ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th October 2019, 05:25 PM   #201
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
The result is that for me to make the 5 miles to work by bus takes over an hour. It takes me about 10 minutes to drive or 20 minutes to bike.

The house I lived in up until last year was 19 miles from my office, well outside walking or biking distance. The commute took approximately 25 minutes in the morning, and averaged around 45 minutes on the way home, if there were no collisions or other problems blocking traffic (my shift was early enough for light traffic in the morning, but peak traffic on the way home).

Where I live right now, I'm 22 miles from work, with a 35 minute morning commute, a 60 minute evening commute.

From my former abode, the morning bus took me over 80 minutes to get to work, and the evening bus around 120 minutes. And that's when it was on-time, and actually bothered to show up at the stop as scheduled, which was only about 75-80% of the time. Further, I drive a very fuel-efficient vehicle, with very low maintenance costs. To take the bus to work would have cost me nearly twice as much per month as it did to drive. So twice as long and twice as expensive to take public transportation vs. driving. Something is seriously screwed up with this country.

At my current abode, there is no bus that will get me to work. There is a bus nearby, but it runs too late in the morning, and stops too early in the evening. It is simply impossible for me to commute by bus. That isn't likely to change anytime soon, except for the worse.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 06:44 AM   #202
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
You won’t find such a law or ruling as the specific idea of driving as a right has never been so addressed.
That's because it's not a right.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 06:46 AM   #203
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
A license can only be temporarily revoked pending an administrative hearing that must happen quickly, thus satisfying due process.
Incorrect. You can file an appeal, and only then would you be granted a hearing. The suspension is automatic and immediate. No due process is required for it to take effect.

Quote:
And no, I can’t think of any other right that can be revoked without due process. What are you thinking of?
I'm thinking that driving is not a right, because it's not.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 06:50 AM   #204
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
I would be presumed to be impaired until I blew into the little tube to prove that I was not.
Who is doing the presuming?

Quote:
I am not interested in blowing into a little tube.
Not a problem. You would always have the option of not driving.

Quote:
I suppose that I could disable the device if I wanted to, but I'd bet that the default response of the authorities would be that I was trying to circumvent the law...
You would probably face a similar response if you disabled your seat belts or removed your windshield.

Last edited by johnny karate; 21st October 2019 at 06:57 AM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:20 AM   #205
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Just to be clear: You consider implementing measures to determine if someone is intoxicated before getting behind the wheel of a car to be an invasion of privacy?
How about when someone's just had a single drink? He's not inebriated but the breathalyser sure will see a high alcohol content, no?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:36 AM   #206
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
No system is foolproof, but that's supposed to be difficult. Some gadgets take a picture of the driver.
https://www.dmv.org/automotive-law/d...ock-device.php
Jeez, could they pull my bank account, too?

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
If you always wear your seatbelt, the first option wouldn't affect you.
What would happen if you unbuckle the seatbelt while on the road just to reposition it?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:39 AM   #207
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How about when someone's just had a single drink? He's not inebriated but the breathalyser sure will see a high alcohol content, no?
Then he probably shouldn’t be driving.

Here’s another way to look at it: You and your family would be on the road with him at the same time.

Now how comfortable are you with just a single drink?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:40 AM   #208
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
What would happen if you unbuckle the seatbelt while on the road just to reposition it?
I don’t know.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:46 AM   #209
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Oh, no! You mean you might have to wait 15 minutes or so between using mouthwash and turning on your car? Or maybe swish some water around your mouth after the mouthwash?

Seriously, what does freedom even mean anymore?
Are you joking? What if it's 30? When is it ok to stop people from driving just because some algorithm decided that it detected alcohol, ability to drive be damned?

I agree, freedom doesn't mean much to some.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:48 AM   #210
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Then he probably shouldn’t be driving.

Here’s another way to look at it: You and your family would be on the road with him at the same time.

Now how comfortable are you with just a single drink?
Very. A single glass of wine won't impair the person's ability, but the car might decide that it does. That's unfair to the majority of people who drink responsibly by assuming that everybody is a suspect.

Quote:
I don’t know.
Of course not. It's suggested with good intentions but without thinking of the consequences. If the seatbelt bothers you because it's too tight you have no recourse unless you want your car to, what, stop right on the middle of the highway?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 07:53 AM   #211
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Very. A single glass of wine won't impair the person's ability, but the car might decide that it does.
I'm confused by your hypothetical. If the device that scientifically measures the amount of alcohol in your blood indicates it is too high, by what metric is it being determined that the person in question is actually fine to drive?

