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 18th October 2019, 02:08 PM   #121
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,662
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Operates on the same principle. And it should be resisted
It doesn't operate under the same principle. Not even close.

One is a device that prevents your car from being started if you are too intoxicated to drive, and is perfectly legal.

The other is a government agent searching through your private information in violation of your constitutional rights.

The only thing you're resisting is coherent argumentation.
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 18th October 2019, 02:09 PM   #122
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,662
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It has been explained to you that it does between little and nothing at significant expense.
The "expense" canard was debunked shortly after it was presented.

Quote:
Well, it sets more precedent for intrusion and encourages docility.
Your slippery slope argument remains unbolstered by anything resembling fact or 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 18th October 2019, 02:15 PM   #123
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,099
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
It doesn't operate under the same principle. Not even close.

One is a device that prevents your car from being started if you are too intoxicated to drive, and is perfectly legal.

The other is a government agent searching through your private information in violation of your constitutional rights.

The only thing you're resisting is coherent argumentation.
It has been explained to you that both operate on the principle of proving your innocence without so much as probable cause.

Were not getting anywhere, though. Will explain it to you on the next one.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
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 18th October 2019, 03:13 PM   #124
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 19,917
Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
As usual, I am confused. The devise in the "new vehicles" is to prevent people from driving drunk, I understand that. But is the idea for the driver to check his own alcohol level, before they drive? And what, then they don't drive? That can't be right!?

The general idea bothers me. I won't drive after even one beer, but there is something that makes me uncomfortable about what these cars do and how is it really preventative.
I suspect that it might be the very same thing that makes me uncomfortable.

If we continue to have our every waking moment measured and judged by machines, we will rapidly lose what it means to be human and to devolve into mere controlled cogs in a larger machine.

Brush your teeth and use mouthwash before setting off for work (usually my last task before leaving for work) and your car will refuse to go for thirty minutes until the alcohol found in most mouthwashes wears off. And that will be logged as an attempted DUI, do not kid yourself otherwise. And it will be collated by insurance companies to assess your risk and hence your premium.

For those who naively think that couldn't happen, two words: Cambridge Analytica.

It has already happened. More than once.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 18th October 2019, 03:50 PM   #125
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,662
When I had an interlock device, I just kept my car running when I went out to drink.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab 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 18th October 2019, 04:10 PM   #126
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Brush your teeth and use mouthwash before setting off for work (usually my last task before leaving for work) and your car will refuse to go for thirty minutes until the alcohol found in most mouthwashes wears off.
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?
Quote:
And that will be logged as an attempted DUI, do not kid yourself otherwise. And it will be collated by insurance companies to assess your risk and hence your premium.
Will it? You're sure of that? Or is it an example of hyperbole combined with paranoia?
Babbylonian 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 18th October 2019, 04:23 PM   #127
Ron Obvious
Scholar
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
When I had an interlock device, I just kept my car running when I went out to drink.
Modern interlock devices require you to re-blow in random intervals every 10 to 40 minutes or so after the initial start. They also take your picture and require you to hum while blowing (so you can't use a balloon, say).
Ron Obvious 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 18th October 2019, 04:25 PM   #128
Dr.Sid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,483
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What about others driving under the influence? Are you okay with them being on the roads next to you and your family?
No. But I see much more pressing issues. At least here, in Czech Republic. It's much better in Germany for example, and much worse further south, like Italy or Greece. And the issue is: accepting the rules. Here, people just don't. Exactly nobody obeys speed limit. Every third person holding phone in their hand (which is illegal here). Crossroad rules are mostly adhered to, but god forbid if there is cyclist mixed into the situation. Pedestrians have right of way on crossings .. 1 car in 10 will give it. Everybody is tense, rushing, and aggressive.

If you take accidents with deaths, 40% are result of excessive speed. Phones and other ways of 'not paying attention' are leading cause in accident in general. That bothers me greatly.
Dr.Sid 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 18th October 2019, 04:52 PM   #129
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,521
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Will it? You're sure of that? Or is it an example of hyperbole combined with paranoia?
This is exactly how interlocks work today - they do want to monitor whether or not a person with a DUI is routinely trying to drive drunk, after all. And as I recall, they also require routine calibration, including every time the battery is disconnected - as in many repairs.

