User Controls
Let's talk more about driving under teh influence
-
2018-03-22 at 2:04 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 2:08 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 2:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Ok so…..
Like you can't give a statement when you're fucked up, yah?
If you're UNDER THE INFLUENCE, your thoughts aren't, necessarily, even your own. They aren't admissable.
So, with that PREMISE, when a man like myself gets pulled over for driving UNDER THE INFLUENCE, and they make me do TESTS, and QUESTIONS, and such, like what teh FUCK?
ahaha.
But, jokes aside, let us think. In courtrooms, they would NEVER allow testimony from inebreints (new word). Why? Because they're fucked up. They're word doesn't mean anything. They're under OUTSIDE INFLUENCE.
But, if you commit a CRIME under 'OUTSIDE INFLUENCE' its ALL YOUR FAULT. AUTOMATICALLY.
Now what I think I'm getting at is… well, when they say 'Don't drive drunk' or 'make a choice to get a sober driver' or whatever, they're implying that you can make that SANE choice. But when you get drunk, you can no longer make that choice without being impaired. Like they're fucking saying, 'HEY IF YOU GET SUPER FUCKED UP, MAKE SURE TO BE SMART AND CALL A CAB' but if you're fucked up like me you dont any longer have the ability to MAKE THAT GOOD CHOICE. You just DO what you DO.
Anyway… im explaining it pooorly. But I know what I mean and hopefully someone else does too. FUCK YOU.
dont drink and you wont have that problem, you alcoholic handsome and well tanned individual. -
2018-03-22 at 2:09 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 2:10 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 2:14 PM UTCI once drove for 8 minutes after 3 light beers and 5 tokes of medium-tier weed
I was shit scared the whole time even though my driving was actually in perfect accordance with the highway code due to fear -
2018-03-22 at 3:02 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 3:30 PM UTC
-
2018-03-22 at 4 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra assuming that it's unlikely someone has the restraint not to drive drunk says a lot more about you than it does about them
I'm thinking it was more a statement that most individuals that drink have probably drove while intoxicated at some point, whether it was a short distance, a small buzz, or whatever the case, it's likely that a good portion of even those who heavily advocate against driving drunk have, at some point, done so themselves.
But either way I'm again pointing out that I'm not here to defend driving drunk or say that it's somehow ok because more people do it than would admit to it.
What's more interesting to me and more in line with this thread is your mentioning of 'restraint not to drive drunk' and how it relates to what I'm saying. There's a reason why 2 people with the same level of intoxication may make opposite choices regarding driving home drunk from the bar, and it's probably more complicated than, as §m£ÂgØL would suggest, 'one of them is a piece of shit and the other isn't and that's why.'
I just want to make sense of it, like we're against drunk driving. Don't get drunk and DRIVE. that's BAD. The professor mentioned MADD. They're called that for a reason. Moms against drunk driving. They aren't called MAD. They aren't against getting drunk, they're specifically saying don't drunk DRIVE. DRINK AWAY. DRINK TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT, JUST DO NOT DRIVE IMPAIRED!
Which sounds like- Get impaired. That's fine. We have no problem with that. It's when you get impaired and then drive is when we have a problem. When you drive impaired you are more susceptible to making poor decisions. We're going to ignore the fact that getting impaired in the first place makes your more susceptible to making a poor decision such as driving, and just stress that we hope, in your drunken, impaired state of mind, that you will make the sound and rational decision to not make a poor decision.
So 2 fucking people get shithoused and one drives home and the other crawls home, neither remember jack shit, both of them puking their guts out the whole way and we can say well the guy that crawled home, now that guy is a good guy, responsible guy, made the sound decision to crawl home instead of driving. And he did, and that's good, but he doesn't remember. Neither guy remembers. But we might say the next day 'Hey, good decision of you to crawl home' or 'hey, bad decision of you to drive' as though they can really even be accredited to the decision.
Which all goes back to intoxication and consent and how it all relates. Especially the lawyer shit I brought up, that one gets me. If I'm fucked up and talk to the police without a lawyer because I have no idea what's going on, why is that shit admissable?? WHY? If I'm 'under the influence' that should essentially translate to 'not speaking soundly' and be inadmissable? Can people testify in court cases if they're demonstrably under the influence? I don't think they can. So it should be like that across the board. So yeah, you should be held responsible for drunk driving, but anything you say should not be able to be held against you until you are sober.
Or something. -
2018-03-22 at 4:01 PM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 12:05 AM UTC
-
2018-03-23 at 12:08 AM UTCOP is a piece of shit.
I only drive drunk when I KNOW I can handle it -
2018-03-23 at 12:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ I'm thinking it was more a statement that most individuals that drink have probably drove while intoxicated at some point, whether it was a short distance, a small buzz, or whatever the case, it's likely that a good portion of even those who heavily advocate against driving drunk have, at some point, done so themselves.
But either way I'm again pointing out that I'm not here to defend driving drunk or say that it's somehow ok because more people do it than would admit to it.
