Message from @taekahn
Discord ID: 530789415845625857
Well it was in our scenario
i think that goes into the topic of exposing innocents to high risks
the guy I started the convo with that you bursted in on
So, you would want to keep it criminal?
Even though it's usually victimless?
maybe if we take that to its extreme, it could be a bit like playing russian roulette against someone
should it be legal every time the chamber happened to be empty?
Does Russian roulette even have a victim?
There was consent
not if you point it towards yourself, but if you point it at bystanders without their consent
Russian roulette itself isn't a crime
Driving drunk is not only a threat to the driver
It's a threat to everyone
Anyway, I don't actually think drunk driving should be a crime. I think the crime is when you get into an accident while drunk driving, when it's caused by your actions.
Drunk driving has to be a crime so that impaired drivers can be removed from their vehicles by police
well i think the core question is probably if it's a violation against your rights to be put at risk without your consent
Following that logic, you would not considering placing human lives in dangerous scenarios a crime?
the jobs arne't coming back, there is no magic wand ^
I don't think safety is a right.
Should pointing a loaded gun at people without their consent be considered a crime only if someone is shot as a result?
i'm actually not 100% confident on my stance here, but i would kind of lean towards yeah, one person putting another person at risk without their consent is a rights violation
^
That's why we have to sign waivers to do risky stuff
i'm not saying you have a right to be safe, because i agree life is inherently unsafe, but i am saying you have a right to not be put at risk *by another person*
Well, that and lawyers.
Well now we're just talking about odds.
Lawyers can only operate on laws
What determines what's risky? 1/2? 1/10? 1/1000? etc. And what has to be the outcome? A scratch? Loss of a limb? Death?
there are never any clear lines with any morals
moral principles should always be combined with common sense
Death is a likely scenario if you are hit by a drunk driver
Death is a likely scenario if you are hit by a fast moving automobile. Whether the driver is drunk or not.
Hello everyone.
Not really. There was no law saying Mc Donalds had to put "hot" on a cup of coffee.
Everyone knows coffee is hot. The fact that some moron spilled it on their lap and sued mcdonalds is why it now las that label
Now they can't be sued for it
But being drunk increases the chances that you will harm someone
If you are driving
you have a good argument there, paradox
the risk of death by a sober driver should be put in comparison to the risk of a drunk driver
Sure, so does being sleep deprived, but that's legal.
yeah good points
Not necessarily