Is it possible that, like airbags, these will be refined and worked out over time? Yes, and I suspect that they will, for example by working out exceptions for mouthwash - or by simply eliminating mouthwash that sets such systems off. But the recording/monitoring systems will certainly *not* be leaving, for the exact reason I stated, and insurance companies and the like would love to get their hands on such info - much like employers use credit ratings, arrest records, and other questionable means to screen out potential employees.

I haven't had a drink in years, both because I usually simply drink myself out cold, and because it messes with the various medications I need (blood pressure and mental health primarily), but you're kidding yourself if you think that any such data won't eventually be used to "rank" people.
Mumbles 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 18th October 2019, 04:57 PM   #130
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 12,457
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
This is exactly how interlocks work today - they do want to monitor whether or not a person with a DUI is routinely trying to drive drunk, after all. And as I recall, they also require routine calibration, including every time the battery is disconnected - as in many repairs.

Is it possible that, like airbags, these will be refined and worked out over time? Yes, and I suspect that they will, for example by working out exceptions for mouthwash - or by simply eliminating mouthwash that sets such systems off. But the recording/monitoring systems will certainly *not* be leaving, for the exact reason I stated, and insurance companies and the like would love to get their hands on such info - much like employers use credit ratings, arrest records, and other questionable means to screen out potential employees.

I haven't had a drink in years, both because I usually simply drink myself out cold, and because it messes with the various medications I need (blood pressure and mental health primarily), but you're kidding yourself if you think that any such data won't eventually be used to "rank" people.
Collecting such data on someone who has been convicted of DWI makes sense.

Collecting and transmitting such data from a preemptive system is an extra, unnecessary expense. There's no reason such a feature would be included or optional.
Babbylonian 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 18th October 2019, 06:21 PM   #131
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 659
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Collecting such data on someone who has been convicted of DWI makes sense.

Collecting and transmitting such data from a preemptive system is an extra, unnecessary expense. There's no reason such a feature would be included or optional.
Actually, I think it would likely collect and store the data for diagnostic purposes if nothing else.

You may not realize this, but newer cars have something like the black box on an airplane. It stores information about speed, throttle position, steering wheel position, brakes etc. going back some period of time. A friend of mine has a Chevy Bolt. He was using the paddle brakes on the steering wheel and the car surged and hit something. Chevrolet sent a tech out a few days later to download the record for analysis. I think they have also been used for accident investigations. I suspect that they aren't going to just throw away these data points, which mean that it's there to be subpoenaed for things that might not have anything to do with driving.

I've never done a breathalyzer myself, but my wife used to have to do one on everyone who came into the shelter she worked at. I know some people had a lot of trouble blowing correctly to make it work. They also had disposable mouthpieces to prevent disease transmission.

One thing to remember is that breathalyzers don't directly measure blood alcohol, they measure breath alcohol and estimate blood alcohol from that. There is some dispute as to how accurate that estimate is given physiological differences between individuals.

They also need to be calibrated:
Quote:
How do I know when my tester requires calibration?

Breathalyzer.net recommends that the BACtrack testers are all calibrated at least once every 12 months to maintain accurate results.

Depending on usage, units may require more frequent calibration service. For example, subjects should always wait at least 15 to 20 minutes after eating or drinking before blowing into the tester. If a subject blows too soon after eating or drinking, this can damage the sensor and/or require an immediate recalibration.

Many professional customers have access to calibration systems and are able to verify accuracy throughout a unit's lifetime.
https://www.breathalyzer.net/pages/b...questions.html

This adds to the cost of ownership. Possibly significantly for those of lower income.

A former co-worker of mine was into Opel cars (which are not common in the US). He had a Manta and a Cadet. One of them, not sure which, had a system that prevented the car from starting if the seatbelt was not fastened. Which of course malfunctioned intermittently so that the car would not start. I'm not sure if he was ever able to trace down the problem.
TomB 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 18th October 2019, 07:00 PM   #132
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,976
Somehow make the people convicted of DUI foot the bill for everyone else's device. Subsidize all costs with this cash.

These are the same people who should get the first autonomous cars at 100% their own expense if they want to continue driving. Not my expense, theirs.

I already have to pay for other people's poor lifestyle decisions via my health insurance.

I already paid for some uninsured motorist to hit me and screw up my truck - ya we pay for "uninsured motorists", and I got zero repairs paid for because I'd have to pay even more for that.

Now I'm supposed to pay for others stupidity yet again, and be inconvenienced because alcohol exists and some people are idiots.

