• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Sarah Silverman PWNS Paris Hilton

#21
doctorjazz said:
Good intentions, bad method of achieving it. At this point, you're punishing people for potential crimes, a very dangerous line of reasoning. You might as well prosecute anyone who fires a gun for manslaughter. After all, that could have ricocheted and hit somebody. Whether it did or didn't is irrelevant, this man must go to jail.

Fact: Drunk driving laws don't stop people from driving drunk; common sense does. Regardless of the laws on the books, stupid people are going to do stupid things, so the best course of action is to get people who haven't actually harmed anybody out of our already overcrowded prisons and cut down on the amount of our tax money that is wasted to prosecute a victimless crime.

Solution: Make the penalty stiffer for vehicular manslaughter committed while intoxicated, and leave innocent people alone.



Apples to oranges comparison. You have no right to trespass on someone's property without permission, therefore that's a crime. Drunk driving happens on public property, therefore by simply driving drunk you are infringing on no one's rights to life or property.
Click to expand...

You're potentially putting people's lives at risk. Shooting a gun won't get you charged with manslaughter, but if you shoot one in public without a valid cause (self-defense), you will be arrested for unlawfully brandishing/discharging a firearm or reckless endangerment. Why? Because you're potentially going to hurt somebody with your recklessness. Same thing with driving drunk.
 
#25
doctorjazz said:
At this point, you're punishing people for potential crimes, a very dangerous line of reasoning. You might as well prosecute anyone who fires a gun for manslaughter. After all, that could have ricocheted and hit somebody. Whether it did or didn't is irrelevant, this man must go to jail.
Click to expand...

Not even close. Driving drunk is against the law. Not potentially against the law. Against the law. You drink, you drive, you go to jail. The reason it is because drunk drivers tend to be repeat offenders. It's just a game of chance. You drink and drive enough and it's not if, but when you will get in an accident. So they need to give them some incentive before the accident occurs.

I am a musician as I'm sure you are. I can tell you that many of the people I play with have been busted for DUI on the way home from gigs. Guess what they do now. Pssst....They don't drink at gigs! Wow, a $5000 fine and loosing your license can be very motivating.

doctorjazz said:
Fact: Drunk driving laws don't stop people from driving drunk; common sense does. Regardless of the laws on the books, stupid people are going to do stupid things, so the best course of action is to get people who haven't actually harmed anybody out of our already overcrowded prisons and cut down on the amount of our tax money that is wasted to prosecute a victimless crime.

Apples to oranges comparison. You have no right to trespass on someone's property without permission, therefore that's a crime. Drunk driving happens on public property, therefore by simply driving drunk you are infringing on no one's rights to life or property.
Click to expand...

Not a very well thought out reasoning in this case. I'm with you in regards to suicide laws and seat belt violations. The only one you are hurting is yourself (unless you consider the additional burden on our insurance company's due to added ER trips) and that is just financial pain. Come on now, your statements are just plain irresponsible. You telling me that if you walk down the street firing a gun around (and manage not to hit any person or property) no crime has been committed. You walk around with a bomb strapped to your chest and that's not a crime? Pull your head out.
 
#29
doctorjazz said:
Good intentions, bad method of achieving it. At this point, you're punishing people for potential crimes, a very dangerous line of reasoning. You might as well prosecute anyone who fires a gun for manslaughter. After all, that could have ricocheted and hit somebody. Whether it did or didn't is irrelevant, this man must go to jail.

Fact: Drunk driving laws don't stop people from driving drunk; common sense does. Regardless of the laws on the books, stupid people are going to do stupid things, so the best course of action is to get people who haven't actually harmed anybody out of our already overcrowded prisons and cut down on the amount of our tax money that is wasted to prosecute a victimless crime.

Solution: Make the penalty stiffer for vehicular manslaughter committed while intoxicated, and leave innocent people alone.

Apples to oranges comparison. You have no right to trespass on someone's property without permission, therefore that's a crime. Drunk driving happens on public property, therefore by simply driving drunk you are infringing on no one's rights to life or property.
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding man. It's hard to think of what to say because your reasoning is just so off base. I don't see how you could honestly think that.

