DUI checkpoints and 'no refusal' weekends

[Into the Night]

You don't have the right to drive drunk despite your belief that you do. You don't have a clue about the Constitution. You sound like a leftist with your "because I said so" argument.

WRONG. The Constitution says so. You are denying the Constitution by adding stuff to it that isn't there. There were no cars in the 1700's. The Constitution does not address drunk driving at all. See the 10th amendment. The topic is about sobriety checkpoints, not drunk driving.
Presentism fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (void<->Constitution of the United States). Strawman fallacy. Redirection fallacy and fixation.

 

[CFM]

WRONG. The Constitution says so. You are denying the Constitution by adding stuff to it that isn't there. There were no cars in the 1700's. The Constitution does not address drunk driving at all. See the 10th amendment. The topic is about sobriety checkpoints, not drunk driving.
Presentism fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (void<->Constitution of the United States). Strawman fallacy. Redirection fallacy and fixation.

Sobriety checkpoints are checking for drunk drivers you fucking idiot.

The Constitution doesn't say you can drive drunk. I don't know of any State that says you can.

I hope a drunk driver hits your damn family, the doors can't be opened, and the car catches fire.

 

[CFM]

Apparently not.

He never made any such argument. Compositional error fallacy.

Strawman fallacy.

I understand you don't have the freedom to drive drunk and his argument is that you can and not be punished until you hurt/kill an innocent person.

Where does the Constitution protect you entering my house without permission? My State's laws are clear about what can happen to you if you do.

 

[CFM]

Bulverism fallacy. Insult fallacies.

Not an insult if it's true and I wish he had suffered from a friendly fire accident.

 

[CFM]

You don't get to speak for the founders. You only get to speak for you.

I speak for the founders when the founders spoke the same way. I'll speak for you, too, and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it.

 

[Scut Farkus]

I understand you don't have the freedom to drive drunk and his argument is that you can and not be punished until you hurt/kill an innocent person.

Where does the Constitution protect you entering my house without permission? My State's laws are clear about what can happen to you if you do.

but we dont block roads and make everyone submit to unwarranted investigations on the matter. doy.

 

[Scut Farkus]

I speak for the founders when the founders spoke the same way. I'll speak for you, too, and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do about it.

we can refute your idiotspeak.

 

[CFM]

we can refute your idiotspeak.

Are you calling the founders idiots?

 

[CFM]

No, he's a libertarian all right. Anarchists don't want any government at all. Not even a republic (constitutional government).
He is standing firm supporting our Constitution. It is YOU that wants to ignore the 4th, 5th and 10th amendments here.

He doesn't support the Constitution. He supports what he wants it to say not what it says.

 

[CFM]

False equivalence fallacy. This has nothing to do with sobriety checkpoints.

Sobriety checkpoints check for drunk drivers, idiot.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Are you calling the founders idiots?

poop

 

[CFM]

YALIFNAP.

So you're mommy didn't let you suck her tits long enough either, huh?

 

[CFM]

Yes it is. Good for you.

Not drinking and driving is doing something too. So is posting here.

I assume you are doing something all the time.

One is legal and one is not.

 

[CFM]

poop

Can't answer a simple question, huh?

 

[Scut Farkus]

Sobriety checkpoints check for drunk drivers, idiot.

that's an unwarranted investigation with no probable cause. how much law school did you have to take to forget basics?

 

[CFM]

He is making a false equivalence. The problem is that he is using the assumption that a driver MIGHT be drunk to stop ALL drivers (including those that are not drunk). Thus, he is justifying interfering with a legal activity to stop an illegal activity.

This kind of thinking is what creates the so-called justification for gun control laws, the TSA making people take off their shoes and searching their luggage, implementing laws that punish everyone for the act of a single person, etc.

Such thinking is itself a fallacy, known as the attempted force of negative proof fallacy. In simpler terms, a man is guilty until proven innocent. This fallacy is a dangerous one. It starts wars.

That's not the assumption at all. That's an excuse for those of you that think it's OK for someone to drive drunk.

 

[CFM]

that's an unwarranted investigation with no probable cause. how much law school did you have to take to forget basics?

Not unwarranted at all nor an investigation.

Just like the others, for those that think it's OK to drive drunk and piss/moan about such things, I hope you're family members are the next victims WHEN it happens.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Not unwarranted at all nor an investigation.

Just like the others, for those that think it's OK to drive drunk and piss/moan about such things, I hope you're family members are the next victims WHEN it happens.

it's both, dipshit. learn what words mean. do you think you're winning hearts and minds?

 

[CFM]

it's both, dipshit. learn what words mean. do you think you're winning hearts and minds?

It's neither, fuckhead. Learn what words mean.

I'm not in a popularity contest. Don't care if a bunch of whiny drunks get pissed at me because I don't want to see INNOCENT people killed because they think it's OK to drive after drinking.

 

[Scut Farkus]

It's neither, fuckhead. Learn what words mean.

I'm not in a popularity contest. Don't care if a bunch of whiny drunks get pissed at me because I don't want to see INNOCENT people killed because they think it's OK to drive after drinking.

there's no probable cause, and they're investigating. so shut your idjot hole.