• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How much inconvenience to the public = one life taken?

E

enwar3

Golden Member
So... somebody said if one drunk driver who might've driven on and killed somebody was caught by a DUI checkpoint, the inconvenience to everybody else is negligible.

Life is valuable but so is convenience. At what point does inconvenience to the public outweigh a life? Half an hour for 100 people? Ten hours for a thousand?
 
Replace 'a life' with your son/daughter/mother/father or someone else you love personally and ask that question again.
 
If they'd simply kill anyone who drinks and drives DUI will die out fast. And that means they can both cut down on the DUI checkpoints and on the number of people killed by drunk drivers. A win-win situation!
 
right...but how many people are driving above .08 and killing people?

How many have statisically been harmed in a DUI event vs every other event?

 
Originally posted by: alkemyst
right...but how many people are driving above .08 and killing people?

How many have statisically been harmed in a DUI event vs every other event?
Click to expand...

Indeed, so let's stop hunting Al Qaida too, since statistically only a small number of people got harmed by them!


:roll:


They can stop people dying by doing those checks. Just like they can stop people dying by hunting Al Qaida. Or do you think someone who loses a family member to a drunk driver won't mind it as much as someone who loses one to Al Qaida?
 
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Indeed, so let's stop hunting Al Qaida too, since statistically only a small number of people got harmed by them!
Click to expand...

FWIW alot more people have died due to the US hunt for Al Qaida than they ever killed on their own. Even if you don't want to believe that, the Trillion dollars spent could have saved tens of millions of starving kids in Africa, again more than Al Qaida could ever hope to kill.

People are shitty are judging risk, they freak out over 10 people dying from brid flu and take 10,000,000 dying of Malaria in stride. They eat food full of cholesterol and smoke, but complain of lead paint in a few toys, or radiation releases from a nuclear plant less deadly than a single cigarette. If I were to OBJECTIVELY way the price of one life verse the convenience of another I would say at worst we might assume an inconvenience of 10 minutes to be as bad as losing 10 minutes of your life. If you lose 50 years of your life due to a drunk driver than thats 26,280,000 minutes, so assuming a 10 minutes sobriety test is as bad as dying 10 minutes early it would be worth inconveniencing 2,628,000 people for every 1 life saved.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Indeed, so let's stop hunting Al Qaida too, since statistically only a small number of people got harmed by them!
Click to expand...

FWIW alot more people have died due to the US hunt for Al Qaida than they ever killed on their own. Even if you don't want to believe that, the Trillion dollars spent could have saved tens of millions of starving kids in Africa, again more than Al Qaida could ever hope to kill.

People are shitty are judging risk, they freak out over 10 people dying from brid flu and take 10,000,000 dying of Malaria in stride. They eat food full of cholesterol and smoke, but complain of lead paint in a few toys, or radiation releases from a nuclear plant less deadly than a single cigarette. If I were to OBJECTIVELY way the price of one life verse the convenience of another I would say at worst we might assume an inconvenience of 10 minutes to be as bad as losing 10 minutes of your life. If you lose 50 years of your life due to a drunk driver than thats 26,280,000 minutes, so assuming a 10 minutes sobriety test is as bad as dying 10 minutes early it would be worth inconveniencing 2,628,000 people for every 1 life saved.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Indeed, so let's stop hunting Al Qaida too, since statistically only a small number of people got harmed by them!
Click to expand...

FWIW alot more people have died due to the US hunt for Al Qaida than they ever killed on their own. Even if you don't want to believe that, the Trillion dollars spent could have saved tens of millions of starving kids in Africa, again more than Al Qaida could ever hope to kill.

People are shitty are judging risk, they freak out over 10 people dying from brid flu and take 10,000,000 dying of Malaria in stride. They eat food full of cholesterol and smoke, but complain of lead paint in a few toys, or radiation releases from a nuclear plant less deadly than a single cigarette. If I were to OBJECTIVELY way the price of one life verse the convenience of another I would say at worst we might assume an inconvenience of 10 minutes to be as bad as losing 10 minutes of your life. If you lose 50 years of your life due to a drunk driver than thats 26,280,000 minutes, so assuming a 10 minutes sobriety test is as bad as dying 10 minutes early it would be worth inconveniencing 2,628,000 people for every 1 life saved.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I could care less about people who smoke, drink or are obese. I'd like to see them being refused all medical aid, and the cash saved by that being put into helping those who truly need it. And the same with all those billions being put into WMDs still.

Any life saved is worth it, unless that person loses his life through his/her own choice. If a bunch of drunk kids get into a car and smash into a wall I could care less if they all died. As long as they do not harm anyone while doing so. You smoke? Don't force others to sit in your smoke, and don't whine when you are dying from it.
 
Originally posted by: Locut0s
Replace 'a life' with your son/daughter/mother/father or someone else you love personally and ask that question again.
Click to expand...

Amen. I had a friend killed by a drunk driver when I was in High School, and to this day I absolutely despise them.
 
I guess when I weigh the millions (maybe billions through the ages) that have died hoping to achieve the level of freedoms that we enjoy I just don't cavalierly throw them away every time a government props up a supposed crisis and touts it as a reason to give those freedoms up.

Giving away the presumption of innocence will use a significant amount of white-out when it comes to the Constitution.
 
