Sarah Silverman PWNS Paris Hilton

[doctorjazz]

A DUI doesn't hurt anybody but the driver?

No, it doesn't. Think what the crime is: Driving while intoxicated. Not "Driving while intoxicated into a busload of handicapped children and puppies" or whatever MADD is saying that all drunks do these days. No mention of hurting anyone, that would be called vehicular assault or manslaughter. Just driving. That hurts no one, the only difference is that you're in a particular mental state that makes you more dangerous behind the wheel, kinda like being female (kidding). You seem to be under the assumption that everytime someone gets behind the wheel, they kill a cute happy family of five. Patently untrue. Most drunk drivers have done it many, many times before they get in an accident.

I'm not, of course, advocating drunk driving. It's one of the stupidest, most immature things you can possibly do. I don't do it and I don't let any of my friends do it. It greatly increases your chances of getting in an accident, just like (statistically speaking) being black increases your chances of being poor, getting into the NBA, and having sickle-cell anemia. But just like we shouldn't hand out money, vaccinations, and basketballs to every black person we see, we shouldn't hand out convictions to every drunk on the road.

Since I've had problems with this before, sidenote on the above: Don't try and construe something racist out of that. I'm just using true statistics to create a humorous example of my point. My tongue is so far in my cheek I can taste my own facial hair.

Once you do hurt someone, then you've done actual tangible harm, and for that you should damn well be prosecuted. I have already said that the penalties should be much stiffer for vehicular manslaughter committed while under the influence.

Drunk driving IS wrong, but just like other things that we may or not believe are wrong, such as drug use, prostitution, etc., we should not enforce our morality by legislative fiat.

 

[dinghy]

DUI is prevention. Once you kill someone, it's too late. Then you regret drinking in the first place. But, it's too late. You can mourn for him, and for your stupidity, and wish he were still alive, but it's too late. You can spend time in jail, wishing you were out, but it's too late.

 

[Son of Sanford]

A healthy understanding of statistics would help this out. A lot.

 

[Spector_Ray]

A healthy understanding of statistics would help this out. A lot.

This should be common sense, but to an 18 year old who thinks he/she knows everything, maybe.

 

[Poop-Loops]

No, it doesn't. Think what the crime is: Driving while intoxicated. Not "Driving while intoxicated into a busload of handicapped children and puppies" or whatever MADD is saying that all drunks do these days. No mention of hurting anyone, that would be called vehicular assault or manslaughter. Just driving. That hurts no one, the only difference is that you're in a particular mental state that makes you more dangerous behind the wheel, kinda like being female (kidding). You seem to be under the assumption that everytime someone gets behind the wheel, they kill a cute happy family of five. Patently untrue. Most drunk drivers have done it many, many times before they get in an accident.

You know, you're right.

I think I'm going to shoot you and as my defense, say "A bullet cannot kill someone. A person can die from organ failure or blood loss, but not a bullet. Therefore, I didn't do anything wrong."

How does that sound? I'll be over at 11pm.

 

[ric1312]

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.

DUI shouldn't be a crime,!!!? what planet are you from. You know how many accident are caused by jackasses that get plowed and get behind the wheel!

 

[StanFan]

That's awesome stuff. Paris looked like she was trying to laugh along briefly, but you could easily tell it got to her.

 

[ric1312]

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.

What you said is a bunch of crap. Drunk driving laws makes a whole lot of people think twice and not even do it in the first place.

 

[Ray Holt]

You guys are seriously responding to him?

Yeah... you're right.

 

[kserg]

It's true, if he can't see the difference between a kid smoking a joint at home and drunk driving then there really is no point in discussing it with him.

Date of Birth:
September 26th, 1988


Hehehehe Hire a teenager while they still know everything...

 

[Vince S.]

No, it doesn't. Think what the crime is: Driving while intoxicated. Not "Driving while intoxicated into a busload of handicapped children and puppies" or whatever MADD is saying that all drunks do these days. No mention of hurting anyone, that would be called vehicular assault or manslaughter. Just driving. That hurts no one, the only difference is that you're in a particular mental state that makes you more dangerous behind the wheel, kinda like being female (kidding). You seem to be under the assumption that everytime someone gets behind the wheel, they kill a cute happy family of five. Patently untrue. Most drunk drivers have done it many, many times before they get in an accident.

I'm not, of course, advocating drunk driving. It's one of the stupidest, most immature things you can possibly do. I don't do it and I don't let any of my friends do it. It greatly increases your chances of getting in an accident, just like (statistically speaking) being black increases your chances of being poor, getting into the NBA, and having sickle-cell anemia. But just like we shouldn't hand out money, vaccinations, and basketballs to every black person we see, we shouldn't hand out convictions to every drunk on the road.

Since I've had problems with this before, sidenote on the above: Don't try and construe something racist out of that. I'm just using true statistics to create a humorous example of my point. My tongue is so far in my cheek I can taste my own facial hair.

Once you do hurt someone, then you've done actual tangible harm, and for that you should damn well be prosecuted. I have already said that the penalties should be much stiffer for vehicular manslaughter committed while under the influence.

Drunk driving IS wrong, but just like other things that we may or not believe are wrong, such as drug use, prostitution, etc., we should not enforce our morality by legislative fiat.

Did you just make a comparison between a drunk driver and a Black person?

Also, sickle cell anemia is a genetic disorder, what would a vaccine do? Off track, but just pointing that out.

 

[doctorjazz]

Did you just make a comparison between a drunk driver and a Black person?

Only to show that a strong statistical correlation doesn't necessarily mean we should judge an entire group.

 

[Mon Rominee]

I'd almost commend you on your argument if the foundation of it wasn't so absurd.

