Friend died by DUI Driver

[VoldtaEngler]

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19693582/detail.html

She was a sweet person. I saw her everyday and I can't remember one time she never was in a good mood. It was also her little brother's birthday which is a little more devastating.

So um... don't drink and drive.

[thegreendevil76]

Just terrible. You have my sympathies. I'll get out and arrest a few DUIs just for you this weekend.

[KessM]

HUG. you need it.

[Buster Friendly]

That just sucks dude.

Sorry.

An internet aqquintence recently had a TV crush their grandchild.

Shit like this DUI killing is why I'm so fucking hostile to drivers, and cars.

[Buster Friendly]

Just terrible. You have my sympathies. I'll get out and arrest a few DUIs just for you this weekend.

And don't forget to "watch out" for their heads as they're getting into the back of your cruiser.

[KessM]

And don't forget to "watch out" for their heads as they're getting into the back of your cruiser.

O.o

[Raza]

Just terrible. You have my sympathies. I'll get out and arrest a few DUIs just for you this weekend.

That's right; turn that loss into a moral victory by categorising the offender and laying down some righteous woopass on those bearing their likeness.

[TheDeathKnight]

That sucks...

I am always baffled by people who drive when they are that wasted. I understand how some people drive when they are slightly buzzed, or had a couple of drinks. That's not ideal, but it happens. But some of these drunk drivers are COMPLETELY wasted. I just don't understand how people think they are cool to drive in that condition. I mean he did not even realize he hit someone!

[Buster Friendly]

That's right; turn that loss into a moral victory by categorising the offender and laying down some righteous woopass on those bearing their likeness.

"Whoopass" - your english is generally better than mine, so I thought you might like to know the proper spelling of this word. (I often drop letters off of words myself.)

Removing drunk drivers from the roads is not a moral victory for thegreendevil, it's his job.

[KessM]

i dont drive no threats here!

[Amelia G]

Weird that the guy was repeatedly speeding down a dark residential street with a low speed limit on the same night. Sounds like more on the guy's mind or going on than just booze. Wonder what the guy thought he was doing there.

Awful what happened to your friend. Deepest sympathy.

[Raza]

"Whoopass" - your english is generally better than mine, so I thought you might like to know the proper spelling of this word. (I often drop letters off of words myself.)

Removing drunk drivers from the roads is not a moral victory for thegreendevil, it's his job.

Thank you - I had not realised that the word was well enough recognised as such to have a proper spelling.

And from his statement, he sounded rather eager to apply both rationalizations simultaneously.

[OliX]

Thank you - I had not realised that the word was well enough recognised as such to have a proper spelling.

And from his statement, he sounded rather eager to apply both rationalizations simultaneously.

Realized and recognized.

You're welcome.


On the topic, same shit happened to me for 10+ years ago One of my best girl friends died because of a drunk fucker

[Raza]

No, that's American vs British english. Both are correct.

Also, don't push it while you're typing crap like "happened to me for 10+ years ago".

[OliX]

Do you understand my crap?

[Raza]

Yes, but I'm not telling you how not to write; I'm telling you how not to correct me.

Personally, I don't even believe in 'correct' vs 'incorrect' language as dictated by some government-sanctioned central authority. The way I see it, language belongs to the people that use it to apply and mutate as they see fit. If you're gonna be the dusty fucker to dig up a dictionary and wack me upside the head with it though, you better be im-freaking-peccable in your own writing.

[malcolm]

that sucks V.E.

[OliX]

Yes, but I'm not telling you how not to write; I'm telling you how not to correct me.

Personally, I don't even believe in 'correct' vs 'incorrect' language as dictated by some government-sanctioned central authority. The way I see it, language belongs to the people that use it to apply and mutate as they see fit. If you're gonna be the dusty fucker to dig up a dictionary and wack me upside the head with it though, you better be im-freaking-peccable in your own writing.

I just tried to touch your nerve for experimental purposes.

And it seemed silly (my own taste in funny) at the time for me to correct you, although I knew about the British/American spelling.

[Raza]

So your sense of humor involves feigning ignorance of the subject at hand, leading up to the punchline where you get called on having said something incorrect?

It would be, I suppose.

[OliX]

No, more like silly pranks and situations on my own or others account.

[soma_stardust]

*hugs* i'm so sorry. that's horrible.

i dont drive no threats here!

same here. every time i bemoan that fact, i realise it just means i'd have to find a designated driver.

[incog]

That sucks, man. Sorry that happened to you.

This is why I take taxis everywhere.

[Luna]

That's right; turn that loss into a moral victory by categorising the offender and laying down some righteous woopass on those bearing their likeness.

There's no need to claim that there's unfair stereotyping going on or anything because of this crime. Any and all drunk drivers need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. They might as well all be committing attempted murder.