Quote:
That's unfair to the majority of people who drink responsibly by assuming that everybody is a suspect.
No one is being suspected of anything.

Quote:
Of course not. It's suggested with good intentions but without thinking of the consequences. If the seatbelt bothers you because it's too tight you have no recourse unless you want your car to, what, stop right on the middle of the highway?
Again, I don't know. Maybe learn how to put on a seat belt properly in the first place?

Last edited by johnny karate; 21st October 2019 at 07:59 AM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 08:09 AM   #212
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Assuming you are accurate with your recounting, what is that when compared to human drivers?
I think most humans don't hit pedestrians.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 08:11 AM   #213
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I'm confused by your hypothetical. If the device that scientifically measures the amount of alcohol in your blood indicates it is too high, by what metric is it being determined that the person in question is actually fine to drive?
Your use of 'scientific' obscures the fact that the device doesn't determine your blood alcohol level with any degree of reasonable certainty.

Quote:
No one is being suspected of anything.
Then don't ask me to test myself for alcohol every time I want to start my car. There's no cause to. Install the system on the cars of those convicted of driving under the influence, not mine.

Quote:
Maybe learn how to put on a seat belt properly in the first place?
I assume you perform every single one of your actions perfectly on the first try, then?

Why did you just steer right to condescension rather than try to understand the issue with your proposal?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 08:21 AM   #214
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 7,751
I can just imagine a woman has had a few drinks, she's being chased by a rapist\murderer and can't get away because she's trying to blow in this dumbass tube and the car is telling her to **** off.

Anyway, what about people who just brush their teeth, or use mouthwash? What's the methodology of the breathalyzers? How much comes out of my pocket to fix this stupid thing when it breaks down? How do I get to work if it's giving off false positives?

I'm curious about them, but I don't think they're a great idea without some serious considerations to any myriad of consequences. Interesting topic of discussion though.
__________________
"Circumcision and death threats go together like milk and cookies." - William Parcher

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 08:41 AM   #215
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Drunk-driver checkpoints, where drivers do have to "prove their innocence" at random, have been ruled legal by numerous courts. Think of an ignition lock as your friend that keeps you from going to jail.
Yes, and they probably prevent accidents.

I still find them a gross violation of the Constitution.

Americans are supposed to be secure in our persons and effects from unreasonable searches without a particular thing to be searched for, with that thing allowed by a judge after reasonable suspicion.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 08:48 AM   #216
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Your use of 'scientific' obscures the fact that the device doesn't determine your blood alcohol level with any degree of reasonable certainty.
Probably with more certainty than whatever alternative method that you're referring to but won't name.

Quote:
Then don't ask me to test myself for alcohol every time I want to start my car. There's no cause to. Install the system on the cars of those convicted of driving under the influence, not mine.
This will be between you and the government should this measure be implemented.

Quote:
Why did you just steer right to condescension rather than try to understand the issue with your proposal?
It's not my proposal, nor am I obligated to consider and respond to every hypothetical to defend it.

I've merely been addressing the misplaced Big Brother paranoia that this somehow represents a loss of freedom.

Because it doesn't.

The government grants us the privilege to operate at will these potentially lethal machines at dangerously high speeds, and with not a whole lot of oversight. Whatever safety measures they want to mandate as part of that privilege are entirely up to them. There is no freedom being lost because it was never a freedom in the first place.

And if you take issue with the nature of my responses, feel free to disengage with me.

Last edited by johnny karate; 21st October 2019 at 08:50 AM.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 08:52 AM   #217
autumn1971
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,108
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Aren't the current stats that there are more DUI's for other chemicals besides booze?

(aside: Hey, anybody hear how alcohol sales do after pot gets legalized? )

Breathalyzer for pot? But the problem with pot is that small amounts stay in your system for weeks, no way to tell current levels rise to intoxication.

Then too, different people have different thresholds. How about we do a reflex and concentration test? Isn't that the point? An electronic "walk the straight line, touch your nose,..." Set the bar high enough that 10% of people currently on the road are eliminated.
The actual field sobriety test is designed so that 100% of the people who take it fail. The test repeats until the officer is satisfied or the “offender” fails a portion. I have seen tests go on for over an hour.

How many times can you close your eyes and raise a leg before you stumble? 30? 50?

