Latest Episode
Play

Go Back   Keith and The Girl Forums Keith and The Girl Forums Talk Shite

Talk Shite General discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2010, 11:24 AM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Saint Marcos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by My Sweaty Balls View Post
Good job knocking down your strawman. However the author's argument is that people drink and drive because there is not a strong enough disincentive - it says this plainly in the first post.

And obviously his point is that one example of a strong disincentive is on the spot executions - also straight from the text.
?? He never says "that people drink and drive because there is not a strong enough disincentive". Not once, not even close. He actually states & gives statistics on a very different cause of drinking & driving by saying:
"Why do so many people get behind the weel after drinking? Maybe because...drunk drivers are rarely caught."*
He then goes on to mention a deterrent & says it will wipe out drunk driving, but it doesn't relate to his original statement/premise, which is that people do it because they don't get caught often enough.

Maybe I shouldn't throw out the author's underlying intention, and maybe there's a larger context, but his argument contains logical fallacy. My point is simply that a deterrent doesn't get more people caught. So, if there aren't more people caught, then (according to the author's first statement) people will continue to drink & drive at the same rate.


*I'm allowing that the spelling error (weel) was the only piece of translation that was incorrect. If the author was misquoted in other ways, then all bets are off.
__________________
[SIGPIC]

"Hahaha too easy" -- Trent said in the thread about the story about Trent
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 12:39 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
DWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,046
Saint Marcos, you suck at reading comp, stick to whatever else you do.

Sure, he implies stiffer penalties would reduce drunk driving (this isn't a book on prep logic, it's just a bestseller, so alluding to common sense is ok).

But more importantly for crushing your silly argument, implementing road-blocks in addition to all the other current methods would trivially result in more drunk driving arrests (they currently only do A, he proposes they do A+B). So yes, if you're going to nitpick, you're still wrong.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2010, 03:29 PM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Saint Marcos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWarrior View Post
Saint Marcos, you suck at reading comp, stick to whatever else you do.

Sure, he implies stiffer penalties would reduce drunk driving (this isn't a book on prep logic, it's just a bestseller, so alluding to common sense is ok).

But more importantly for crushing your silly argument, implementing road-blocks in addition to all the other current methods would trivially result in more drunk driving arrests (they currently only do A, he proposes they do A+B). So yes, if you're going to nitpick, you're still wrong.
um no, because they already have roadblocks. So they already do it. So how could means that they already perform increase anything?

Oh! (he said sarcastically) You mean MORE roadblocks than they do today . . . Except the author didn't say that, he didn't say increasing roadblocks would catch more people and therefore deter them -- he said shooting them would catch more people and therefore deter them. Which is ridiculous.


& arguably, at least until I've read it, this book could simply be riding the bestselling coattails of his other book (think Transformers 2).
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 02:22 PM   #14 (permalink)
Member
 
confrico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Than Franthisco
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Marcos View Post
um no, because they already have roadblocks. So they already do it. So how could means that they already perform increase anything?

Oh! (he said sarcastically) You mean MORE roadblocks than they do today . . . Except the author didn't say that, he didn't say increasing roadblocks would catch more people and therefore deter them -- he said shooting them would catch more people and therefore deter them. Which is ridiculous.


& arguably, at least until I've read it, this book could simply be riding the bestselling coattails of his other book (think Transformers 2).
that statistic about arrests is just to shock us. i think their unstated assumption was that we already know what the consequence of a DUI are - we know we won't be executed.

besides, that's not even their main point. that quote was part of the book's intro. they're simply pointing out that you could incentivize anything. the authors are asking you to imagine whatever it takes, whether it be roadblocks or executions. you might not think that it's fair or practical, but that's aside from the point.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2010, 03:28 PM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Saint Marcos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 425
Quote:
Originally Posted by confrico View Post
that statistic about arrests is just to shock us. i think their unstated assumption was that we already know what the consequence of a DUI are - we know we won't be executed.

besides, that's not even their main point. that quote was part of the book's intro. they're simply pointing out that you could incentivize anything. the authors are asking you to imagine whatever it takes, whether it be roadblocks or executions. you might not think that it's fair or practical, but that's aside from the point.
I could give a shit about the fairness or practicality. I'm not sure why everyone thinks I care about shooting people that drink & drive. To be perfectly clear, I don't.

And I know there's an unstated assumption, that's why I said he 'makes a weird conceptual leap' in my first post.

I can't be plainer than this:
The author concludes that roadblocks with executions will catch more people. That fact that the author says this is undisputable based on the quote we were given.

And I'm simply saying that conclusion is just silly.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Keith and The GirlAd Management plugin by RedTyger