people in their 30's that still go to bars. Losers or not?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
They may spend their time differently but I don't think that makes one group losers and the other not. My point is I think both groups are mostly filled with losers. 95%-99% of people are losers at the end of the day irregardless of how much time they spend at the bar.

????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

That was the mostest smartest thing I have heard around here in a long time.....
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
This all sounds good to me. The war on drugs has done more to harm society than help it. The bad guys already have guns so I doubt gun violence will increase. These are all great ideas.


I agree. I would also have MUCH stricter penalties on DUIs. 1 offense and you lose your license for 5-10 years and 20k in fines.
 
Last edited:

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
I am paying attention, and your emotional, over-the-top argument missed the mark -- which is a recurring theme with you, it seems. Unless I misread your comment and it WASN'T sarcastic:

The point was that we have background checks for legal guns to check for violent history. Alcohol is just as dangerous. Maybe if we had background checks for alcohol and saw DUIs or abuse in their history they would be denied alcohol. Why shouldn't it be the same? I simply posted the reverse.. why not just give guns to everyone with no checks just like we do alcohol?

Also, nothing I am saying is emotional in the least. It is completely logical and has no emotional component. I've never been in an accident with a drunk driver nor lost anyone.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
I agree. I would also have MUCH stricter penalties on DUIs. 1 offense and you lose your license for 5-10 years and 20k in fines.

Thats stupid. Instead of ruining thousands of lives it would make more sense to put technology in a car to prevent it from starting if you have been drinking.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
687
126
The point was that we have background checks for legal guns to check for violent history. Alcohol is just as dangerous. Maybe if we had background checks for alcohol and saw DUIs or abuse in their history they would be denied alcohol. Why shouldn't it be the same? I simply posted the reverse.. why not just give guns to everyone with no checks just like we do alcohol?

You'd probably have better success arguing that maybe we should install those devices that won't let you start your car unless you blow into them and you're below the legal limit.

Also, nothing I am saying is emotional in the least. It is completely logical and has no emotional component. I've never been in an accident with a drunk driver nor lost anyone.

When I was 14, we were hit by a drunk driver. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured but it did destroy my mom's car. And yet, I don't think alcohol should be banned or regulated to the degree that a background check should be required when you buy alcohol.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
The point was that we have background checks for legal guns to check for violent history. Alcohol is just as dangerous. Maybe if we had background checks for alcohol and saw DUIs or abuse in their history they would be denied alcohol. Why shouldn't it be the same? I simply posted the reverse.. why not just give guns to everyone with no checks just like we do alcohol?

Also, nothing I am saying is emotional in the least. It is completely logical and has no emotional component. I've never been in an accident with a drunk driver nor lost anyone.

Umm, LOL, NO there isn't. I can go to any gun show or private sale and buy a gun with no background check and the background NICS check at a dealer isn't for violent history except for a protection order against you. Learn about what you keep spouting.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
They may spend their time differently but I don't think that makes one group losers and the other not. My point is I think both groups are mostly filled with losers. 95%-99% of people are losers at the end of the day irregardless of how much time they spend at the bar.

fair enough.

but "regardless" is fine. "Irregardless" is not a word. I don't care what dictionary.com or Websters bullshit link you want to send me, but "Irregardless" is NOT A FUCKING WORD.

it has been misused for years and years in place of "regardless," which is a real word.

why the fuck would people accept this shit??

:twisted:
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
i must be a loser because i'm going to cancun in january and will be partying my ass off with my wife and my younger brother as well as other friends.

i turn 29 this saturday.

BOY IM SUCH A LOSER SHEESH!!!

keep up, bro. You have another year before you become a loser, assuming you maintain your current habits.

;)
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Thats stupid. Instead of ruining thousands of lives it would make more sense to put technology in a car to prevent it from starting if you have been drinking.

Why would that ruin lives? Don't drive drunk...

No technology would prevent someone else from starting the car or other workarounds.
 
Last edited:

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
You'd probably have better success arguing that maybe we should install those devices that won't let you start your car unless you blow into them and you're below the legal limit.



When I was 14, we were hit by a drunk driver. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured but it did destroy my mom's car. And yet, I don't think alcohol should be banned or regulated to the degree that a background check should be required when you buy alcohol.

Already addressed the ridiculous car argument,

As for your other statement.. so? Do you drink? If yes, that would explain your reluctance to restrict your own alcohol.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Umm, LOL, NO there isn't. I can go to any gun show or private sale and buy a gun with no background check and the background NICS check at a dealer isn't for violent history except for a protection order against you. Learn about what you keep spouting.

If this is indeed correct, then we are in worse shape than I thought.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
fair enough.

but "regardless" is fine. "Irregardless" is not a word. I don't care what dictionary.com or Websters bullshit link you want to send me, but "Irregardless" is NOT A FUCKING WORD.

it has been misused for years and years in place of "regardless," which is a real word.

why the fuck would people accept this shit??

