Message from @Paradox
Discord ID: 530793058086813698
But no1 was hit?
It's a preventative law
Right. A victimless law.
I'd rather see laws around cell phone usage.
Much worse than drving drunk, imo
That's like saying you can't arrest someone until they have shot a guy even though there's a gun to the dudes head
Well you couldn't arrest them for murder...
until after they shot him and he died.
You can arrest them for battery
but is there a victim before he pulled the trigger?
Yes
i'd say yes too
Yes. There is a victim.
That's why your little metaphor was bogus.
which metaphor?
How is threatening others on the road with your car not the same
Well you've escalated it
If you drive reckless and threaten others safety by doing so, it's no different
And you should be removed from the road as a result
yeah i think i agree that if you threaten the safety of others, you produce victims
a driver who was nearly hit by a drunk driver, is not a victim of a crash, but a victim of something
Who determines that
Me. Beings it's my opinion...
That's not how it works
That is how my opinion works and what i agree with or not....
Yes but that doesn't make it inherently true
Why it's my opinion.
well then you agree that a victim is produced if the threat is reasonable at least
yes. I don't necessarily agree on what is considered resaonable
Opinions are not truth though
They are thoughts
if you don't think drunk driving is a reasonable enough threat, i'm not sure i agree, but i can respect that perspective
I think it can be.
I don't think it always is.
yeah i see what you mean
It has to be considered either always a threat or never
What makes someone walking around pointing a loaded gun any people with their finger off the trigger any less of a reasonable threat?
Because its visible? Because you can actually see the threat?
Invisible threats are more dangerous
You can't predict the effects of someone drinking and driving, so you have to consider it to be dangerous if discovered
Well I don't have to...