02-23-2016, 12:55 PM
(02-23-2016, 10:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Anecdotal evidence like this is useless. I have not seen an accident cause by drunk drivers in many many years. What kind of rube would believe this means there have been none in the United States for many many years.
(02-23-2016, 11:35 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Is that what you think you have?
An opinion based on fact?
So let's recap.
You asked me if I think the laws and licensing have an effect on our drunk driving deaths.
I said no. I provided my own experiences (because it is my opinion).
You even provided an article about S. Korea that actually strengthened my stance.
All the while you keep stating that you have never seen a drunk driving accident, which isn't even pertinent to the question, but I assume that you are thinking (correct if I am wrong) that because you haven't seen one that means the laws are working.
You think the laws are preventing more deaths than what we have now.
You then have stated that I can't use my own anecdotal evidence, all the while using your own.
Yet to finish, I am the one that has crazy ideas.
OK Fred. Time for the clap.
Even then Fred can't realize that his assumption isn't the same as the one that I am assuming. They are 2 completely different assumptions.
My assumption is trying to pin point what Fred is getting at with his constant (I have never seen a drunk driving accident), I have even asked him to correct me if I am wrong in that assumption. Which is that because he hasn't seen one that he thinks the laws are working. That without the laws, he would thus see more of these types of accidents.
In his post, he is implying that I am assuming there is no drunk driving accidents in the US, and thus a rube.
So Fred, please clarify.... Why do you keep bringing up the "I have never seen a drunk driving accident" and how is it pertinent to this back and forth?