:twisted:

Thanks for the grammar lesson. i'll keep it in mind.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
Why would that ruin lives?

No technology would prevent someone else from starting the car or other workarounds.

I don't think I need to explain why putting people in jail for 20 years is a bad idea. Let alone go into the financial impact for society.

However, we could easily implement a device that determines BAC. Maybe it takes readings to start the car and then periodically while the car is on. I'm not an engineer but I'm certain there is a non intrusive solution that can be worked out here. I mean first we made driver airbags mandatory. Now we have airbags stuffed inside every crevice of the car. Its all possible.

Tampering with the sensors would be punishable by a permanent driving license ban. or some other such deterrent. I'll leave the details to be worked out by the law makers. It is a very feasible and fairly cheap to implement solution that wouldn't destroy lives or put unnecessary financial burdens on society and could immediately save 25k lives a year.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
They tried the devices.

The problem is, they get circumvented and they are not 100% reliable (I don't know if they can faill when you are clean, or vice versa) they are just not the solution. I think they are a definite step up though.

The thing is, all that has to happen is someone over 30 with an open container of 4-loko in their car with minors and an unlicensed revolver they got at a local gun show to run over a family with a 14 year old in a car on their way to the club and this whole thing goes right to hell.

It's irrefutable.
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
They tried the devices.

The problem is, they get circumvented and they are not 100% reliable (I don't know if they can faill when you are clean, or vice versa) they are just not the solution. I think they are a definite step up though.

The thing is, all that has to happen is someone over 30 with an open container of 4-loko in their car with minors and an unlicensed revolver they got at a local gun show to run over a family with a 14 year old in a car on their way to the club and this whole thing goes right to hell.

It's irrefutable.

circumvention cannot be avoided in any system. Any system will be hacked. However you can make it painful to circumvent backed up by strict punishment for circumvention. Airbags don't work 100% but we still rely on those.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
I don't think I need to explain why putting people in jail for 20 years is a bad idea. Let alone go into the financial impact for society.

However, we could easily implement a device that determines BAC. Maybe it takes readings to start the car and then periodically while the car is on. I'm not an engineer but I'm certain there is a non intrusive solution that can be worked out here. I mean first we made driver airbags mandatory. Now we have airbags stuffed inside every crevice of the car. Its all possible.

Tampering with the sensors would be punishable by a permanent driving license ban. or some other such deterrent. I'll leave the details to be worked out by the law makers. It is a very feasible and fairly cheap to implement solution that wouldn't destroy lives or put unnecessary financial burdens on society and could immediately save 25k lives a year.

When did I say to put people in jail at all, let alone for 20 years?
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
When did I say to put people in jail at all, let alone for 20 years?

sorry must have confused your post with someone elses post. 5-10 years and 20k in fines would certainly ruin most americans lives completely just as much as jail. So without a car surely they will lose their job. So they can't provide for their family they will likely lose their house, They go on welfare , declare bankruptcy becuase americans dont have any savings let alone 20k. That kind of punishment would be horrible. makes alot more sense to implement a non intrusive technological solution.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I agree. I would also have MUCH stricter penalties on DUIs. 1 offense and you lose your license for 5-10 years and 20k in fines.

You do realize that statistically if they stopped most people out in a city between say 10pm and 3am on any weekend they'd fail a .08 test.

These same people are getting around without incident.

Most of the BAD DUI stuff happens on highways where people have been drinking to beyond excess.

You just don't see many "this dude killed someone and blew a *gasp* .10".

However, it's good media when you can say "he blew 2x the allowable limit".

What's your opinon on robbery, assault, rape, and conspiracy/RICO type arrests? Shoot them roadside?
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
sorry must have confused your post with someone elses post. 5-10 years and 20k in fines would certainly ruin most americans lives completely just as much as jail. So without a car surely they will lose their job. So they can't provide for their family they will likely lose their house, They go on welfare , declare bankruptcy becuase americans dont have any savings let alone 20k. That kind of punishment would be horrible. makes alot more sense to implement a non intrusive technological solution.

The thing that makes DUI laws work so nicely is most that go out to drink have the means to pay...

However, in my class; many were financially devastated. Researching it during the process many never recovered. Some were not even driving when arrested.

The laws are messed up. Even the founder of the movement is against what it's become.

Just not being able to drive for 3 months is enough for many to be terminated. Even if they don't require a car for their jobs they cannot afford rides for this period on top of the $4000+ they are going to be coming out of pocket on.

Where the system breaks down is where it's going to require jail time. The people that kill and maim others while drinking and driving usually end up back on the street. There is no push to keep them in jail.

This is where it all breaks down. Gangbangers, thieves, etc all get to walk because no one wants to foot the bill.