Good to see Chuck is still clean and sober.

Stating explicitly that you are only seeing what you want to see is exactly why we can't give you any credence. When I wear beer goggles, I see exactly what I want to see as well, only difference being, I sober up after a while.

Just because some book says one thing, doesn't mean someone else's book doesn't have other magical stories that discredit yours. You picked the one you want to believe in, and you'll find any imaginary evidence to back up your stance. Reality won't change that. And this video won't make the rest of us believe in fairy tales.

Next time try it with him sober.

Bill Nye sounds exactly like this until he sobers up.

" I'm wrong most of the time "

Keep that in mind when you are blitzed and running your fingers/mouth off, maybe you should save the message in notepad and read upon it the day ... hours after you have slept it off. Maybe then you would not be labeled as a jack ass drunk drug addict who spews shit all over the sift because he is mad about his own life with no real outlet in his life to let the anger out. Or continue to drink, smoke the smoke, inhale whippets and make cooking videos showing your nature.

Should we feel for you ? you dig your own grave with your messages and somehow expect some semblance of sympathy or recognition for your personality abnormalities. You go out of your way to piss off an offend people and then later on try and describe why.

Grow the fuck up. You are an adult male... and I feel like you actually need to be told that, don't you have kids ? or kid ? how would they respond if they went and goggled daddy and his online moniker.

You did not get to defend yourself.. because you were a fucking dick bag and got banned, you do not have the right to defend yourself, you lost that right when you were a drunk cunt. You shouldn't go around now trying to stand up for yourself after you have trashed your personable name you align with.

You want attention, that is all I read about you, you spout shit either to get people riled up or to just break the monotony of few posts but you out of EVERYONE here have no base to make a standard of yourself, your standard is already set with how you are perceived. You might want to start from the ground up sober ( as hard as it is ) and only write down your sentiments when you are in that sober stage.

You vie for attention, you are an attention slut on this site, a lot of the messages you write have an air of " poor me " poor you ? poor the sift for putting up with your bullshit.

YOU need therapy, in the states it is expensive and not covered by "health care" but boy oh fucking mighty Christ do you ever out of everyone here need someone to talk to about your thoughts and problems, the sift is not an online therapy session to spew your views of distrust and hateful attitudes.

You are not special, no one is. We are all tadpoles in a pond waiting to be eaten by the fish. metamorphosize and grow the fuck up so you can't get eaten.

Until then... Good luck guy, thanks for the Tie .

Edited to add the reason I am logged in : fixing kick ass song embed =





I suggest you listen to this while I slap your face :

So, did this guy get arrested, or what?

Why would anyone, drunk or sober, think that kind of behavior is okay?

...and STILL we respect him. Dude does more science blitzed than all of Fox News stone cold sober.

Laws must be reactionary, because you should not be punished for harms that you haven't yet committed.
'Imagined future harms' are a poor reason to take action against anyone.
Fundamentally, you're not in charge of other people's imagination. That's their business, not yours.

Inevitability is not an issue, incidents are inevitable for all drivers, without exception, so long as they keep driving.
Any non-zero probability will have an incident, given enough time.

Every driver is unique, and it is not deterministic that "driver A + 3 beers" is worse than "driver B".
It's not deterministic that driver B has a lower probability of incident.

These guys were good enough to get a license, and are legally 'suitable' to drive.
They are above the "absolute bar" determining 'ok' or 'not ok' to drive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeIJ0kQtLyg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I-OqmQc5hI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiRDv4nxe64
(Seriously, watch them end to end... it's amazing.)

Imagine the drivers that you know. Do you think a few beers will get them even close to as bad as the people in the links? Because it's enough to get them a DUI. Hence the irrationality of just saying "drink = unsuitable to drive".

There are lots things that impact your cognitive function.
too tired
too excited
too bored
too entertained
too preoccupied with memories
too preoccupied with anticipation
etc, etc, etc...
A driver at 90% attention due to these reasons is considered ok, but a driver at 95% attention [for whatever reason] ... that just happened to drink alcohol ... is a criminal. Again, irrationality.

The fact that you're operating in a diminished state /specifically/ due to alcohol is not meaningful.
How much you are diminished [regardless of why] is what matters - but that isn't even in the drinking and driving public discussion.
Heck, some people aren't even prepared when at 100% attention and 100% sober (like the folks in the links).

I generally dislike how unprepared drivers are.
Just being able to drive around a few blocks, parallel park, and answer a few questions from a booklet you just read 5 minutes prior, is crap criteria.
IMO, it shouldn't even be criteria until much later.
IMO, people should be able to proficiently autocross in the wet before they are even given a chance to begin learning the road rules.

IMO, people consider driving a necessity (which it is if you want a normal life), and they throw driving into the same bucket as walking.
Something they need to do every day, it's mundane, nothing special, nothing worth concerning yourself about.
If they have an "accident" (the term accident should really be "operator error" 99% of the time), they even get offended if you say that they screwed up.
Like as if it's just an "Oh well, shit happens" sort of thing, and blaming them for what they did is profane.

At the same time, there's a religion of "drinking and driving hate" that has mushroomed into something not far from crazies frothing at the mouth.
"He drank... and drove! Burn him! Burn him!" ...
Imagine being the person that was arrested, watching people talk to you like you're the antichrist himself ... and you never even hurt anyone. Discussing amongst themselves 'what they need to do to you'.

Punishing only harm has two benefits :
A) It focuses on real victims.
B) It only involves people who were demonstrably not suitable drivers (the harm is the demonstration) - without any emotional bias for the reason behind the unsuitability.

Using the law for deterrence is possibly even illegal in itself (If I had my way, it would be seen as so).
There is supposed to be "no cruel and unusual punishment".
If you ask "what makes is it cruel/unusual?" - the answer will be that it causes excessive suffering.
Deterrence consists of punishing people in excess (making examples), in the hopes that it scares 3rd parties.
So then the idea is that the suffering should be in proportion to the crime.
Making examples, is by definition, punishing in excess of what is deserved.
DUI laws are by design an exercise in exactly this.

-scheherazade

The problem is with grouping people into "drunk drivers" - as if they are a monolith.
You wouldn't say "black people commit more crimes, so black people are harmful" ... that would be considered racist - because it characterizes all the individuals of a group as the same as the worst individuals of the group.
But people who drink and drive don't get that measure of consideration. Across the board they are treated as if they had done harm, whether or not they actually did.


Simple matter really.

Drunk drivers that do harm, do harm.
Sober drivers that do harm, do harm.
Drunk drivers that don't do harm, don't do harm.
Sober drivers that don't do harm, don't do harm.

The harm is in the harm, not in the drunk.


Jail, etc. is real harm to a person's life.
Lost time, lost payments (leading to lost house/car), lost relationships, etc.
If they didn't do any harm themselves, then the punishment is not justified.

Sober drivers get a hand-wave for the harm they cause, as if not drinking or not being on a cell phone makes you unaccountable for your actions.


Drinking is fundamentally a personal matter. It involves only ones's self.
Running into another person/property and damaging them/it involves other people (ergo society), so society has moral domain to intervene to help the victim(s).

There's a certain perversion to persecuting people who behave in a disliked manner (and did no harm and had no victim), and then neglecting the plight of victims when whoever harmed them hadn't been behaving in a disliked manner.

We are all individuals, morally responsible for our individual actions.
We should be accountable for our real actions.
Not theoretical "actions that could have been, had things gone differently".


I'm not a fan of people driving drunk, but I would never harm someone for doing it without doing any harm themselves, just because I don't like it.

I'm also not a fan of people failing at their obligation to maintain control of their vehicle, and injuring/maiming/crippling/killing people, and then not being held accountable for the damage they caused because "it was an accident".
Why should the victim be accountable for paying for the damages? They didn't do the damage.

Instead of playing big brother and approving/disapproving of personal behavior, we should be focused on helping victims get justice.
"IMO"

-scheherazade

I'd rather the government go after people who actually do harm.

Being sober is no excuse.

-scheherazade

You know what really annoys me? So-called theists that trample over the idea that "we don't know what happens when we die", as if it were something never before considered in western philosophy. Shadows on a wall. That's all any human can know. Oh, but the voices (or "feeling" of a holy/unholy spirit) of "god" in your head confirmed that they're real because they said so..!? K...

