believe any of what you said is true for people with an IQ over about 12, which i'm sure most people on this forum have

 

[old.Tohtori]

I am not admitting to saying my point slightly unclearly so i can observe how 'sane and normal people' react, without thinking, to anything that is not considered "status quo". I'm not. Ok maybe a bit

I just think of things in a very, well, best term could be logical(cold) way. I don't deal with what ifs, too much morality(especially where it's only a set morality), or with things that don't make sense to me to worry about. I neither have a problem with empathy, don't think how cute and innocent(or fragile) kids are etc etc. You get the point. Observation, non-sided commentary.

I neither preach though, i don't try to tell people how to live, i don't judge how people think and unless you harm someone else(who isn't able to stop that harm), you can do whatever you wish. Free world.

If you think about my first post, really think, you'll get to a completely different conclusion then just "you say drink driving ok!". Now if you only think of my post with feeligns, it gets replies like we have here.

Also, just as a pointer; see which discussions on the forums have the most 'realisations', discussion and overall activity

 

[Aoami]

You say you think logically, but the impression i get is that the rest of the forum believe your point to be completely illogical, hence the arguments etc.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You say you think logically, but the impression i get is that the rest of the forum beleive your point to be completely illogical, hence the arguments etc.

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.

 

[Aoami]

If you take out of the equation "the reason why drink driving is bad" then it renders your point completely invalid because, well, you're not actually making a point, you're suggesting that a drunk person is actually sober.

edit - i understand what you're getting at. you're suggesting that we're ingrained to believe drink driving is bad because of what we hear about it. But it is fact that drinking impairs your reaction times, and makes you more prone to doing stupid things, so it's not possible to remove it from the equation. If you remove it, then, as i said before, you're not actually making a point and just saying "if no one got hurt, then it's ok", which is not relevant in this thread.

 

[Cerb]

ok but if your only input was a fact in saying that "if no one is harmed, then no harm has been done to anybody" which is like saying Blue is blue....i have to question why you posted it at all?

 

[old.Tohtori]

If you take out of the equation "the reason why drink driving is bad" then it renders your point completely invalid because, well, you're not actually making a point, you're suggesting that a drunk person is actually sober.

edit - i understand what you're getting at. you're suggesting that we're ingrained to believe drink driving is bad because of what we hear about it. But it is fact that drinking impairs your reaction times, and makes you more prone to doing stupid things, so it's not possible to remove it from the equation. If you remove it, then, as i said before, you're not actually making a point and just saying "if no one got hurt, then it's ok", which is not relevant in this thread.

I'm not arguing the bad sides of drink driving, all i discussed is the aftermath.

If and when things have been done, nothing is harmed, no reason to blow a fuse.

You have to take out the equation of "why drink driving is bad", because that alone makes people go "Nooooo!" when you say you drove home drunk.

ok but if your only input was a fact in saying that "if no one is harmed, then no harm has been done to anybody" which is like saying Blue is blue....i have to question why you posted it at all?

It's my method of judging(or there lack of), which is the topic of the thread.

"What would you do" was the nature of the original post, or rather "Forgive and forget?" question. I answered how i would deal with it and that includes; "If no harm, i don't judge it." It also implies that "if harm, then judge", and also "drink driving shouldn't be done".

Just to show what i mean, two quotes, original post and my answer;

How exactly do you react to this sort of thing? I guess I'm just interested to know what people think

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

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

 

[Aoami]

You have to take out the equation of "why drink driving is bad", because that alone makes people go "Nooooo!" when you say you drove home drunk.

I'm struggling to grasp this point. It's like saying the Nazi Party were alright if you take 'genocide' out of the equation.

'Love, i joined the Nazi Party today!'
'YOU FUCKING WHAT'
'LOL, it's alright, i didn't murder any Jews, maybe next time though!'
'Oh haha, fair enough, come lick my minge'

 

[Cerb]

Fair enough your intitiled to your own opinion and all that but it definatly seems to me like it was a very leading way of saying what you wanted to get across...

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm struggling to grasp this point. It's like saying the Nazi Party were alright if you take 'genocide' out of the equation.

'Love, i joined the Nazi Party today!'
'YOU FUCKING WHAT'
'LOL, it's alright, i didn't murder any Jews, maybe next time though!'
'Oh haha, fair enough, come lick my minge'

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

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

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

Your example isn't accurate also, because that wuld equate to someone who is panning on drinkdriving again. I never did approve of that. I actually said that there needs to be remorse of the action for it to be ok.

So, to put it short and simple;

When action A is completed, if no harm is done, i don't judge it.

Fair enough your intitiled to your own opinion and all that but it definatly seems to me like it was a very leading way of saying what you wanted to get across...

Only takes a lot of explaining if people get hot-headed about it without actually reading and thinking

People assumed what i meant, then continued down that path and judged me on it instantly. If there was some defining, civilized, discussion, it would've become clearer, sooner.

 

[nath]

People assumed what i meant, then continued down that path and judged me on it instantly. If there was some defining, civilized, discussion, it would've become clearer, sooner.

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.

Time and time and time again, Toht. If it was once or twice perhaps we could put it down to misunderstandings. Logic and the balance of probabilities would state that your the one at fault. You're not the one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind, 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.

 

[Azurus]

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

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

Please read a History textbook.

 

[kirennia]

I'm not arguing the bad sides of drink driving, all i discussed is the aftermath.

If and when things have been done, nothing is harmed, no reason to blow a fuse.

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.


Outside the law however, driving is plain dangerous; a considerable number of people die on the roads in every country, no matter how stringent the laws on passing a test. The best drivers in the world can still crash due to singular moments of negligance. By getting behind the wheel of a car, it isn't just you who is at risk, it's everyone on the streets.

Drinking will effect to some degree a persons concentration and basic morals in everything they do; the levels of which are of course dependant on the individual but they are still there by the very nature of the drug. To elevate the risk of something such as driving a car while under the influence is to put everyone around you at further risk and harm is done purely by the act, no matter the consequences. When drinking and driving, you become a part of a demographic which has a higher level of probability to kill someone on the road. That is the harm which is done... acting irresponsibly while in possession of a dangerous weapon around others.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

i don't believe any of what you said is true for people with an IQ over about 12, which i'm sure most people on this forum have

With the exception of my direct comments on Toh's posts, you'll find the source of most of what I wrote is in books on philosophy by the likes of Deepak Chopra, Carl Yung and others, if you feel like reading them.