Stupid people sure cost me a lot of money.

When I managed a bar I learned that bartenders can be liable if they serve too much booze to someone and they cause an accident. It's probably rare that it's actually enforced, but I like that idea better.

Where are most people coming from when they drive drunk? Home? Where are they going then?

I'd guess most are coming home from a bar or a party. I'd like to see some stats.

I subsidize everyone else's poor decisions enough as it is. Think of another way.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 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 18th October 2019, 07:24 PM   #133
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,947
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It has been explained to you that both operate on the principle of proving your innocence without so much as probable cause.
And it's been explained to you repeatedly that your innocence or guilt is not at stake here.
RecoveringYuppy 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 18th October 2019, 08:23 PM   #134
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,099
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
And it's been explained to you repeatedly that your innocence or guilt is not at stake here.
Another explainer. Joy.

"Prove that you are not a drunk attempting to illegally operate this vehicle"
"I'm going out for morning coffee..."
"Prove again that you are not a drunk attempting to illegally operate this vehicle"
"I just got my coffee and am going to work..."
""Prove yet again that you are not a drunk attempting to illegally operate this vehicle"
"Oh, FFS, it's 9AM and I am going to my first meeting..."

Yes, your innocence or guilt is absolutely at stake here, to be proven over and over again. And it has been explained to you that these things take pictures and record data. We all know what happens to personal data when it gets out there, right?
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
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 18th October 2019, 08:43 PM   #135
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,969
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
....
Yes, your innocence or guilt is absolutely at stake here, to be proven over and over again. And it has been explained to you that these things take pictures and record data. We all know what happens to personal data when it gets out there, right?
Innocence or guilt are purely legal concepts. There would be no legal consequences associated with your car refusing to start. The gadget would simply assess your fitness to exercise the privilege of operating a vehicle on the public roads under the conditions your license requires.
Bob001 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 18th October 2019, 09:45 PM   #136
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,099
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Innocence or guilt are purely legal concepts. There would be no legal consequences associated with your car refusing to start. The gadget would simply assess your fitness to exercise the privilege of operating a vehicle on the public roads under the conditions your license requires.
Innocence and guilt are by no means under such legal constraints. I am presently guilty right now of being in no condition to drive, hence shall not. Yet my boyish innocence is utterly irresistible, I imagine. Gonna go try that out
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
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 18th October 2019, 09:57 PM   #137
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
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

How is that even slightly useful in preventing drivers from using this particular bypass? At best, it could be used in the prosecution of the driver who is already being prosecuted for driving drunk. Again, at best the interlock records would be nothing more than a sentencing factor after the damage (if any) has already been done. Kinda useless.

In the case of the court-ordered interlock devices, the interlock device records would be regularly reviewed as part of a court sentence for a felony conviction by a judge or jury, or a plea deal during a proper court procedure resulting from an actual crime.

The only way that this would possibly be useful in preventing drivers from habitually bypassing the interlock would require veering very rapidly and very far into Big Brother territory by requiring the device to regularly report it's records to law enforcement. Which definitely violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Okay all you “constitutional rights” merchants. How do you feel about your taxes paying for the destruction and death wrought by drunk drivers?

Drunk driving has been steadily declining over the better part of the last four decades, without mandatory universal interlocks.

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
I don't want such device in my car. Because I never drink. Nor does my wife. For me it would be just nuisance.

Until it malfunctions and starts throwing false positives; or just fails entirely and "bricks" the car until a state-authorized maintenance person can be summoned to come out to repair or bypass it. Then it becomes considerably more than a nuisance.

Quote:
For example, subjects should always wait at least 15 to 20 minutes after eating or drinking before blowing into the tester. If a subject blows too soon after eating or drinking, this can damage the sensor and/or require an immediate recalibration.
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?

So much for going out to eat at restaurants, unless you want to sit in the car for at least a quarter of an hour after you're done eating. Or heading to work immediately after breakfast because you work long shifts and have a long commute and can't really afford to sit around longer than is strictly necessary. Or eating in your car because you're a field technician and have to rush back and forth to jobs and don't have time to sit and **** around in your vehicle waiting for a safe time to blow in a tube. Or you have an emergency call and have to get up in the middle of a meal and to the site as quickly as possible. Or... and so on.

Moral/ethical/legal concerns aside, the technology is clearly nowhere near up to the task at this time.
__________________
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.

