utabintarbo

I wonder if the choice of that particular day was a calculated decision?

QFT +1

From TFA:

Wouldn't it be ironic if it is determined that the "irresponsible few" are in fact the government regulators? Of course, very few will see it that way.

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

How could it be worse?

I thought I was alone!

Was that not already the case?

As if this type of fraud were not already made illegal decades ago. wtf.

Your wording belies your own prejudices. I find that interesting, though not surprising.

This is satire? I thought it was an Obama position paper.

Well, she has a nephew as evidence, no?

I would probably have turned it back on them: "Why yes. Yes I am. Starting with you." Then you could have gone into the logical fallacy thing. Nothing like some sarcastic disrespect to answer a cheesy straw man like that.

What, no thong? An oversight, I'm sure.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough previously. I hope this is more succinct. To break it down, I said/meant lack of intent with no harm <> crime; however either intent with no harm, or no intent with harm == crime. Potential harm <> harm. IOW, you need either intent OR harm to meet a minimum level for "crime". Right, intent can be inferred from action. Intent without action is merely bad thoughts. Action without intent is kinda morally irrelevant until we see what the results are. Hence, no harm; no foul. By assuming that anyone with a blood alcohol level above a given number is ipso facto "dangerous" kinda begs the question. It also assumes that all people are the same in terms of their ability to "handle their liquor" and operate a motor vehicle safely. Not a very "individualist" attitude. And this may be perhaps fodder for another thread, but would driver licenses even exist in this context?

Can we implicitly assume the threat? What about the implicit threat posed by any number of merely incompetent drivers out there that never actually get into an accident? Are they not equally a threat?

No, because of the intent of the action. Intent is very important in law. I submit that your analogy is flawed. One cannot infer intent to harm merely by sitting behind a steering wheel after a drink or two. If a drunk person drives home without incident, what violation of rights should be punished? A better analogy would be the guy who shoots his gun into the air on New Years Eve (something that used to happen a lot in Detroit ), and has a bullet fall from the sky and hit somebody. There was no intent to harm anyone. Is that attempted murder? I submit that it is not, and while possibly reckless, sans victim not necessarily a cause for police action.

It could lead to this: (Probably NSFW. You've been warned!)

So the concept of a victimless crime is valid, in your opinion? It must be, if even allegedly "reckless" behavior which has no consequences is to be determined unlawful. What next?

I do not agree with your DUI analogy. It seems that you are rationalizing police action on the chance that something bad might happen. If that is appropriate, then where does it stop, since all kinds of bad things might happen in all kinds of seemingly innocuous situations.

Hey! Quit feeling up Jesus! That's only for the priests to do.

As were his predecessors. Kinda part of the job description.

Judging from the summaries posted, I am unsure of the efficacy of the effort. It is unlikely that pointing out the errors in the book will make much difference, as it seems as if this book was aimed at a particular target market which will likely not heed any criticism, regardless. Given many of the comments, I am pretty sure he hit the target.

This intrigues me. So far as I can tell, you have not broken forum rules nor attacked anyone. What could the Admins have said that would cause such a chilling effect? Or was it merely that your "argument" had run its course, and this allows you a convenient/face-saving way out?

ARCHN Contra Intellectual Content.