Re: UK: Drivers may be banned from smoking at the wheel

[Nick FitzGerald <nick () virus-l demon co uk>]

Brian Loe to Drsolly to Brian Loe:

> > > The only way a cop has to know of most drunk drivers is to pull them
> > > over for something else. By then they've committed a crime of some
> > > sort
> >
> > Rubbish. Someone might drive into a tree. That's not a crime.  ...

Well, depending on who owns the tree, it may well be a tort, if not a 
crime...

> > ...  But then
> > if you test them for alcohol and find they're drunk, then they've been
> > recklessly endangering everyone around them.
>
> So you admit that cops are only involved after the fact and therefore
> the law did nothing to prevent the drunk from hitting the tree?

Laws that impinge on right to drive safely on whatever side of the road 
I choose?

Laws that impinge on my right to drive safely at whatever speed I like?

Laws that impinge on my right to exercise rapid swerving movements 
while driving safely to avoid being shot by other lunatic ethical 
absolutists?

How can you possibly say what you did above as if it is kosher to have 
all those other rights-restricting laws yet you only rail against the 
law that impinges your right to drink and drive?

Brian, I'm going to be straight with you here.  This may come as a bit 
of shock, but based on you're earlier contributions to this thread I 
honestly thought you were a hard-core, redneck moron.  From the above 
though, it turns out you're a pussy.

> > > You've often stated that you enjoy visiting the pub, and having good
> > > beer. Do you walk? Does England not have a public intoxication law? Or
> > > public nuisance law?
> >
> > It's very simple. If I drink, then I don't drive. If I'm driving, I don't
> > drink. It's very simple, and very easy to do.
>
> Easier than answering a question even, eh?

He answered your question, fool...

> > Once again, there's such a thing as recklessly endangering other people.
> > Getting tanked up and trying to control a ton of hurtling vehicle is just
> > that.
>
> Agreed, if that's what they're doing - as observed by a copy watching
> the swerve going down the road or what have you.

You mean, as watched by a cop impingeing on my right to drive safely 
however I care...

> > I suppose you'd be cool about someone firing a gun ionto a crowd of
> > people, provided he was lucky enough to not actually hit anyone.
>
> No reasonable sane person would believe that one could fire a gun into
> a crowd and not hurt someone. Plenty of reasonable people have gotten
> behind the wheel of a car and that exactly that - and most don't hurt
> people.

Who said anything about "reasonable" or "sane"?

These are clearly notions of which you know nothing.

And, of course, allowing notions busts your whole absolutist ethics.  
You can't be an absolutist _and_ reasonable -- that's why most of us, 
the "reasonable" ones, find you so repugnant for holding onto such 
outdated, frankly immoral, views of what might be ethical behaviour in 
a modern society...

But then you go all soft and gooey on us start talking about 
reasonableness -- something your position has shown no allowance for in 
tha past and the very basis of the difference between your detractors 
and the few remaining caveman ethicists supporting you.


Regards,

Nick FitzGerald

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.