I guess it depends where you live. Where I grew up there was lots of drunk driving, as pubs were few and far between as were houses, so people inevitably would need to drink somewhere outside of their house on a regular basis. If they were lucky, someone else would drive them back. If not, well, they put themselves and others at risk. Anyway, drink driving was a big problem in the country so I support the crackdown there. Perhaps not so much in central London
sword are funny for the same reason that wearing a fedora without looking like a huge nerd is almost impossible.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
But like I've said before I do think our views on consent change based on what the drunk person is doing. It's a very odd thing in society. A drunk person cannot legally agree to fuck but they are 100% responsible if they drive. I'm not saying laws should be change but it is societal hypocrisy.
I guess it depends where you live. Where I grew up there was lots of drunk driving, as pubs were few and far between as were houses, so people inevitably would need to drink somewhere outside of their house on a regular basis. If they were lucky, someone else would drive them back. If not, well, they put themselves and others at risk. Anyway, drink driving was a big problem in the country so I support the crackdown there. Perhaps not so much in central London
I think the general emptiness made drunk driving less of a problem in general though. If you're likely to only see a few other cards and not have to deal with pedestrians, roundabouts and sudden situation changes then you can afford to relax things a little.
Clearly, we just need Google to unveil it's robot cars and then give them to us free in exchange for us handing them our passports so they can sell the details on.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
But like I've said before I do think our views on consent change based on what the drunk person is doing. It's a very odd thing in society. A drunk person cannot legally agree to fuck but they are 100% responsible if they drive. I'm not saying laws should be change but it is societal hypocrisy.
i thought that the host of the function or establishment serving liquor was at least partially liable for drunk driving accidents?
also, i think the key difference is that, in one case, you are the victim, and in another case, you are the perpetrator. drunkenness never absolves the perpetrator of any act, legally, I believe - if you slug some guy because you're drunk, you still get charged with assault, right?
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
0
Options
Mojo_JojoWe are only now beginning to understand the full power and ramifications of sexual intercourseRegistered Userregular
I am concerned that Google's robot cars are evil or powered by blood or something given how they seem to be doing it on the sly.
Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
But like I've said before I do think our views on consent change based on what the drunk person is doing. It's a very odd thing in society. A drunk person cannot legally agree to fuck but they are 100% responsible if they drive. I'm not saying laws should be change but it is societal hypocrisy.
i thought that the host of the function or establishment serving liquor was at least partially liable for drunk driving accidents?
also, i think the key difference is that, in one case, you are the victim, and in another case, you are the perpetrator. drunkenness never absolves the perpetrator of any act, legally, I believe - if you slug some guy because you're drunk, you still get charged with assault, right?
Yes I agree but consent is a decision, a value judgement. I find it odd that we apply it differently when at the end of the day, they're both decisions made while on a substance that affects decision making.
But like I've said before I do think our views on consent change based on what the drunk person is doing. It's a very odd thing in society. A drunk person cannot legally agree to fuck but they are 100% responsible if they drive. I'm not saying laws should be change but it is societal hypocrisy.
i thought that the host of the function or establishment serving liquor was at least partially liable for drunk driving accidents?
also, i think the key difference is that, in one case, you are the victim, and in another case, you are the perpetrator. drunkenness never absolves the perpetrator of any act, legally, I believe - if you slug some guy because you're drunk, you still get charged with assault, right?
By arbitrary I mean that BAC doesn't represent a 1:1 view of behavior. Someone who is 0.08 or whatever the legal limit is, is not necessarily impaired in the least, whereas there are people at 0.07 who are shitfaced.
But like I've said before I do think our views on consent change based on what the drunk person is doing. It's a very odd thing in society. A drunk person cannot legally agree to fuck but they are 100% responsible if they drive. I'm not saying laws should be change but it is societal hypocrisy.
i thought that the host of the function or establishment serving liquor was at least partially liable for drunk driving accidents?
also, i think the key difference is that, in one case, you are the victim, and in another case, you are the perpetrator. drunkenness never absolves the perpetrator of any act, legally, I believe - if you slug some guy because you're drunk, you still get charged with assault, right?