Doesn’t matter, you will,and now you’re a criminal
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 08:54 AM   #218
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,629
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Probably with more certainty than whatever alternative method that you're referring to but won't name.



This will be between you and the government should this measure be implemented.



It's not my proposal, nor am I obligated to consider and respond to every hypothetical to defend it.

I've merely been addressing the misplaced Big Brother paranoia that this somehow represents a loss of freedom.

Because it doesn't.

The government grants us the privilege to operate at will these potentially lethal machines at dangerously high speeds, and with not a whole lot of oversight. Whatever safety measures they want to mandate as part of that privilege are entirely up to them. There is no freedom being lost because it was never a freedom in the first place.

And if you take issue with the nature of my responses, feel free to disengage with me.
Seems to be an issue of who works for whom, then. I think you have it backwards, but it does clarify your POV.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 08:55 AM   #219
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Seems to be an issue of who works for whom, then. I think you have it backwards, but it does clarify your POV.
My POV is that which aligns with reality.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:00 AM   #220
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,629
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
My POV is that which aligns with reality.
Yeah, if your reality is that people are subservient to the government and hope they will grant us privileges. Entirely up to them, of course.

Not an American POV.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:01 AM   #221
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Probably with more certainty than whatever alternative method that you're referring to but won't name.
Isn't it obvious? It doesn't take a sample of your blood so the results are at best indirect, which is why there are very reasonable concerns about false positives. Your dismissal of these concerns doesn't make them less reasonable.

Quote:
This will be between you and the government should this measure be implemented.
It shouldn't. Punish those who break the law, not me.

I've always had a problem with punishing everyone for the sins of others. Thieves exist, but I'm not mandated to lock my doors at all times; it's my decision. Similarily I shouldn't be expected to prove my sobriety, especially given that I never drink, just because some idiots decide to drink and drive.

Quote:
It's not my proposal, nor am I obligated to consider and respond to every hypothetical to defend it.
Well you brought it up. I'm not suggesting that you're the first person to ever think of it. I'm saying that it's not practical.

Quote:
I've merely been addressing the misplaced Big Brother paranoia that this somehow represents a loss of freedom.

Because it doesn't.
It does by definition.

Quote:
And if you take issue with the nature of my responses, feel free to disengage with me.
Yeah because heaven forbid that I could expect you to act more civilly instead.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:05 AM   #222
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Yeah, if your reality is that people are subservient to the government and hope they will grant us privileges. Entirely up to them, of course.

Not an American POV.
My reality is this one, where the privilege to operate dangerous machines that could kill other people if used improperly is and should be regulated by the government.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:06 AM   #223
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
My reality is this one
Everybody says that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:11 AM   #224
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Isn't it obvious? It doesn't take a sample of your blood so the results are at best indirect, which is why there are very reasonable concerns about false positives. Your dismissal of these concerns doesn't make them less reasonable.
I'm not dismissing them. I'm asking you how you know it's a false positive.

Quote:
It shouldn't. Punish those who break the law, not me.
That you view it as a punishment is not something I can help you with.

Quote:
I've always had a problem with punishing everyone for the sins of others. Thieves exist, but I'm not mandated to lock my doors at all times; it's my decision. Similarily I shouldn't be expected to prove my sobriety, especially given that I never drink, just because some idiots decide to drink and drive.
Those idiots can kill you and your family.

This device is intended to help prevent that.

If this feels like a punishment to you, again, I'm sorry but I can help you with that.

Quote:
Well you brought it up. I'm not suggesting that you're the first person to ever think of it. I'm saying that it's not practical.
Your objection has been noted.

Quote:
It does by definition.
Driving isn't a freedom, it's a privilege.

Quote:
Yeah because heaven forbid that I could expect you to act more civilly instead.
I'm not sure what about my posts you find to be uncivil, but the report function is always at your disposal.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:16 AM   #225
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 53,636
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
My reality is this one, where the privilege to operate dangerous machines that could kill other people if used improperly is and should be regulated by the government.
It is. There are whole bodies of traffic law, licensing, enforcement, and in most states inspections and insurance requirements. Stop suggesting the only options are mandatory breathalyzers or anarchy.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:16 AM   #226
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I'm not dismissing them. I'm asking you how you know it's a false positive.
I think we must have misunderstood each other, then. In my example it's a false positive by definition. If the machine detects mouthwash or a small amount of alcohol as an over-the-limit show-stopper, then it's a false positive.