Does anyone else not see the inherent security risk here? How does a god truly interface with a human mind and authenticate its validity beyond all shadows of doubt? Oh, you just know right? As if you're the expert on human perception. If the concept of demons or Satan be real, perhaps there is only that. Have you considered? Of course not, devout theist, the clause exists for a reason -- do not tempt. Never question. Does this sound like freedom... or tyranny at work?

Maybe the voice of "good" is in reality bad. Perhaps all voices from other realms (should you wish to believe such a concept) are the voices and feelings from another world bent on conquering our own. You don't know and you're better off ignoring ALL of this bullshit. One man's god is another man's demon and thus it's safe to just assume they're all demons, should you even fucking ignorantly consider believing this nonsense.

It's the only rational conclusion that I can imagine which takes into account the inherent security risks between potential "linked" worlds, and in which relinquishes fearful self interest and acquisition of "treasures" in the after life (afterlife class war much?). It's like clicking on an insane URL in an email from Sender: "God" h__p:/godisreal.com/eternity?reward=/script%3E%123.45.69%mansion%in%the%sky/script%3E!YOURMINDSASLAVENOW. Would you seriously do that? You have no idea and you didn't even consider that belief could lead to damnation. It's just too easy. And what do we say about things that are too easy? I know what that means in this life, thank you very much.

Now you're hacked. Idiot. And you call unbelievers stupid and sad. For fuck's sake you can't even control your own mind's will to sync with the known patterns of security that we use for survival in this world. You think you're going to be safe in the next? You're ensnared and if you have an eternal soul, I HAVE PITY FOR YOU.

All we really know is that we don't know. It's not a revolutionary idea and in my honest opinion, if there is a life after death, then facing the ultimate fear of your own mortality is a challenge for true fulfillment of an undeserving eternity.

To believe in an after life without question is not to admit ones mortality. Admitting your mortality is a sobering and freeing concept. Again, I continue to feel pity for those whose minds are not free to process this.

Complete inability to answer the question(s)...inability to answer yes, no, or I don't know..he should have asked her if SHE is on meth or heroin or prescription drugs, because if not and this is her sober and at her best, she needs to go yesterday.
Drugs are bad...so...don't be bad, MmmmmK? Because that's bad....and you shouldn't be bad. MmmmmK?

I have a simple test for this one. If you can no longer judge what is an appropriate amount of time to maintain eye contact with people, your too high to drive! (anyone who smokes should know what I mean)

Up until that point however I honestly believe it can slightly enhance ones standard of (safe) driving, especially if one is prone to a quick temper or impatience/ "a need for speed". Frankly some people are more of a liability when completely sober! (I know I used to be till I made myself calm down)

Unlike alcohol Pot tends to make one objective about how impaired ones senses have become. If your too high the little voice in your head tends to think "I'm really high, maybe I shouldn't drive yet?" rather than "I'm not pissed, I'm amazing. We can totally pull this off!".

Pot can also be surprisingly self regulating too, your most comfortable road speed is pretty much inversely proportional to how high you are, unlike certain other fermented vegetable products which are known to have the opposite effect....

IMHO existing laws for driving without due care and attention etc. are perfectly adequate to deal with potential abuse. I'm not saying it can't be a problem but equating it with drink driving is foolish and necessary to me.
This advert seems to have hit on a nice way of approaching the subject by simply suggesting you think twice about driving when baked our of your tree, rather than some unrealistic draconian shock tactics (Like the us advert at the drive through).

Good work NZ! (Wish I could afford to live there, seems like an awesome place)

IMO, arrest bad drivers on their merits - i.e. if they drive bad, arrest them.
I don't care if you're sober, it's no excuse.
I don't care if you're drunk, it's not my business.

Cell phone or alcohol are not a magic litmus test.
Just because you have/consume them, does not make you automagically unfit.
Just because you don't have/consume them, does not make you automagically fit.

Too many terrible and dangerous drivers shielded by their lack of alcohol and lack of cell phone use.

People have lost touch with what matters : Is the person operating their vehicle in a dangerous manner.



As for the guy in the video, he has a 4th and 5th amendment.
The constitution is the highest law in the country, superseding any and all lower laws.
By "law", he's under no obligation to talk to "law enforcement".
It's not rude to 'mind your own business'.

-scheherazade