"It was the alcohol punching."
"But I had three Rum Punches!"
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
By arbitrary I mean that BAC doesn't represent a 1:1 view of behavior. Someone who is 0.08 or whatever the legal limit is, is not necessarily impaired in the least, whereas there are people at 0.07 who are shitfaced.
law has to be arbitrary in some cases
absolutely, as far as first contact resolution is concerned, but it's once you're at trial that I think other metrics could be applied.
By arbitrary I mean that BAC doesn't represent a 1:1 view of behavior. Someone who is 0.08 or whatever the legal limit is, is not necessarily impaired in the least, whereas there are people at 0.07 who are shitfaced.
law has to be arbitrary in some cases
absolutely, as far as first contact resolution is concerned, but it's once you're at trial that I think other metrics could be applied.
Like "here, how many pints did you drink that night?"
"Three, your honor."
"Here." The judge pours the defendant three pints of Budweiser. "Drink up."
The defendant does.
"No, the bailiff will lead you outside to the Drunkmobile. If you can drive in a circle around my bailiff without killing him, the charges will be dropped."
"Yesth yer honors. By the way if I thold you you had a beautiful body would you hit me with yer gavel?"
But like I've said before I do think our views on consent change based on what the drunk person is doing. It's a very odd thing in society. A drunk person cannot legally agree to fuck but they are 100% responsible if they drive. I'm not saying laws should be change but it is societal hypocrisy.
i thought that the host of the function or establishment serving liquor was at least partially liable for drunk driving accidents?
also, i think the key difference is that, in one case, you are the victim, and in another case, you are the perpetrator. drunkenness never absolves the perpetrator of any act, legally, I believe - if you slug some guy because you're drunk, you still get charged with assault, right?
Yes I agree but consent is a decision, a value judgement. I find it odd that we apply it differently when at the end of the day, they're both decisions made while on a substance that affects decision making.
the logic here seems to be rather practical - being drunk affects decision making, so while being drunk you can't be considered to have given consent, but more to the point, the legal structure makes it a poor idea to have sex with a drunk person if there is ANY ambiguity about consent (which it is) and promotes proper behaviour. given the ambiguity of consent, the default when your faculties are compromised is that you cannot give it, because that is what keeps people safe and prevents abuse.
it's different when the decision you make is unambiguous; clearly, you decided to drive the vehicle. was your decision to drive while impaired facilitated by the very fact that you are impaired? probably. but the decision was made. i think it's fairly evident that a person who is drunk is still able to make the right decision about drunk driving; if they make the wrong one, then there's already something wrong with their attitude towards drinking and driving, regardless of their sobriety. the effect of punishing that indiscretion is to deter them in the future and change that attitude (whether through correction or through fear of consequence), and similarly deter others.
By arbitrary I mean that BAC doesn't represent a 1:1 view of behavior. Someone who is 0.08 or whatever the legal limit is, is not necessarily impaired in the least, whereas there are people at 0.07 who are shitfaced.
law has to be arbitrary in some cases
absolutely, as far as first contact resolution is concerned, but it's once you're at trial that I think other metrics could be applied.
Alternative answer: Personally, I'd rather let Data sort that out.
But like I've said before I do think our views on consent change based on what the drunk person is doing. It's a very odd thing in society. A drunk person cannot legally agree to fuck but they are 100% responsible if they drive. I'm not saying laws should be change but it is societal hypocrisy.
i thought that the host of the function or establishment serving liquor was at least partially liable for drunk driving accidents?
also, i think the key difference is that, in one case, you are the victim, and in another case, you are the perpetrator. drunkenness never absolves the perpetrator of any act, legally, I believe - if you slug some guy because you're drunk, you still get charged with assault, right?