Last edited by luchog; 18th October 2019 at 10:17 PM.
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 18th October 2019, 10:27 PM   #138
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
You're confusing the right to travel with the right to operate a motor vehicle.

As a U.S. citizen, you have the former but not the latter.

Except that this is, always was, and is becoming and increasing disingenuous assertion. It's technically correct (yes, I know, the best kind of correct); but lack of ability to drive has a HUGE impact on one's ability to work. Outside of a very few, very small, dense urban metropolitan areas, the ability to drive is fundamentally linked to the ability to work. As of 2016, the average American worker lives 16 miles from their place of employment, and commutes an average of an hour a day. Very few places have public transportation networks sufficient to handle more than a small to moderate minority of workers; and a great deal of the country has no public transportation at all.

And the problem is only getting worse, commutes are getting longer and increasingly impacting people in lower income brackets who are being priced out of dense urban areas.

Not to mention the necessity for vehicles for obtaining necessities like food and healthcare.

The overwhelming majority of American infrastructure is built around the individual passenger vehicle, and assumes that the overwhelming majority of Americans are able to obtain, maintain, and use an individual passenger vehicle. To say that people have a right to travel but not to drive; and therefore it's perfectly acceptable to remove an individual's ability to drive based on a technicality, is a profoundly ignorant, not to mention increasingly classist, position to take.

Further, to make alcohol use the sole deciding factor in determining whether someone is allowed to drive ignores numerous other factors that affect ability to drive, some at least as debilitating as alcohol, but which aren't as easily tested for. Aside from all the other drugs that cannot be tested with a simple breath test, there is fatigue, distraction, and so on. The use of a mobile phone impairs one's ability to drive at least as much as being drunk. Millions of people do so every day (I see them all the time on my daily commute) despite laws against it. Are the same people demanding alcohol-detecting interlocks also going to require mobile phone-detecting interlocks? Mandate that all mobile devices be safely secured in a special lock-box before the car will be permitted to start?

We accept the imposition of a certain degree of driver and vehicle regulation for logically justifiable reasons; but driving in this country is entirely necessary, so said regulations should only restrict to the minimal degree necessary to ensure that drivers are sufficient proficient with their vehicles and traffic is controlled in such as way as to ensure a reasonable degree of safety for all users of public roadways. As vehicle technology changes, additional regulations may be added or removed as needed; but risk cannot be entirely and completely eliminated, so we also accept that our ability to travel is not and never will be entirely safe. Attempting to eliminate all risk, at some point we reach a level of diminishing returns, where increasing regulation and restrictive technology reduces the utility of vehicles, and limits our ability to travel disproportionately to the reduction of risk.
__________________
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.

Last edited by luchog; 18th October 2019 at 10:48 PM.
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 18th October 2019, 10:35 PM   #139
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
... It's technically correct (yes, I know, the best kind of correct) ...
Sorry to pick on you, but technically correct is the only kind of correct.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile 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 18th October 2019, 10:47 PM   #140
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 43,031
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
Sorry to pick on you, but technically correct is the only kind of correct.
The way I see it, there's two kinds of correct:

"I know what you mean; let's keep talking."

And

"I know what you mean, but I'm going to derail anyway, because being trivially correct is more important to me than having a conversation."
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 18th October 2019, 10:49 PM   #141
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
Sorry to pick on you, but technically correct is the only kind of correct.

Thank you for that content-free interlude. Do you have anything of actual substance and contextual validity to add to the discussion, or just ignorant semantic hair-splitting?
__________________
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 18th October 2019, 10:57 PM   #142
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,125
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Thank you for that content-free interlude. Do you have anything of actual substance and contextual validity to add to the discussion, or just ignorant semantic hair-splitting?
You mean like this?

Quote:
Drunk driving has been steadily declining over the better part of the last four decades, without mandatory universal interlocks.
This is just like saying the average lifespan has been increasing, so why bother with curing cancer.

Try this line of argument on victims of drunk drivers.

