Comments by "The french are harlequins" (@thefrenchareharlequins2743) on "" video.

“The law perverted! The law — and, in its wake, all the collective forces of the nation — the law, I say, not only diverted from its proper direction, but made to pursue one entirely contrary! The law become the tool of every kind of avarice, instead of being its check! The law guilty of that very iniquity which it was its mission to punish! Truly, this is a serious fact, if it exists, and one to which I feel bound to call the attention of my fellow citizens.” ― Frédéric Bastiat
3
@jukeman9291 If they are arbitrary, it is just as good as saying "these limits are wrong" without any evidence. True, but it has yet to be shown that I am simply waiting. As far as I am concerned, I have not observed someone completely disregarding the consequences of their actions just by virtue of them having a certain number of alcohol in their blood.
3
@jukeman9291 The alternative here is to punish people who are not disregarding the consequences of their actions. So if what I would do means throwing the baby out with the bath water, then so be it. As long as you are using "see" in its broadest sense, to mean "observe". If the only evidence I have about a driver that he was acting recklessly was his BAC reading, then I do not have enough evidence to say beyond a reasonable doubt to say he is guilty of reckless conduct. Just as I still have a reasonable doubt, even if there was a certain amount of evidence that there was a motive, of whether JFK was assassinated by the Feds. I have seen plenty of drunk people. I have also seen people drink and not get anywhere near losing their rational faculties. Whether they would pass a breathalyser, despite obviously still being in control of themselves, is another question.
3
@jukeman9291 What is today common sense was once what you call abstract make believe reasoning. It was common sense in the Soviet Union that business owners should be robbed. There is no reason to assume that just because a great many people believe something that there is anything to it.
3
@jukeman9291 But there can be no ideas besides those which initially come from reality via your senses, so I don't see the distinction.
3
@jukeman9291 All of these things can be traced back to sense-perception
3
@jukeman9291 Presumably, for emotions, because all living men have values which can be achieved or lost and emotions are mutatis mutandis automatic reactions to the achievement or loss of values, or for the "intuition" front, maybe it is a fact about nature so obvious that few people can deny it
3
@jukeman9291 Well, clearly not if there is such radical differences in the way in which people value, like ascetics to hedonists, to those who prefer romantic art to modern art. It is either humans have to come into contact with these things an evaluate which ones they will prefer or they are completely predestined to do so.
3
If his ideas weren't in utter contradiction to reality, maybe he could have a principled victory
2
@BaronSterling So I suppose the question is will a drunk driver cause the death of another. I think the fact that statutes had to be introduced to punish drunk drivers rather than drunk drivers just being charged with common law manslaughter is enough evidence to show that drunk driving doesnt fit the criteria.
2
@jukeman9291 Does not taking a vitamin supplement before driving a car, thereby impairing your focus, show you are irresponsible and threaten the lives of other people?
2
@jukeman9291 And by what standard are we saying someone is unfit to drive?
2
@jukeman9291 I'm not sure if my previous comment regarding the ad verecundiam inherent in this appeal to common sense made it through, YouTube probably didn't like the example I used. And at which point would I consider him drunk? Obviously there is a point where he cannot understand what he is doing at which point I would intervene to stop recklessness, but I doubt that is anywhere close to 0.08 BAC, 0.05% BAC or whatever other arbitrary limit there is.
2
@chsims12 Indeed. Whim has no place in the law.
2
@jukeman9291 then give me a precise definition of innate and intuition as you are using it with examples so I know whether it can be attacked or not
2
@Oksobasically2 DUI laws are unjust
1
@saysikerightnow3914 What's the alternative, not state basic truths and allow more injustices to be committed than otherwise?
1
@saysikerightnow3914 Driving always involves some danger of crashing into someone, so the question isn't whether you are endangering someone else's life or not, the question is whether you, by your actions are completely disregarding the consequences of your actions. I see no necessary connection between having a certain level of blood alcohol and completely disregarding the consequences of your actions. I rarely drink, but there are many things which I do which could impact my concentration, such as not taking a vitamin suppliment every morning, not meditating every day, and some days I skip breakfast. Whatever the impact of these things are, I and the vast majority of other drivers have enough spare capacity to still be able to focus, which hardly makes not taking a vitamin suppliment and driving some criminal act. The flipside of 20% of drunk drivers causing all crashes is that 80% of all sober drivers causing all crashes, but that is hardly an argument to outlaw sober driving. The reason why the right and left do not take libertarians seriously is because they are Kantian, and since libertarianism is radically pro-reality, pro-reason and pro-egoism, they prefer to ignore it.
1
@jukeman9291 There's not even the faintest probability that it is wrong just because a great many people disagree with it. Most ideas popular today was once only the ideas of one or a few men, and many others go with it because it is fashionable, or from peer pressure. Imagine taking a poll of whether it is right to steal from business owners during the height of Stalin's rule in Russia, and then doing the same poll in Russia today.
1
@jukeman9291 Well "human nature" in what respect? Obviously we have a body and there are intrinsic requirements to our survival, but the mind can contain whatever is potentially thinkable, just as a blank slate can contain whatever is potentially writeable.
1
@jukeman9291 well, I think it is more analogous to a chip without any code programmed onto it yet. It's potentially anything which is programmable. Lower animals too are born tabula rasa.
1