Quote:
That you view it as a punishment is not something I can help you with.
You could at the very least discuss it. If I tell you that you can't enter a public building without providing paperwork of your criminal history because some idiot shot up a mall a few years ago, I think you'd agree that it's a needless hassle and that it feels like the general public is being punished for the action of a single madman.

Quote:
Those idiots can kill you and your family.
So can anyone who's having a really bad week, but we don't keep everyone locked in a box unless they can pass psyche stress tests.

Quote:
Driving isn't a freedom, it's a privilege.
That is completely irrelevant. I don't know why you think this soundbite is such a slam-dunk argument.

Quote:
I'm not sure what about my posts you find to be uncivil
That's odd because I responded to the part of the post in question pretty clearly. Are you sure you're confused?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 21st October 2019 at 09:19 AM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:27 AM   #227
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 41,903
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
My reality is this one, where the privilege to operate dangerous machines that could kill other people if used improperly is and should be regulated by the government.
Even privileges don't create carte blanche entitlement to search and seizure.

There's a right to freedom from unreasonable searches. Generally this means that the government can't simply go on fishing expeditions into your personal life, without probable cause.

And generally, when the government does set out to infringe upon a right, the courts expect them to justify it beyond mere assertion. One standard frequently applied is strict scrutiny: The government must argue that there's a compelling public interest in requiring this kind of search, that there is no less intrusive way to meet the same goal, and that the intrusion actually accomplishes the goal.

That's how you make a case that this is a reasonable search. The idea of searching everyone without probable cause, "just in case" is not reasonable.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:36 AM   #228
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It is. There are whole bodies of traffic law, licensing, enforcement, and in most states inspections and insurance requirements. Stop suggesting the only options are mandatory breathalyzers or anarchy.
I'm not.

I'm disputing the notion that theses devices represent an Orwellian government intrusion into our lives.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:39 AM   #229
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I'm not.

I'm disputing the notion that theses devices represent an Orwellian government intrusion into our lives.
I agree with you that there's some exaggeration on that point. However I think there are reasonable objections to those devices. It's not all one or all the other.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:50 AM   #230
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I think we must have misunderstood each other, then. In my example it's a false positive by definition. If the machine detects mouthwash or a small amount of alcohol as an over-the-limit show-stopper, then it's a false positive.
If your question is "What about false positives?", I agree that this is a problem that should be addressed prior to implementation.

Quote:
You could at the very least discuss it. If I tell you that you can't enter a public building without providing paperwork of your criminal history because some idiot shot up a mall a few years ago, I think you'd agree that it's a needless hassle and that it feels like the general public is being punished for the action of a single madman.
That does seem like a needless hassle.

We can probably just stick with the metal detectors and bag searches that a lot of public places have already implemented.

Quote:
So can anyone who's having a really bad week, but we don't keep everyone locked in a box unless they can pass psyche stress tests.
I'm not sure how much of an overall risk that stressed-out drivers pose, but just because we can't solve all the problems doesn't mean we can't attempt to solve one of them.

Quote:
That is completely irrelevant. I don't know why you think this soundbite is such a slam-dunk argument.
Because people are repeatedly asserting the opposite.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:52 AM   #231
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Even privileges don't create carte blanche entitlement to search and seizure.

There's a right to freedom from unreasonable searches. Generally this means that the government can't simply go on fishing expeditions into your personal life, without probable cause.

And generally, when the government does set out to infringe upon a right, the courts expect them to justify it beyond mere assertion. One standard frequently applied is strict scrutiny: The government must argue that there's a compelling public interest in requiring this kind of search, that there is no less intrusive way to meet the same goal, and that the intrusion actually accomplishes the goal.

That's how you make a case that this is a reasonable search. The idea of searching everyone without probable cause, "just in case" is not reasonable.
These devices would not constitute a search and seizure, but thanks for the info.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:54 AM   #232
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
If your question is "What about false positives?", I agree that this is a problem that should be addressed prior to implementation.
Great, that's one thing settled.

Quote:
That does seem like a needless hassle.

We can probably just stick with the metal detectors and bag searches that a lot of public places have already implemented.
Seriously? Metal detectors and searches at malls? You're ok with that?

Gods, living in Canada is so much better.

Quote:
I'm not sure how much of an overall risk that stressed-out drivers pose, but just because we can't solve all the problems doesn't mean we can't attempt to solve one of them.
First, I was refering to anyone, not just drivers. Second, the point is that it's a dumb solution that causes more hassle and downsides than upsides, even in the best scenario.