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of things people are required to do as part of living in society. I have no problems with this being another one.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 18th October 2019, 11:10 PM   #143
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,998
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
Like the sovereign citizen guys ... their right to travel is by foot or by horse

The latter only if they are sober: Riding a Horse Under the Influence? (duicentral.com, Nov. 7, 2017)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 19th October 2019, 02:45 AM   #144
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,639
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
Im not as sure about that as I used to be (Im big fan)



I saw testing lately where many of the cars plowed right over "pedestrian dummy" in testing at under 15 mph or so



But at hi-ways speeds they ALL ran over the pedestrians
Assuming you are accurate with your recounting, what is that when compared to human drivers?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 19th October 2019, 02:47 AM   #145
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,639
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Child pornography is illegal. Let's have law enforcement install monitoring software on all personal computers.
Most of us already use the internet via such filters.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 19th October 2019, 02:52 AM   #146
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,639
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Why should you have to prove you are not drunk when you are just driving?



What about pills? Weed? Maybe you're just not that bright, so we should drop an IQ battery on you too (generic)?



Even well-intentioned nannyism is no bueno.
In the UK we do check that someone has the cognitive ability to drive before we allow them to drive on their own. It is a criminal offence to drive whilst under the influence of many medically prescribed drugs that can affect your ability to drive safely never mind illegal drugs. We check that you are physically able to meet the requirements to drive, eye sight as an example.

Driving is simply not a right.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 19th October 2019, 02:54 AM   #147
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,639
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Groovy. What other 'for my own good' treats are in store? Ones that could never be abused or repurposed, of course. Hey, even a malfunction could be fun. All to keep proving my innocence at all times.



Well intentioned. Seemingly benign. Still not good. Direct monitoring is always bad to a normal person. Leave us the **** alone.
Slippery slope is not a logically sound argument.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 19th October 2019, 03:05 AM   #148
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,639
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Here's an unfortunate fact of life: If a child is left in the care of a drunk person, bad stuff might happen.
That was my thought as well, if you are too drunk to drive then I'd say you are too drunk to be looking after a child so you have a much bigger problem with your alcoholism than not being able to drive a car on public roads.

(And yes I have and do in fact say this to my friends who drink at home and have children at home that they are meant to be responsible for looking after.)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 19th October 2019, 04:39 AM   #149
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,437
I presume we all accept a one time test (the driving test) to show that a driver is safe on the road.

Why is a one time test acceptable but this isn't?
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 19th October 2019, 05:04 AM   #150
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,037
All this would do is create an industry designed to get around it
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 19th October 2019, 06:12 AM   #151
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,639
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
All this would do is create an industry designed to get around it
In what way?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 19th October 2019, 06:14 AM   #152
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,662
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
It has been explained to you that both operate on the principle of proving your innocence without so much as probable cause.
You actually haven't explained anything. You just make assertions over and over again while ignoring the counterarguments.

As to this current one... guilt, innocence, probable cause or any other legalities don't factor in.

This is just a device that would prevent your car from starting if you are intoxicated.

The act of operating this device would not involve the criminal justice system in any way.

Quote:
Were not getting anywhere, though. Will explain it to you on the next one.
Somehow I doubt that an explanation or anything resembling a cogent argument will be forthcoming.

My money is on the repetition of already-refuted assertions with an increasingly hostile and defensive tone.

Last edited by johnny karate; 19th October 2019 at 06:49 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 19th October 2019, 06:18 AM   #153
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,662
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
In what way?
I think that the insistence of certain posters that a significant number of people would remain committed to drunk driving says more about the lifestyle choices of those posters than those of the general population.
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 19th October 2019, 10:40 AM   #154
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,969
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
.....
The overwhelming majority of American infrastructure is built around the individual passenger vehicle, and assumes that the overwhelming majority of Americans are able to obtain, maintain, and use an individual passenger vehicle. To say that people have a right to travel but not to drive; and therefore it's perfectly acceptable to remove an individual's ability to drive based on a technicality, is a profoundly ignorant, not to mention increasingly classist, position to take.
.....
I don't think there are too many places in the U.S., even small towns, where you couldn't find people who don't own cars or even have licenses and yet hold jobs and live their lives. People take public transportation, they carpool, they rely on friends and relatives, they pay for cabs, they walk or ride bicycles. Some people can't drive because of a medical issue. They don't roll over and die. When a driver loses his license, he doesn't crawl into a hole. It might well be that this interlock gadget is a bad idea. But to claim that owning a car is a necessity to live and that driving is a right is a rejection of plain facts. Adopting such a philosophy would challenge the whole concept of licensing and traffic enforcement: Can you license a necessity? Can you punish someone for exercising a basic right? Can you take away something that's essential for survival? If you want to eliminate driver licensing and vehicle registration you should say so, because that's the argument you're making.
Bob001 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 19th October 2019, 12:56 PM   #155
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,022
Alcohol Detectors in Cars

Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I don't think there are too many places in the U.S., even small towns, where you couldn't find people who don't own cars or even have licenses and yet hold jobs and live their lives. People take public transportation, they carpool, they rely on friends and relatives, they pay for cabs, they walk or ride bicycles. Some people can't drive because of a medical issue. They don't roll over and die. When a driver loses his license, he doesn't crawl into a hole. It might well be that this interlock gadget is a bad idea. But to claim that owning a car is a necessity to live and that driving is a right is a rejection of plain facts. Adopting such a philosophy would challenge the whole concept of licensing and traffic enforcement: Can you license a necessity? Can you punish someone for exercising a basic right? Can you take away something that's essential for survival? If you want to eliminate driver licensing and vehicle registration you should say so, because that's the argument you're making.


The idea of driving as a privilege vs a right is problematic. Yes, you need a license to legally drive. But licensing schemes are nothing more than regulating exercise of a right. Such regulation presumably would pass strict scrutiny: 1)I have a right to travel freely which includes a right travel by driving a car I own. 2)The State can regulate that right because it has a compelling interest in public safety, the licensing laws are narrowly tailored and thereís no other way to meet the state interest.

The right to drive is one of those unenumerated rights encompassed by the 9th Amendment. Just because such a right isnít specifically named in the Constitution or has never been actually found by SCOTUS does not imply that it doesnít exist. We have a right to own a swimming pool. We have a right to be a lawyer. That the State can legislate about those things does not mean the rights donít exist.

I push back vehemently that there are some things the government has to give me permission to do. BS; i can do anything I want and the State can regulate those things if they have a compelling interest and the regulations pass strict scrutiny.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 19th October 2019 at 12:57 PM.
xjx388 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 19th October 2019, 12:59 PM   #156
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,022
In the case of alcohol interlocks being mandatory, I would argue that such a thing would not pass strict scrutiny. There is a compelling interest but the law would not be narrowly tailored and there are other ways of meeting the compelling interest.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 19th October 2019, 02:31 PM   #157
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,969
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.....
The right to drive is one of those unenumerated rights encompassed by the 9th Amendment. Just because such a right isnít specifically named in the Constitution or has never been actually found by SCOTUS does not imply that it doesnít exist.
....
You keep saying things that have no basis in fact. The privilege of driving on the public roads is licensed and regulated by the states. As long as regulations are applied equally to everybody and are not arbitrary and discriminatory, the Constitution has nothing to do with it.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/su...s-unnecessary/
Bob001 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 19th October 2019, 02:32 PM   #158
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,969
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
.....
I push back vehemently that there are some things the government has to give me permission to do. BS; i can do anything I want and the State can regulate those things if they have a compelling interest and the regulations pass strict scrutiny.
No you can't.
Bob001 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 19th October 2019, 02:53 PM   #159
Pterodactyl
Graduate Poster
 
Pterodactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,215
It amazes me that some people are so willing to just give away independence.
To me, it doesn't matter so much philosophically whether it's to the government or some machine, but it's rather the principle yet another restriction on our ability move and act freely. It should not be a vehicle's choice to allow me to drive.

Next my microwave will refuse to heat up another meal after I've reached my 2000 calorie limit.
Pterodactyl 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 19th October 2019, 02:57 PM   #160
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,662
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The idea of driving as a privilege vs a right is problematic. Yes, you need a license to legally drive. But licensing schemes are nothing more than regulating exercise of a right. Such regulation presumably would pass strict scrutiny: 1)I have a right to travel freely which includes a right travel by driving a car I own. 2)The State can regulate that right because it has a compelling interest in public safety, the licensing laws are narrowly tailored and thereís no other way to meet the state interest.

The right to drive is one of those unenumerated rights encompassed by the 9th Amendment. Just because such a right isnít specifically named in the Constitution or has never been actually found by SCOTUS does not imply that it doesnít exist. We have a right to own a swimming pool. We have a right to be a lawyer. That the State can legislate about those things does not mean the rights donít exist.

I push back vehemently that there are some things the government has to give me permission to do. BS; i can do anything I want and the State can regulate those things if they have a compelling interest and the regulations pass strict scrutiny.
Driving a car isnít 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
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 03:22 AM.
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.