Someone who drives while over the legal limit is not innocent. And they shouldn't be. Even if a drunk crashes and manages not to hurt anyone else they should definitely be punished. Hopefully that punishment will make them think before they do something as dumb as drive while drunk again... because yeah they didn't hurt someone this time, but what about next time? It's endangering the public, and downright irresponsible and immature.

*edit*
Oh yeah, that video is hilarious! I love Jack Nicholson... just crackin up! And Paris' face is just priceless.
 
#30
doctorjazz said:
Toasting in an epic bread.

Great video. I don't believe Paris should go to jail because I don't believe DUI or licensing violations should be crimes, but something in me really wants to see her behind bars.














... suggestively painted bars.
Click to expand...

please explain this. I can't get past the fact that drunks sometimes cause other people to die when they get behind the wheel, which, at least to me means they are taking away another's right to life, or at minimum being grossly negligent with it, which IMO is a very serious crime worthy of much more punishment than they get right now.


anyway, funny video! Jack has the best facial expressions.

EDIT: I read the rest, asked and answered. I retract my above comment and give a huge plus 1 to what poop loops said.
 
#32
Making something illegal does not prevent someone from doing an illegal action. However, by creating a law and hefty fines, it MAY influence the judgment of someone who is contemplating drinking and driving.

People seem to miss the connection with most laws; unless there is a change of behavior, usually the laws do not yield a decrease in said illegal actions.

That's just an abstract fact for you. I am in no way condoning drinking alcohol and driving afterwards. By the way, I don't intend to be a drinker for the most part. I enjoy being in control of myself as well as my health and I plan on keeping it that way.
 
#34
For the record: I define "crime" as anything that directly infringes upon an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. That, I believe, should be the basis of our justice system, as anything outside that is basically legally-enforced moralism.

Thus, I simply don't believe that DUI, prostitution, drug use, possession, etc. are crimes, because they hurt no one other than voluntarily involved parties. Their life, their decision.

If this is too difficult:
 
#35
doctorjazz said:
For the record: I define "crime" as anything that directly infringes upon an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. That, I believe, should be the basis of our justice system, as anything outside that is basically legally-enforced moralism.

Thus, I simply don't believe that DUI, prostitution, drug use, possession, etc. are crimes, because they hurt no one other than voluntarily involved parties. Their life, their decision.

If this is too difficult:
Click to expand...

Possession, prostitution, etc. do not infringe on my right to walk down the road. Some ******* swerving all over the road with a 26'er of Jack Daniels in him, however, somewhat does.
 
#36
doctorjazz said:
For the record: I define "crime" as anything that directly infringes upon an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. That, I believe, should be the basis of our justice system, as anything outside that is basically legally-enforced moralism.

Thus, I simply don't believe that DUI, prostitution, drug use, possession, etc. are crimes, because they hurt no one other than voluntarily involved parties. Their life, their decision.

If this is too difficult:
Click to expand...


Right. A DUI doesn't hurt anybody but the driver? What the hell is wrong with you? Drivers DUI or DWI kill innocent people all the time. THAT'S WHY THE LAWS WERE PASSED!
 
#37
doctorjazz said:
For the record: I define "crime" as anything that directly infringes upon an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. That, I believe, should be the basis of our justice system, as anything outside that is basically legally-enforced moralism.

Thus, I simply don't believe that DUI, prostitution, drug use, possession, etc. are crimes, because they hurt no one other than voluntarily involved parties. Their life, their decision.

If this is too difficult:
Click to expand...


SO do you believe that drunk driving rates as well as drunk driving related deaths/accidents would not go up if DUI was legal?
 
#40
doctorjazz said:
For the record: I define "crime" as anything that directly infringes upon an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property. That, I believe, should be the basis of our justice system, as anything outside that is basically legally-enforced moralism.

Thus, I simply don't believe that DUI, prostitution, drug use, possession, etc. are crimes, because they hurt no one other than voluntarily involved parties. Their life, their decision.

If this is too difficult:
Click to expand...


Greetings. For the record:
reckless endangerment
Function: noun
: the offense of recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person

Now, I find it hard to believe that you can't draw a correlation between "engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of physical injury or death" and "anything that directly infringes upon an individual's rights to life, liberty, and property".

This is like that stupid scene from Good Will Hunting. Please come back after next semester.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back