To the OP - I am so sorry! That is one of the most tragic and infuriating ways to lose someone.

[Raza]

If there wasn't any need just now, you surely just remedied that.

No, but really. 'Unfair stereotyping' doesn't really describe it, if for no other reason than that people can't seem to get it into their heads that a billion common considerations other than the 'classics' of race, sexual orientation, gender and religion amount to the same kind of categorical discrimination. How I meant to characterise greendevil's (and now your) attitude in this instance is more as that kind of arational vengefulness you seem to get when a society of people is constantly exposed to tales of grievous harm inflicted by a certain category of 'wrongdoers' (imaginary or otherwise), and the scales of popular opinion tip that level where proclamations of moral outrage are echoed back and forth at such a reliable rate that they get amplified well beyond what any single individual's reaction would have been, and people end up rather losing touch with reality as they try to outshout each other on just how arbitrarily horrible the punishment aught to be.

[OliX]

Why complicating it and bringing in "stereotypical categorization" that people do. You're doing it right now. Categorizing everybody else in one sheep-like crowd, while seeing you and few others as fair ones.

Drunk driver is a drunk driver. Doesn't matter who it is, it is not ok to drive under the influences, endangering other people.

[Luna]

Anytime someone drives drunk, they are taking everyone else's lives into their own hands and causing a great risk to them. They are bringing on the possibility of death to others who are innocent and following the law. Anyone who would risk others' lives to that degree simply to drive their car deserves no respect, IMO (this coming from a devout misanthrope who shouldn't really care if someone doesn't care about others' lives. )

[Raza]

Why complicating it and bringing in "stereotypical categorization" that people do. You're doing it right now. Categorizing everybody else in one sheep-like crowd, while seeing you and few others as fair ones.

Drunk driver is a drunk driver. Doesn't matter who it is, it is not ok to drive under the influences, endangering other people.

You talk more and more like a bot every day, you know that?

But to answer your question, I bring it up because it describes a mechanism involved in the event (and therefore helps explain the matter - you can't really speak of unnecessary complication until you've got a functioning theory), and I am not in the same sense because my opinion of people is fluid and derived ad hoc from their actions, rather than static and used to prescribe how I judge them.

Anytime someone drives drunk, they are taking everyone else's lives into their own hands and causing a great risk to them. They are bringing on the possibility of death to others who are innocent and following the law. Anyone who would risk others' lives to that degree simply to drive their car deserves no respect, IMO (this coming from a devout misanthrope who shouldn't really care if someone doesn't care about others' lives. )

Dear, the possibility of harming other exists with any form of interaction - any form of action, even. However wonderfully villifying they sound, none of those quoted facts are unique to drunk driving or exclusive of all those things we still consider morally allowable. You will at best be arguing arbitrary quantity of risk, which even if it turns out in your favor is entirely too difficult to pin down to permit us the kind of moral clarity you're appealing to here.

None of that is really the point though, as I am not saying that drunk driving is a 'good' thing to do. What I am saying is that it's one of those things that people have horribly exaggerated opinions on that they aquire more through empathatic conceptual osmosis than through any real analysis of the issue.

[TheDeathKnight]

the possibility of harming other exists with any form of interaction - any form of action, even.

Very true. But there are some actions and behaviors that are more likely to cause death or harm to others. For instance, cars are very deadly. They cause a large amount of the deaths in America. I think it's right behind heart disease and cancer. So driving poorly, or speeding, or drunk driving, gives you a high chance of killing someone. Statistically, it's probably safer to fire a gun in the air. Sure, the bullet *might* come down and hit someone and kill them. But it's pretty unlikely. Whereas if you get drunk and drive, there is a lot more chance of killing someone. There are plenty of things that are dangerous, that people do all the time. But some of those things you can avoid, and other things you can't. Obviously, regardless of the statistical chances of something bad happening, if you know it's dangerous, it might be wise not to do it. Be it drunk driving, or shooting a gun in the air... My main distinction is that some risks are just to yourself, and other things risk the lives of others. So if someone wants to do risky behavior for themselves, I say go for it. But try to avoid doing things that are likely to harm others. Because not everyone wants to die, or wants to live a life or risk. I am sure Voldta's neighbor wanted to live, and watch her children grow up. But she can't now, because some dude wanted to get drunk and drive like a maniac up and down the street... If he wanted to get drunk at home, or get drive drunk in some abandoned field somewhere, then that's fine.

[karyn]

according to the cdc, the most recent compilation of top causes of death in America in order from most to least are:

Diseases of heart (heart disease)
Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
Accidents (unintentional injuries)
Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
Alzheimer’s disease
Influenza and pneumonia
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
Septicemia
Intentional self-harm (suicide)
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
Parkinson’s disease
Assault (homicide)

[OliX]

You talk more and more like a bot every day, you know that?