Yes I agree but consent is a decision, a value judgement. I find it odd that we apply it differently when at the end of the day, they're both decisions made while on a substance that affects decision making.
the logic here seems to be rather practical - being drunk affects decision making, so while being drunk you can't be considered to have given consent, but more to the point, the legal structure makes it a poor idea to have sex with a drunk person if there is ANY ambiguity about consent (which it is) and promotes proper behaviour. given the ambiguity of consent, the default when your faculties are compromised is that you cannot give it, because that is what keeps people safe and prevents abuse.
it's different when the decision you make is unambiguous; clearly, you decided to drive the vehicle. was your decision to drive while impaired facilitated by the very fact that you are impaired? probably. but the decision was made. i think it's fairly evident that a person who is drunk is still able to make the right decision about drunk driving; if they make the wrong one, then there's already something wrong with their attitude towards drinking and driving, regardless of their sobriety. the effect of punishing that indiscretion is to deter them in the future and change that attitude (whether through correction or through fear of consequence), and similarly deter others.
i think they're both pretty pragmatic.
I definitely see your point and agree with it to a point. It's just so often with regards to sexual consent, both parties are drunk, and that's where I have the problem.
So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.
0
Options
LudiousI just wanted a sandwich A temporally dislocated QuiznosRegistered Userregular
Posts
it's very possible. i'm sure the statistics are especially massaged when people are looking to absolve themselves of fault.
Fucking no. The only reason BAC is not meant to be 0 in law is because using mouth wash can make you fail a breathalyser test.
yet another reason why chut hates me :l
you've got it all wrong
i love you
Clearly, we just need Google to unveil it's robot cars and then give them to us free in exchange for us handing them our passports so they can sell the details on.
i thought that the host of the function or establishment serving liquor was at least partially liable for drunk driving accidents?
also, i think the key difference is that, in one case, you are the victim, and in another case, you are the perpetrator. drunkenness never absolves the perpetrator of any act, legally, I believe - if you slug some guy because you're drunk, you still get charged with assault, right?
Oh Skippy... you so crazy.
i mean ive made some improvements on their technique
one of my favorite things to do in a videogame is watch/listen to the animation of drawing and sheathing a sword again and again
animation is cool to me :l
Yes I agree but consent is a decision, a value judgement. I find it odd that we apply it differently when at the end of the day, they're both decisions made while on a substance that affects decision making.
"It was the alcohol punching."
law has to be arbitrary in some cases
"But I had three Rum Punches!"
absolutely, as far as first contact resolution is concerned, but it's once you're at trial that I think other metrics could be applied.
he once told me that he was "smarter than every cop"
Well I mean he probably is to be fair.
thanatos?
your school needs a couple of bullies
Like "here, how many pints did you drink that night?"
"Three, your honor."
"Here." The judge pours the defendant three pints of Budweiser. "Drink up."
The defendant does.
"No, the bailiff will lead you outside to the Drunkmobile. If you can drive in a circle around my bailiff without killing him, the charges will be dropped."
"Yesth yer honors. By the way if I thold you you had a beautiful body would you hit me with yer gavel?"
"Yes."
the logic here seems to be rather practical - being drunk affects decision making, so while being drunk you can't be considered to have given consent, but more to the point, the legal structure makes it a poor idea to have sex with a drunk person if there is ANY ambiguity about consent (which it is) and promotes proper behaviour. given the ambiguity of consent, the default when your faculties are compromised is that you cannot give it, because that is what keeps people safe and prevents abuse.
it's different when the decision you make is unambiguous; clearly, you decided to drive the vehicle. was your decision to drive while impaired facilitated by the very fact that you are impaired? probably. but the decision was made. i think it's fairly evident that a person who is drunk is still able to make the right decision about drunk driving; if they make the wrong one, then there's already something wrong with their attitude towards drinking and driving, regardless of their sobriety. the effect of punishing that indiscretion is to deter them in the future and change that attitude (whether through correction or through fear of consequence), and similarly deter others.
i think they're both pretty pragmatic.
Alternative answer: Personally, I'd rather let Data sort that out.
I definitely see your point and agree with it to a point. It's just so often with regards to sexual consent, both parties are drunk, and that's where I have the problem.
Just in case you non-Secret Santa peoples aren't keeping up with the thread, this is the gift that Element Brian got for me.
unfortunately, yes
WHAT
Nice. I still owe pictures. And I need to get my gift out the door. I'm sick today.