What is the anti-MADD quick-and-dirty smackdown?
As some of you know, I'm reading stuff that brings me into contact with MADD members. I get stuck when they say "Rights? My son is dead! Where are HIS rights?!?"
Well, unfortunately, he doesn't have any because he's dead. While true, that's a little bit in-your-face for me, and observers, if any, tend to think I "don't care". The fact is that I care about different things in a different way than they do.
But what can be said to that? Somehow, "taking away other boys' rights will do nothing for your son" leaves you open to the roadside sobriety checks and everything that can go with them aren't taking away anybody's rights!!!
Well, um, yes they are.
No they're not.
You see where I'm going here.
I'd like something snappy that will stop them in their stilettos.
All assistance appreciated.
Well, unfortunately, he doesn't have any because he's dead. While true, that's a little bit in-your-face for me, and observers, if any, tend to think I "don't care". The fact is that I care about different things in a different way than they do.
But what can be said to that? Somehow, "taking away other boys' rights will do nothing for your son" leaves you open to the roadside sobriety checks and everything that can go with them aren't taking away anybody's rights!!!
Well, um, yes they are.
No they're not.
You see where I'm going here.
I'd like something snappy that will stop them in their stilettos.
All assistance appreciated.
:)
http://www.plusaf.com/falklaws.htm#47th
.............................
"When one of the participants in an argument or discussion plays the "moral" card, it's because they don't have any facts, reason or logic to bring to their side of the argument."
The neat thing is to be aware of how the "discussion" changes when one side suddenly and unexpectedly labels the topic "really a moral question." It means they know they just lost the argument, but in reality, if the other side rises to the bait, they just lost. Morality trumps logic, facts and reason all the time in a "discussion" or "debate."
............
And that's exactly what you're describing about MADD and their "argument."
I used to donate to them, but cut them off for exactly that reason... I don't support unthinking illogic.
One decision-making process weighs the enjoyment from alcohols' effects above the potential safety or reasoning concerns. The other weighs the reasoning and safety aspects as being more important than a temporary pleasure. Of the two courses of action, only one guarantees a total avoidance of potential pitfalls. With the other, there will always be a possibility of undesirable consequences.
Exaggeration and underestimation are both judgement calls and are ultimately evaluations of risk. For personal reasons, my risk tolerance in this regard is 0, therefore I choose to abstain. Your risk tolerance is obviously much higher than 0, so you partake. Nothing complicated or mystical about it.
For what reason? There is a demonstrated causal relationship between alcohol consumption and impairment - especially when driving a motor vehicle. Further there is hard evidence of the number of automobile accidents and deaths caused by alcohol-impaired drivers - to say nothing of domestic abuse. To ignore this evidence is irrational. is it the only cause? No. But to say that because there are others this one shouldn't be addressed is ridiculous.
"and I gave you a number of good reasons for doing so."
To all decisions there is a cost and a benefit. The value derived from a decision will contain two portions: an objective portion and a subjective portion. The objective portion will be based on our knowledge and reason, while the subjective portion is based on our own personal beliefs with regard to a matter. How we weigh the combination of these two will ultimately vary from person to person just as our personal moralities vary.
For me, I refuse to surrender one minute of my cognitive abilities to the cloud of alcohol or illicit drugs. It probably also factors in largely that based on my BMI, a single glass of wine would see me passed out under the table (I'm a stick). I don't want to be responsible for doing something while under the influence I would regret later. A temporary loss of reason is not worth any potential health benefits - especially ones I can get other ways. You are welcome to choose otherwise.
And you asked why anyone would ever want to drink alcohol and I gave you a number of good reasons for doing so.
It is nevertheless a side-effect - regardless of one's intention. And due to the demands on cognitive processing in driving, to suggest that someone can effectively operate a motor vehicle when impaired by alcohol is disproven in study after study. I would also point out that alcohol is also the #1 factor in domestic abuse, so clearly there are additional negative side-effects (of a temporary nature) other than just when driving.
In regards to the links you posted, I would only note the time factor was nowhere present. The cognition studies weren't conducted immediately after imbibing. The studies you linked to, while interesting, only speak to potential long-term effects while ignoring the short-term ones. I don't feel it prudent to ignore either in the grand scheme of things, but in the case of impaired driving we are specifically focusing on the short-term effects, so any arguments regarding the long-term effects of alcohol are going to be of minute importance in comparison.
1. I commend you for recognizing your limits and waiting an appropriate time before driving to ensure your mind is clear before operating an automobile. If only everyone had the capacity to do such and self-police, I suspect that the law would be superfluous. The law exists because not everyone has the self-control you do. And the more alcohol one imbibes, the more impaired one's judgement becomes and the less capable they are to self-police. That is the concern.
The sedative qualities of tryptophan (the chemical in cooked turkey that produces drowsiness) is well known and I think it is a valid observation - only the comparison remains in question. I don't have any data to either support or disprove your theory, but if you wanted to assert such, you would have to prove that the effects of tryptophan are equivalent to alcohol and thus can be considered an equivalent threat. Whether or not such is the case, I have no idea. If they were, I would wholly support at the very least a public awareness campaign to enlighten people about its effects. I believe that falling asleep at the wheel is currently a misdemeanor under "inattentive driving", so I believe that the law already covers those cases, but further action might certainly be warranted provided a causal link was found.
2. I apologize if I was unclear. What I took from your statement was that you were arguing for the repeal of drunk-driving laws. I believe we both agree as to the roadblocks and their misuse. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. If you do support the repeal of such, I will disagree and point out that the whole reason laws get passed is to create disincentives for abrogation. I would find it difficult to accept the contention that such a disincentive did not even once enter into the mind of a would-be perpetrator and cause them to re-evaluate their decision. If so, the only support for such an argument would be that the person wasn't rational in the first place - which non-coincidentally is a common side-effect of alcohol consumption.
For a well reasoned argument you happen to disagree with?
Shame on whomever. Seriously. No joke.
How many drunks and innocents would still be alive if taxi's were cheap and plentiful!
I don't do it often, so I can't speak to any trade-offs [like falling over asleep 10 hours later], but it does work for me and a number of other people.
This is, BYW, one of the great annoyances of life.
Load more comments...