16 ms·
So your argument is that the right to drive a road-legal vehicle dangerously on private property is more important than the right to not get killed by a drunk d
by shortcake27 3y ago
So your argument is that the right to drive a road-legal vehicle dangerously on private property is more important than the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road?
- Retr0id 3y agoYou already have the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road.
- shortcake27 3y agoI think you’re attempting to play with words to skirt around the question, despite the fact you know exactly what I’m saying. But let’s phrase it a different way. Are you saying it’s more important for people to have the ability to drive road-legal cars dangerously on private property, than it is to prevent fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers?
- Retr0id 3y agoYour question is simply not relevant, that isn't the choice being made here.
- shortcake27 3y agoWho decides whether or not a question is relevant? Your refusal to even engage the question proves that you believe your freedoms are worth more than the lives of others.
- Retr0id 3y agoTypically, the person responding to a question gets to decide their response. I hope that clears things up for you. I disagree with your conclusion, but yes, I will refuse to engage further.
- hiatus 3y agoThis is a false dichotomy. There are myriad ways to prevent drunk driving that are not this technology.