Che Guevara: Idiot liberal hero.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

So all Turks are crimnals?
No, but they do affect the statistics negatively and they get 15% more of the population with every generation.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
Maybe in Austria. Down here in Oklahoma and Texas, children handle guns when they are six or seven.
Yeah and I can see that being a problem.
Secondly, it is easy to tell when a child is very young, but what if a child is 12 and looks like they are 20?
Are you telling me that you're calibrated eyeball can accurately guess the age of these adult looking children?
Same thing with a reckless alcoholic. Unless you already know, you can't tell by looking at them.


Well, you usually know the age of your friends. So if you are handing out alcohol at a party to your friends, you cant really go wrong.
Anybody else that is handing out alcohol has to check the age of those that are not clearly above legal age for drinking via their IDs already anyway.
However someone who has grey hair and wrinkles arround his eyes and a recessing hairline clearly is at legal age unless he is suffering from progeria and then if one of those poor bastards wants a beer before he dies, I would not deny it to him (he most likely wont live long enough to ever have a drink legally anyway).

Now you are saying the same thing that I am saying except I am applying the idea a little more extensively.

I postulate that most people will not know if someone has done something irresponsible. ( I have a friend who has had 5 DUI's (driving under influence) I know of another fellow who's had 7. (He's going to prison.)

The only way to find out if someone has already demonstrated themselves to be irresponsible is to check. You can't look at them and tell.

To people who are responsible, it is a trivial annoyance, just as bothersome as showing ID for age requirements, but for someone who has already proven themselves to be irresponsible and willing to endanger others, it could mean the difference between someone's life or death.

And yet you still consider the idea (and yes, it's just an idea) to be draconian?

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

You can't look at them and tell.
Exactly that is the problem. So you would deny a fried a drink at your party, just because he forgot his alcohol license?
I think that this is ridiculous.

If you know that your friend has problems with alcohol, as you do with some of your friends, then maybe you should not invite him to the party in the first place? But if you dont know about him having made a mistake once, well you really want people to do ID checks at the entrance to private parties? Maybe hire a bouncer too?
I call that bullshit.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
You can't look at them and tell.
Exactly that is the problem. So you would deny a fried a drink at your party, just because he forgot his alcohol license?
I think that this is ridiculous.

If you know that your friend has problems with alcohol, as you do with some of your friends, then maybe you should not invite him to the party in the first place? But if you dont know about him having made a mistake once, well you really want people to do ID checks at the entrance to private parties? Maybe hire a bouncer too?
I call that bullshit.

I call bullshit on you letting someone with 5 DUIs drink at your party, and you not being responsible if they kill someone.

I am not saying you must check licenses. I am saying, you must pay the bill for the consequences if you don't. You are free to gamble with your own future.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

I call bullshit on you letting someone with 5 DUIs drink at your party, and you not being responsible if they kill someone.

I am not saying you must check licenses. I am saying, you must pay the bill for the consequences if you don't. You are free to gamble with your own future.
So you check the records of all your friends all the time, yes? You know all the little misdemeanours that they did?
You are spying on them maybe? Dude, you are creepy!

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:
I call bullshit on you letting someone with 5 DUIs drink at your party, and you not being responsible if they kill someone.

I am not saying you must check licenses. I am saying, you must pay the bill for the consequences if you don't. You are free to gamble with your own future.
So you check the records of all your friends all the time, yes? You know all the little misdemeanours that they did?
You are spying on them maybe? Dude, you are creepy!

Time for a logic lesson.

This quote by you is a strawman fallacy.
"So you check the records of all your friends all the time, yes? "
"You are spying on them maybe?"

It is asserts that I do something which I do not do, then attacks me for doing the thing I don't do. (Beating up a man made of straw, i.e. not the real thing.)


Then here comes the Ad Hominem part. The "strawman" (i.e. the characterization of me) is called "creepy".

" Dude, you are creepy![/quote]"


It is also the fallacy of false equivalency because it presumes that checking all your friends misdemeanors is morally equivalent to finding out if someone has an irresponsible drinking problem before you let them drink your liquor.


If having parking tickets. or playing loud music, or shoplifting could get other people killed, you would have a point. Because they can't, you don't.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

But drinking does not automatically kill other people. Only if they drive after drinking, they might kill other people. The MUCH more responsible thing to do would be to call that guy a taxi when he leaves (or to organize a ride for him with another friend) to make sure he does not drive his car home, when he had to much. This is what people here do and that does not require anyone to check anybodies licenses or to deny anybody a drink.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Skipjack wrote:But drinking does not automatically kill other people. Only if they drive after drinking, they might kill other people. The MUCH more responsible thing to do would be to call that guy a taxi when he leaves (or to organize a ride for him with another friend) to make sure he does not drive his car home, when he had to much. This is what people here do and that does not require anyone to check anybodies licenses or to deny anybody a drink.