Quote:
Because people are repeatedly asserting the opposite.
Well, leave me out of it, since I have not made that assertion. I said that it's a loss of freedom, not that it's a rights violation beyond that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:56 AM   #233
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I agree with you that there's some exaggeration on that point.
It's pretty much all exaggeration.

Anyone contextualizing their argument in the notion that driving is a freedom is flat-out wrong.

Quote:
However I think there are reasonable objections to those devices. It's not all one or all the other.
I think most of those objections are knee-jerk and rooted in a desire to not be inconvenienced.

And I get that, but there's not a whole lot I can do to address it.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 09:57 AM   #234
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
It's pretty much all exaggeration.

Anyone contextualizing their argument in the notion that driving is a freedom is flat-out wrong.
I think the problem may be that you're conflating rights and freedoms.

Quote:
I think most of those objections are knee-jerk and rooted in a desire to not be inconvenienced.
Well, yeah. Being inconvenienced in a way that presents little to no benefit is sure to get some pushback.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 10:01 AM   #235
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Seriously? Metal detectors and searches at malls? You're ok with that?
Whether or not I'm okay with it is irrelevant.

Security checks at public places is already a reality.

Quote:
First, I was refering to anyone, not just drivers. Second, the point is that it's a dumb solution that causes more hassle and downsides than upsides, even in the best scenario.
That you think it's a dumb solution doesn't necessarily make it a dumb solution.

Quote:
Well, leave me out of it, since I have not made that assertion. I said that it's a loss of freedom, not that it's a rights violation beyond that.
I'm sorry, but if you think driving a car is a freedom, you are mistaken.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 10:03 AM   #236
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Whether or not I'm okay with it is irrelevant.

Security checks at public places is already a reality.
It's not irrelevant: first because I want to know what you think, and second because legal realities can be changed. If enough people disagree, they can get those removed.

Quote:
That you think it's a dumb solution doesn't necessarily make it a dumb solution.
That's a poitless truism: opinions may be wrong!

I've explained why I think it's dumb.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but if you think driving a car is a freedom, you are mistaken.
Why?

And don't tell me that it's a privilege, because that has nothing to do with the question.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 10:03 AM   #237
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I think the problem may be that you're conflating rights and freedoms.
Driving isn't a right or a freedom. It's a privilege that carries with it certain restrictions and obligations. Fail to heed those restrictions or meet those obligations, and the privilege can be revoked.

Quote:
Well, yeah. Being inconvenienced in a way that presents little to no benefit is sure to get some pushback.
The lack of benefit is not something that has been established, as far as I'm aware.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 10:06 AM   #238
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,382
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Driving isn't a right or a freedom. It's a privilege that carries with it certain restrictions and obligations. Fail to heed those restrictions or meet those obligations, and the privilege can be revoked.
Freedoms and rights can be revoked as well.

Stop making pointless distinctions. Once you've got a permit you can drive and go where you will. This proposal is a needless hassle that doesn't address the problem in a reasonable way.

Quote:
The lack of benefit is not something that has been established, as far as I'm aware.
Leaving aside that the burden would be on those in favour of the implementation, it's going to be hard to convince me that the inconvenience is worth it, especially given how I view crime and punishment: you don't assume that people need to prove that they're sober.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 10:07 AM   #239
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 53,636
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Driving isn't a right or a freedom. It's a privilege that carries with it certain restrictions and obligations. Fail to heed those restrictions or meet those obligations, and the privilege can be revoked.



The lack of benefit is not something that has been established, as far as I'm aware.
There's nothing stopping you from having the device installed on your own car. As it's a matter of principle and you support it so strongly I'm wondering why you haven't already done so. Perhaps you could do that now, and report back in this thread about your experiences using it? Personal testimony would carry more weight.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2019, 10:12 AM   #240
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It's not irrelevant: first because I want to know what you think, and second because legal realities can be changed. If enough people disagree, they can get those removed.
I don't have a problem with public spaces requiring security checks before entering them.

Quote:
That's a poitless truism: opinions may be wrong!

I've explained why I think it's dumb.
And I've explained why I disagree.

Quote:
Why?

And don't tell me that it's a privilege, because that has nothing to do with the question.
Because you can't just wake up one day and decide to drive a car.

You have to report to a special government department, take a series of tests, and then wait to find out if you will be allowed to drive.

That's not how freedoms work.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.