What's more interesting to me and more in line with this thread is your mentioning of 'restraint not to drive drunk' and how it relates to what I'm saying. There's a reason why 2 people with the same level of intoxication may make opposite choices regarding driving home drunk from the bar, and it's probably more complicated than, as §m£ÂgØL would suggest, 'one of them is a piece of shit and the other isn't and that's why.'
I just want to make sense of it, like we're against drunk driving. Don't get drunk and DRIVE. that's BAD. The professor mentioned MADD. They're called that for a reason. Moms against drunk driving. They aren't called MAD. They aren't against getting drunk, they're specifically saying don't drunk DRIVE. DRINK AWAY. DRINK TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT, JUST DO NOT DRIVE IMPAIRED!
Which sounds like- Get impaired. That's fine. We have no problem with that. It's when you get impaired and then drive is when we have a problem. When you drive impaired you are more susceptible to making poor decisions. We're going to ignore the fact that getting impaired in the first place makes your more susceptible to making a poor decision such as driving, and just stress that we hope, in your drunken, impaired state of mind, that you will make the sound and rational decision to not make a poor decision.
So 2 fucking people get shithoused and one drives home and the other crawls home, neither remember jack shit, both of them puking their guts out the whole way and we can say well the guy that crawled home, now that guy is a good guy, responsible guy, made the sound decision to crawl home instead of driving. And he did, and that's good, but he doesn't remember. Neither guy remembers. But we might say the next day 'Hey, good decision of you to crawl home' or 'hey, bad decision of you to drive' as though they can really even be accredited to the decision.
Which all goes back to intoxication and consent and how it all relates. Especially the lawyer shit I brought up, that one gets me. If I'm fucked up and talk to the police without a lawyer because I have no idea what's going on, why is that shit admissable?? WHY? If I'm 'under the influence' that should essentially translate to 'not speaking soundly' and be inadmissable? Can people testify in court cases if they're demonstrably under the influence? I don't think they can. So it should be like that across the board. So yeah, you should be held responsible for drunk driving, but anything you say should not be able to be held against you until you are sober.
Or something.
Mental gymnastics -
2018-03-23 at 12:26 AM UTCmmQ if you weren’t planning to drive home drunk, you wouldn’t have driven to the place where you intended to get drunk at.
You would have taken a fuckin Uber. -
2018-03-23 at 12:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by 杀死所有的白魔鬼 Mental gymnastics
I'm in training. Thank you.
Really though don't get me twisted nigga.
Originally posted by Fox Paws mmQ if you weren’t planning to drive home drunk, you wouldn’t have driven to the place where you intended to get drunk at.
You would have taken a fuckin Uber.
True. But I'm not talking about me specifically. You're right. Generally, when I ever drove to a bar, it was nearby (for what it's worth) and I did intend to likely drive home. I can own my piece of shitness for that and I'm not trying to deny my nonchalantness in that regard.
I'm talking about fucking IMPAIRMENT. Nobody wants to talk about that. Regardless of what I chose to do, what's more curious is the concept behind the expectations of impaired individuals to make good choices. -
2018-03-23 at 12:33 AM UTCI'm guilty for multiple DUI. it's why I really need to stay on the wagon.
I'v heard stories of people waking up driving while drunk. Blacking out.. somehow functioning and then waking up on a freeway -
2018-03-23 at 12:39 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ True. But I'm not talking about me specifically. You're right. Generally, when I ever drove to a bar, it was nearby (for what it's worth) and I did intend to likely drive home. I can own my piece of shitness for that and I'm not trying to deny my nonchalantness in that regard.
I'm talking about fucking IMPAIRMENT. Nobody wants to talk about that. Regardless of what I chose to do, what's more curious is the concept behind the expectations of impaired individuals to make good choices.
If I was a prosecution lawyer I would argue that driving your vehicle to the bar/club and getting drunk, with no other obvious way to get both yourself and your vehicle home that night EXCEPT DRIVING IT HOME YOURSELF, shows intent and bad judgement prior to said impairment -
2018-03-23 at 12:41 AM UTCAlso when you go to court for your DUI they’re probably not gonna focus on the retarded shit you said to the cops while impaired, they’re more likely to focus on physical evidence such as your proven BAC at the time of the incident etc. Just because you consented to take a breathalyzer test while impaired doesn’t invalidate the results of that test
-
2018-03-23 at 12:43 AM UTC
Originally posted by Fox Paws If I was a prosecution lawyer I would argue that driving your vehicle to the bar/club and getting drunk, with no other obvious way to get both yourself and your vehicle home that night EXCEPT DRIVING IT HOME YOURSELF, shows intent and bad judgement prior to said impairment
Shit.. the computers in cars these days could have alcohol breath (BAC) detection and record your driving habits. clearly showing you were impaired. -
2018-03-23 at 12:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by BeigeWarlock Shit.. the computers in cars these days could have alcohol breath (BAC) detection and record your driving habits. clearly showing you were impaired.
They could. But they don’t.
They do however record stuff such as whether or not you were wearing a seatbelt, whether or not someone was in the passenger seat, and your rate of speed