But to answer your question, I bring it up because it describes a mechanism involved in the event (and therefore helps explain the matter - you can't really speak of unnecessary complication until you've got a functioning theory), and I am not in the same sense because my opinion of people is fluid and derived ad hoc from their actions, rather than static and used to prescribe how I judge them.

...

Wait, categorizing people plays a roll in DUI now? I don't get it. Elaborate please.

[TheDeathKnight]

I am guessing he's saying that not all people who drink and drive kill people. And that plenty of totally sober drivers run people over or crash into other cars as well. Therefore he feels like you should not categorize ALL drunk drivers as being murderous idiots. Which may be true, but I still think if you drink and drive, you are taking a much bigger chance of killing someone than if you were not drinking. In fact, any irresponsible behavior in a car has a high chance of ending in a fatality, simply because cars are very dangerous machines in general.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

You know, I spent some time looking for something helpful, clever or useful to say. That was a bit silly of me.

VE, I am sorry for your loss.

[thegreendevil76]

"Whoopass" - your english is generally better than mine, so I thought you might like to know the proper spelling of this word. (I often drop letters off of words myself.)

Removing drunk drivers from the roads is not a moral victory for thegreendevil, it's his job.

#1: Removing drunk drivers from the roads is my job AND a moral victory for me.

#2: I find it tragic that Raza has hijacked a thread about a tragedy close to one of the board members to espouse his crazy-ass world view and show us all how "intelligent" he is.

#3: I am always amused at how it's always these feeble little geeks (that's right Raza, I'm talking about YOU) who like the idea of breaking down authority and ignoring societal norms, but they would be the first victims in a world without someone to protect them (that's right Raza, I am talking about the cops). They are ALWAYS the first ones running to "the man" for help when the wolf comes knocking on their door.

#4: Raza, please accept my personal invitation for you to leave your parents' basement and step out into the real world, where people's tragedies are not a matter of academic debate, but a palpable force. Maybe then everything won't be such a black-and-white issue that demands your sad and predictable kneejerk reactions. I, for one, am sick of your bullshit and I imagine other people are, too.

p.s.- don't bother dissecting this post and responding with your pseudointellectual witticisms...I won't read them.

[Buster Friendly]

#
#3: I am always amused at how it's always these feeble little geeks (that's right Raza, I'm talking about YOU) who like the idea of breaking down authority and ignoring societal norms, but they would be the first victims in a world without someone to protect them (that's right Raza, I am talking about the cops). They are ALWAYS the first ones running to "the man" for help when the wolf comes knocking on their door.

.

I've always had a problem this attitude.

When people settle shit for themselves the law is usually a little less than understanding.

[Amelia G]

I've always had a problem this attitude.

When people settle shit for themselves the law is usually a little less than understanding.

Yes. This tends to be even doubly the case for less conventional appearance.

[Amelia G]

Also I have an AWESOME IDEA.

[Raza]

#1: Removing drunk drivers from the roads is my job AND a moral victory for me.

Hah. See?

#2: I find it tragic that Raza has hijacked a thread about a tragedy close to one of the board members to espouse his crazy-ass world view and show us all how "intelligent" he is.

Ooh, the "my opponent's position is wrong because in voicing it he is not doing anything for the victims of the moment" card. You must be American.

##3: I am always amused at how it's always these feeble little geeks (that's right Raza, I'm talking about YOU) who like the idea of breaking down authority and ignoring societal norms, but they would be the first victims in a world without someone to protect them (that's right Raza, I am talking about the cops). They are ALWAYS the first ones running to "the man" for help when the wolf comes knocking on their door.

Ooh heee, somebody is Tougher Than Me on the internets. I better watch out what I say now.

Honestly though; while I disagree heartily with your implication that an individual should need the ability to defend themselves against all possible violently aggressive parties in order to protest the security-rationalized dominance of one (that's right TGD, I'm talking about the cops. ), I'm not nearly as wimpy as you'd guess from how smart and pretty I am.

#4: Raza, please accept my personal invitation for you to leave your parents' basement and step out into the real world, where people's tragedies are not a matter of academic debate, but a palpable force. Maybe then everything won't be such a black-and-white issue that demands your sad and predictable kneejerk reactions. I, for one, am sick of your bullshit and I imagine other people are, too.

Eh? Which is it, overt academicism or black-and-white knee-jerking? Or are you just throwing every accusation you know at me now to see if anything sticks?

p.s.- don't bother dissecting this post and responding with your pseudointellectual witticisms...I won't read them.

Aww man. You should put that sort of thing at the start of your post, you know.

[inox]

Condolences, VE.

[Velvet-Tongue]

I'm sorry for your loss Voldta .

[Toe Cutter]

That's shitty. Sorry to hear about that Voldta.