Very responsible of you, and certainly more trouble than checking their license. In any case, it frees you from legal responsibility, so it accomplishes the same thing.

And yes, drinking does not automatically kill other people. Neither does firing a gun, even if your fire it into the air. Of course, firing it into the air DOES increase the chance that you are going to kill someone accidentally.

Skipjack
Posts: 6051
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Of course, firing it into the air DOES increase the chance that you are going to kill someone accidentally.
The chance of that is quite a bit higher than the chance of you killing somebody just because you are drunk. If you were drunk and drove that is another story...
Also, calling a cab for someone is a lot less hassle and a lot less awkward than playing alco- cop on them.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Just saw this. Thought it was amusing and topical.

http://www.bspcn.com/2010/06/14/capitalism/


Image

neutron starr
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:30 pm
Location: Brooklyn Polytechnic

Post by neutron starr »

ok theory's great but lets look at alcohol regulation already on the books in the US. it is illegal to sell it to minors at party's. then lets look at what happens. no one cares because all you have to do to stay out of trouble is refuse the police entry and they can't come in to check your house. so before we get all excited and try to make our alcohol laws even more draconian lets see if we can enforce the laws we have. yes the person giving drinks to minors is de jure responsible but de facto it's so difficult to pin this kind of stuff on people that i don't even bat an eye when the hoods on my block want me to buy them 40's i see it as a great opportunity to avoid being mugged in the future by helping a brother out. of coarse i live in a neighbourhood surrounded by projects in Brooklyn and I'm much more worried about the local gangs and their Uzi's then a few drunk drivers so my view may be to applied for you Diogenes but it doesn't look like i'll ever be charged with anything more then a 50$ fine cause the cops don't care. no amount of law would change my behaviour or even make me thing of consequences not to mention b4 i was 21 the bodega at the end of the street never carded.
The measure of (mental) health is flexibility (not comparison to some ‘norm’), the freedom to learn from experience…The essence of illness is the freezing of behavior into unalterable and insatiable patterns.
Lawrence Kubie

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

neutron starr wrote:ok theory's great but lets look at alcohol regulation already on the books in the US. it is illegal to sell it to minors at party's. then lets look at what happens. no one cares because all you have to do to stay out of trouble is refuse the police entry and they can't come in to check your house. so before we get all excited and try to make our alcohol laws even more draconian lets see if we can enforce the laws we have. yes the person giving drinks to minors is de jure responsible but de facto it's so difficult to pin this kind of stuff on people that i don't even bat an eye when the hoods on my block want me to buy them 40's i see it as a great opportunity to avoid being mugged in the future by helping a brother out. of coarse i live in a neighbourhood surrounded by projects in Brooklyn and I'm much more worried about the local gangs and their Uzi's then a few drunk drivers so my view may be to applied for you Diogenes but it doesn't look like i'll ever be charged with anything more then a 50$ fine cause the cops don't care. no amount of law would change my behaviour or even make me thing of consequences not to mention b4 i was 21 the bodega at the end of the street never carded.

The idea was mainly speculative. A theoretical exercise. In any case, you are living on the ragged edge of the legal frontier where the moral, legal and ethical system is breaking down. Laws should not be based on the extreme case, but for the norm.

Now you might argue that "This is the norm for where I live" and I would suggest this is why we all should support federalism. The concept whereby individual states make laws that suits their circumstances.(among other things) A lot of where we go wrong in this country is creating laws or programs meant to address a problem in one demographic (usually urban) and then attempting to apply it nationwide in areas that are significantly different.

If everyone would just let the 50 individual states mind their own affairs, things would be better for the nation.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Forty three years ago this week, Ernesto "Che" Guevara got a major dose of his own medicine. Without trial he was declared a murderer, stood against a wall and shot. Historically speaking, justice has rarely been better served. If the saying "What goes around comes around" ever fit, it's here.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Humberto ... ing_coward

MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

The idea was mainly speculative. A theoretical exercise. In any case, you are living on the ragged edge of the legal frontier where the moral, legal and ethical system is breaking down. Laws should not be based on the extreme case, but for the norm.
And when the norm is changing government loses the Mandate of Heaven.

Small government. Very small government. Then changes can happen without civil wars.

A government can at best satisfy 50% to 60% of the people. Markets can satisfy 99% or better.

Any argument that goes "I want small government except for...." only gives the socialists an opening big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Post Reply