Originally posted by: enwar3
So... somebody said if one drunk driver who might've driven on and killed somebody was caught by a DUI checkpoint, the inconvenience to everybody else is negligible.

Life is valuable but so is convenience. At what point does inconvenience to the public outweigh a life? Half an hour for 100 people? Ten hours for a thousand?
Click to expand...

hey, i said that and i stand by it.

life isn't all about your convenience, although some parents raise their kids to think that is the way it is. 😕


Originally posted by: Locut0s
Replace 'a life' with your son/daughter/mother/father or someone else you love personally and ask that question again.
Click to expand...

truth.
 
Drunk drivers arent human, they should be pulled from their vehicle, tested for sobriety and when they fail be shot on the spot and their vehicle auctioned off.
 
Most people cannot answer this question honestly because they are too stupid.

In regards to the convenience answer, I'm not sure, but I can say that if there was a DUI checkpoint every mile of every road at all times, that would sure as hell be more inconvenient than the lives it could save.
 
They don't only pull that "one" driver that is going to kill somebody, they arrest many that are intoxicated and shouldn't be driving. For those arrested it's a very expensive lesson, one not soon to be repeated.

The delay it causes in traffic is less than most peoples normal commute.
 
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Indeed, so let's stop hunting Al Qaida too, since statistically only a small number of people got harmed by them!
Click to expand...

FWIW alot more people have died due to the US hunt for Al Qaida than they ever killed on their own. Even if you don't want to believe that, the Trillion dollars spent could have saved tens of millions of starving kids in Africa, again more than Al Qaida could ever hope to kill.

People are shitty are judging risk, they freak out over 10 people dying from brid flu and take 10,000,000 dying of Malaria in stride. They eat food full of cholesterol and smoke, but complain of lead paint in a few toys, or radiation releases from a nuclear plant less deadly than a single cigarette. If I were to OBJECTIVELY way the price of one life verse the convenience of another I would say at worst we might assume an inconvenience of 10 minutes to be as bad as losing 10 minutes of your life. If you lose 50 years of your life due to a drunk driver than thats 26,280,000 minutes, so assuming a 10 minutes sobriety test is as bad as dying 10 minutes early it would be worth inconveniencing 2,628,000 people for every 1 life saved.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
Drunk drivers arent human, they should be pulled from their vehicle, tested for sobriety and when they fail be shot on the spot and their vehicle auctioned off.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: altonb1
Originally posted by: BrownTown
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Indeed, so let's stop hunting Al Qaida too, since statistically only a small number of people got harmed by them!
Click to expand...

FWIW alot more people have died due to the US hunt for Al Qaida than they ever killed on their own. Even if you don't want to believe that, the Trillion dollars spent could have saved tens of millions of starving kids in Africa, again more than Al Qaida could ever hope to kill.

People are shitty are judging risk, they freak out over 10 people dying from brid flu and take 10,000,000 dying of Malaria in stride. They eat food full of cholesterol and smoke, but complain of lead paint in a few toys, or radiation releases from a nuclear plant less deadly than a single cigarette. If I were to OBJECTIVELY way the price of one life verse the convenience of another I would say at worst we might assume an inconvenience of 10 minutes to be as bad as losing 10 minutes of your life. If you lose 50 years of your life due to a drunk driver than thats 26,280,000 minutes, so assuming a 10 minutes sobriety test is as bad as dying 10 minutes early it would be worth inconveniencing 2,628,000 people for every 1 life saved.
Click to expand...

:roll:
Click to expand...
Actually I think it's a good post. Since it's a question that's only ever considered emotionally, he tried to invent a way to objectively answer it. And what is the result? A figure more astounding than most people would give even based on their emotions.
 
This isn't about convenience. It's about liberty and freedom to travel without undue interference from the government.

I'd argue that alone is worth a few lives every year (and no, human life is not invaluable).
 
Originally posted by: Squisher
I guess when I weigh the millions (maybe billions through the ages) that have died hoping to achieve the level of freedoms that we enjoy I just don't cavalierly throw them away every time a government props up a supposed crisis and touts it as a reason to give those freedoms up.

Giving away the presumption of innocence will use a significant amount of white-out when it comes to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You know what would help with this problem? Lower the drinking age to 17. Seriously. That'll put the burden of teaching responsible drinking squarely on the parents, where it belongs.

Oh wait, I forgot how bad some parents are these days. Fail, /wrists.
 
Originally posted by: Squisher
I guess when I weigh the millions (maybe billions through the ages) that have died hoping to achieve the level of freedoms that we enjoy I just don't cavalierly throw them away every time a government props up a supposed crisis and touts it as a reason to give those freedoms up.

Giving away the presumption of innocence will use a significant amount of white-out when it comes to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Well said.

:thumbsup:
 
If we got rid of cars all together, just Imagine how many lives would be saved.

Drunk drivers should be prosecuted. I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. Checkpoints target innocent people. I really don't understand how a single drunk driver gets away with it anyway. 90% of every car on the road has a cell phone in it. You would think SOMEONE would turn them in. Unfortunately, the majority of society is incapable of taking care of themselves, let alone helping out the rest of society, so they depend on the government to take care of them.
 
Originally posted by: moshquerade
[
life isn't all about your convenience, although some parents raise their kids to think that is the way it is. 😕
Click to expand...


The question has nothing to do with convenience, or whether drunk drivers should be on the road. Why is this so hard to understand?


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top