Alan Tudyk possible DUI

POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 8, 2011 02:00
VIEWED: 21427
PAGE 5 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

BYTEMITE

Monday, February 7, 2011 6:02 PM

Quote:
Having individual freedom does not exempt one from responsibility, nor from obeying established rules. It's anarchy which does that, and it is very bad.

That's chaos, not anarchy.

Anarchy just means without leadership. It doesn't mean without rules.

As for drunk driving, it goes back to the risk/choice morality theory.

One of the aspects of our society that's increasingly growing worse is that rights and privileges of one person increasingly come into conflict with another. You have a right to bear arms, but you don't have the right to brandish and freak out the norms. You have a right to use public property, including public roads for transportation, and you have a right to own a car, but it is not always a right to drive on them.

I won't comment on what's good and what's bad about legislating risk/choice on infringement on others rights, but I will say that it is regrettable that we can't seem to move an inch without causing some infringement, either to people who own guns or the people who are afraid of them; and to people who drink, and drive, or the other people who have to share the road with them.

In both cases I find it unfair to stigmatize one or the other unless their actions have resulted in measurable harm or damage. I suppose I don't deal in "what if" very often.

Alan's all right and no one was hurt. Thank goodness, and I hope he learns something from this.

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pennausamike:
All hail the mighty Alliance!
You're making better worlds, all of them, better worlds.
Worlds...without sin.
Little perfect people going about their little perfect lives; no risk to themselves or others.
With the government, through fines and imprisonment ensuring that no one steps out of line.

Independents? Browncoats?
Only in front of the TV, I guess...

Yeah... I agree.

See, most peeps get brainwashed. Two beers & you're a drunk driver. If you're Muslim, you're a terrorist sympathizer. It's all the same.
Individuality counts for nothing anymore.
But peeps driving who are really old & have much slower reaction time than a younger dude with a few beers in him- that's safe. That's acceptable.
Unless a public campaign starts up & rallies the masses to the new enlightened Government dictates.
Wow.
So, right now, it's okay if you're driving 'impaired,' as long as that impairment isn't caused by something currently frowned upon.

I guess we're on the losing side, Mike.

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:28 PM

Last I checked aging wasn't a choice.

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
Last I checked aging wasn't a choice.

Zeek, that is SO not the point.

The laughing Chrisisall

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:45 PM

The choice to drink and drive is very much the point IMO. I didn't lose respect for Alan because his reaction time isn't off the charts. I lost respect for him because he made an unnecessary choice that put other people in danger.

CHRISISALL

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
he made an unnecessary choice that put other people in danger.

See, THIS is the point.
You KNOW for a fact people were in danger.
You KNOW it because you are conditioned to know it.
No, George Bush did what I quoted from you above, I see no evidence that Alan did any such thing.

The laughing Chrisisall

RIONAEIRE

Monday, February 7, 2011 7:58 PM

I think I'll stick with our current driving under the influence rules. As I said before, they're fine and designed to discourage a very bad choice, to drive while impaired, which is really dangerous and can hurt and kill people needlessly. I don't fancy the alternatives put forth, I'm sticking with the current rules.

I care about charactors, not so much actors. Alan made a mistake, we're all human, he needs to experience the consequences for his mistake as anyone else would. The fact that he chose to do this is disappointing, but no more disappointing to me than if anyone else chooses to do it. With rights come responsabilities.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

AURAPTOR

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:02 PM

No Chris... any time a person imbibes in alcohol and then operates a vehicle weighing a couple of tons or more on the open road....that's not a matter of being 'conditioned' to know anything, it's simply human physiology and chemistry.

There's no defense here, what so ever.

Alan F'd up. Deal w/ it and move on.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

STORYMARK

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:04 PM

Never, ever did I expect to find myself siding with AuRaptor against Chris....

EVER.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

ZEEK

Monday, February 7, 2011 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
he made an unnecessary choice that put other people in danger.
See, THIS is the point.
You KNOW for a fact people were in danger.
You KNOW it because you are conditioned to know it.
No, George Bush did what I quoted from you above, I see no evidence that Alan did any such thing.

It's not conditioning it's simple logic. Alan was impaired. Alan was operating a dangerous piece of heavy machinery. Alan does not have any mystical ability to know if there will be other drivers on the road or not. So, yes he was putting other people in danger or at least he was willing to put them in danger.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE