New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers

[Lacrosse Boy]

In

Which, again, is not what I argued at all (and which was called fallacious by you). I argued that a first time offender is LIKELY not driving drunk for the first time in their life. You called that fallacious. You were called out for it...and then went about proving that it is fallacious to argue that a first time offender will become a repeat offender. WHICH IS NOT WHAT I SAID AND NOT WHAT YOU SAID WAS FALLACIOUS ABOUT THE STATEMENT I MADE.

So, until you can at least admit that you A) misquoted me and B) were wrong in arguing that the statment I made was fallacious, I'm done since you clearly don't want to deal with either of those points.

I am 100% correct and accurate, and did not misquote you -- I directly quoted you, and called you out on the misleading fact you presented, which did not take into account rates of recidivism or the complete reasoning behind placing a breathalyzer in a car -- it's not solely for a past crime, it's to prevent future ones.

Stop disputing this. It has been proven incorrect, and your point has been proven null and void.

See this post.

After multiple times of calling you out upon the complete reasoning behind having a breathalyzer in a car as a punishment, you continue to deny it.

How many authoritative sources, outlining of the argument, and rebuttals will it take for you to admit that the idea it is soely a punishment of a past crime, and has nothing to do with making the same mistake in the future (despite the statistics and facts) will it take for you to realize this? Is it more or less than the number of number of times Al Franken has smeared conservatives as lying liars?

Therefore, I have no further reason to engage in this discussion with you if you are unable to admit the complete and total reasoning (proven beyond a shred of doubt) behind having a breathalyzer in a first-time offenders car..

[Tiggerlives]

Post 36. Not PREVIOUS posts.

My quote:

Another quick thought....LB, you seem to be working under the assumption that the first time someone gets caught driving drunk is the first time they've driven drunk. Highly improbable and I've seen studies that say you've driven drunk plenty of times before getting pulled over for the first time.

That's what I said. You then argue and MISquote me:

So to say "because you've been caught doing it once, this means you've done it before" is simply false, and again -- fallacious thinking.

Now....look at my QUOTE and look at your QUOTE.

Where did I say "because you've been caught doing it once, this means you've done it before?'

Please. Show me.

I said "highly IMPROBABLE" which A) limits the falsity of the statement and B) is not fallacious thinking.

Oh, and has NOTHING to do with Post 41, in which you argue about rates of recidivism.

Again, the statment "to be working under the assumption that the first time someone gets caught driving drunk is the first time they've driven drunk. Highly improbable" IS NOT FALLACIOUS. So stop saying it is.

[Tiggerlives]

Stop disputing this. It has been proven incorrect, and your point has been proven null and void.

I DID NOT DISPUTE THIS. I said SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

What don't you understand?

Saying that it is highly improbable that the first time offender was caught drinking the first time he/she got behind the wheel of a car drunk is NOT saying didly squat about the probability for a FIRST TIME OFFENDER to become a SECOND TIME OFFENDER.

So, please, again, point to where I disputed that? I ceded that point LONG AGO about recidivism rates and haven't touched that argument in some number of posts. Please, keep up.

[Lacrosse Boy]

Now....look at my QUOTE and look at your QUOTE.

Hmm, I didn't quote you there -- I quoted a flawed line of argumentation that has been prepositionally deduced. I place quote tags around anything that I directly quote from an individual, and in the rare instances I don't, I say who said it.

All evidence supporting my argument has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Therefore, there is nothing more to be said.

[Tiggerlives]

^so, you're saying that when you put quotation marks around a statement during a rebutal of a statement I made, that you weren't intentionally quoting, or at the very least poorly paraphrasing my statement?

Then, why put quotation marks around it? And if it is simply to argue a point that is being made in general, why put blocks around my quote in the beggining of the post? Since it appears it was a rebutal to the majority, not the individual.

Let me get this straight....

You said "So to say" and then proceeded to addd a 'quote' that I didnt' say in a rebutal to my argument...but did not mean to lead the reader into believing that the quote was in direct relation to the argument at hand?

Wow. OK. Well, can't argue with logic like that.

[Tiggerlives]

All evidence supporting my argument has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever.

Back on topic....

If that was the case how do you explain the fact that ONLY first time offenders are punished? If this was punishing possible future misdeeds only, then why aren't all breathalyzers in the cars of the children of alcoholics (studies show children of alcoholics are more likely to abuse alcohol) or why isn't there racial profiling and have the breathalyzers in the cars of all Mexican-American drivers (the highest percentage group of California DUIs)?

Oh, wait...is it because the punishment comes only after the crime?

If, as you seem to believe, this is becoming a police state...the punishment would come to those who have no previous record of bad behavior. This is clearly not happening in these instances.

Now, does one DUI mean another is pending? No. So what? It means you've already shown impaired judgement and thus your penalty will include possible safeguards to help ensure no relapse.

Also, if, as you say, 85 percent of first time DUI offenders never get arrested again...that means that 15 percent of them do.

Now, the question to ask is whether that percentage of the population is more or less than the percentage risk of the general population.

In 2007, there were 37,000 DUI arrests. Assuming 85 percent, per your stat, were first0time offenders that means there were roughly 31,450 first time arrests for DUI.

During the years of 2004-2007 Minnesota averaged 3,894,723 residents over the age of 18. I'm not going to look for the 16-18 demo, so I'm actually giving you better numbers because of it.

So, take the total first time offenders (31,450) and LIBERALLY divide by the 18 plus population (3,894,723) instead of the 16-plus and that means that roughly .8 percent of the Minnesota population in 2007 was found guilty of drunk driving for the first time.

Compare that to the fact that 15 percent of the FIRST TIME offenders were found guilty, and a first-time offender is roughly 18.75 times MORE LIKELY to drink and drive than a REGULAR CITIZEN WITHOUT A PRIOR DUI CONVICTION.

What more proof do you need?

Who cares if a first time offender is less likely to commit a second offense than not. He/she is still WAY MORE LIKELY to commit an offense than someone without a prior DUI.

[club33az]

I don't get what the real punishment is and why it's such a big deal, unless you are bound to repeat the violation. Complaining about this is more psychological than anything; a person just not liking the thought of this device in their car. If obeyed then there is nothing to complain about or there being a true punishment. The only real punishment is not being able to drive with a blood/alcohol level of .08 or higher.

And I remember several offenders interviewed actually liking this device as they sometimes slip and make pore judgment calls. I remember a few people being interviewed during a news broadcast saying they have even started drinking less just because they know this is in their car and appreciating that.

This is like a swear jar in the house. The only people who should get angry of a swear jar are the ones who curse.

So, in other words, the police should be able to search your house anytime they want, right? I mean, if you haven't done anything wrong, you should have nothing to hide.

[PirateGuy 815]

I think this may actually be good. It could save lives, and people who are drunk wouldn't have a criminal mark on their records. I think it's pretty good, and more states should adopt it.

[club33az]

Stop selling liquor. That'll save even more lives.

Or maybe ALL cars should come equipped with this as standard equipment. You know, just in case someone decides to drink before driving.

[Tiggerlives]

^ Again, if you've gotten one DUI you are over 18 times more likely in the state of Minn to get another DUI. I'm sure the stats are close to the same elsewhere.

Why talk like states are enacting these laws for all citizens? They're only doing it punitively for those who have already proven themselves irresponsible.