Driving isn't a right, first off... it's a priveledge bestowed upon the public with a defined set of parameters and laws. You break from these (by drinking to point of impairment) and you are doing something illegal. End of. You ARE doing something wrong because your freewill is impaired in the process. No one in their right mind intends to vehicularly harm anyone. But you are not in your right mind when drunk. There's the difference.

Therefore you CAN judge an ENTIRE group of drunk drivers as being wrong.

You have the right to drink. You don't have the right to drink and drive.

 

[doctorjazz]

Driving isn't a right, first off... it's a priveledge bestowed upon the public with a defined set of parameters and laws.

I wouldn't exactly use the word "bestowed," considering that we do pay for our roads and the officers who police them. We paid for them, therefore they're our property (it's called "public" property, not "government" property).

You break from these (by drinking to point of impairment) and you are doing something illegal. End of.

Also correct, drunk driving is illegal. My argument is that the law is wrong.

You ARE doing something wrong because your freewill is impaired in the process. No one in their right mind intends to vehicularly harm anyone. But you are not in your right mind when drunk. There's the difference.

Considering that there are some very stupid people in the world, I'd say we can argue that there are some people who aren't in their right mind at any time. Hell, it seems that half the folks in this thread are ready to start fitting me for a straightjacket. Accidental deaths happen, and when a person is at fault, that's why we have laws concerning manslaughter.

Drunk driving is wrong, but being a free country we must recognize that we cannot enforce our morality on every single person. The only reasonable standard to me seems to be that we punish those that actually do harm others, and give them harsher sentences if they did so while in a state that increases their likelihood of harming others.

Odd as it may seem, people have a fundamental right to act stupidly. Making mistakes and learning from them is a basic part of human growth. However, when our mistakes hurt others, there rightly should be consequences, but only when our mistakes hurt others. We should allow people to screw up to let them face the consequences of their actions. To do otherwise is to say that individuals can no longer think for themselves, the state must do all the thinking for us.

Therefore you CAN judge an ENTIRE group of drunk drivers as being wrong.

Collectivism. Lots of people drive drunk. Only a certain percentage of those actually end up killing people. IMO, the only moral course of action is to prosecute those who do commit an actual, tangible offense against someone's life or property severely enough for them to serve as an example to others. Perhaps the rest will learn from their example. If not, then they'll have their turn.

 

[Mon Rominee]

Collectivism. Lots of people drive drunk. Only a certain percentage of those actually end up killing people. IMO, the only moral course of action is to prosecute those who do commit an actual, tangible offense against someone's life or property severely enough for them to serve as an example to others. Perhaps the rest will learn from their example. If not, then they'll have their turn.

Right, but in this line of thinking would you be willing to have a loved one or family member be the recipient of the "tangible offense" from the one drunk driver that made an oopsie? I'm certainly not. As said, I can understand your rationale, I just think it's way off. The "wait until something happens to make an example of someone for others to follow" in these cases rarely work...you must realize that. Of course, we don't have to agree.

Maybe we can get the pre-cogs in on this action

 

[doctorjazz]

Right, but in this line of thinking would you be willing to have a loved one or family member be the recipient of the "tangible offense" from the one drunk driver that made an oopsie?

Just one of the consequences of living in a free society. In most cases, liberty is incompatible with complete safety. This whole argument essentially boils down to a battle between the two. To have liberty, you must be at liberty to screw up. When (not if, when) people screw up, other people often get hurt, for which there should rightly be consequences. Sure, we could enact loads of regulations and put policemen on every corner and cameras watching all of us to make sure no one stepped out of line ever, and for all this, we would probably be a lot safer, but at what price does our safety come?

So, to answer your question, if a member of my family was killed by a drunk driver, I would be extremely angry, and righteously so. However, I hope I would be able to suppress my emotions and desire for revenge enough to ask the feds not to press the DUI charge, only manslaughter, which I feel is the correct penalty for the offense. If I was feeling especially Christian (and Jesus is the only way I'd ever be able to do this), I'd ask that all the charges be dropped.

By the way, for all those hoping to write me off simply due to my age, these aren't just the ramblings of some know-it-all teenager. I'm defending this from the point of view of an actual system of thought. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

You might also check out John Locke's ideas about natural law, which is where I'm deriving the whole "life, liberty, and property" thing.

 

[middy]

I follow you, doctorjazz, but that level of liberty is just as idealistic as a socialist utopia. There are compromises that have to be made in real life.

But it's sometimes good to argue on behalf of liberty, so we don't forget about it while we bind ourselves with well-meaning laws...

 

[Son of Sanford]

Only to show that a strong statistical correlation doesn't necessarily mean we should judge an entire group.

I just can't let this pass. I'll say it again:

A healthy understanding of statistics would help this out. A lot.

A quick example. If I suddenly woke up this morning drunk, my driving ability would be impaired. This is a fact. My being drunk CAUSES my driving ability to be impaired.

If I suddenly woke up African American, I would still not be in the NBA. My being African American DOES NOT CAUSE me to be automatically eligible for the draft. While your "statistics" are correlated, they are not causal and therefor irrelevent to your "point".

 

[Baryonyx]

Old....wasn't this on Ebaum a few days ago? Still good stuff though, Paris Hilton is a cretin. And Silverman is hot stuff for a self professed "jew girl".

 

[Kosko]

How about the fact that people, regardless of state of mind, don't typically get pulled over for nothing. There is normally a reason, whether speeding, swerving, running a light, not having a light on... almost every "i just got a dui for... " story starts with something the driver did wrong. There is a REASON they were pulled over.

Under this pretense, your moral structure may even work. If you really believe that you can drive as well drunk as you can sober, then you probably won't get pulled over; the problem is that you can't, nor can anyone.

Its cause and effect, not nothing and effect.