It's not? Hmm... and here I thought that years of philosophy, logic, math and computer science courses had honed my logical reasoning skills to be razor sharp. But hey, if some guy on the Internet says they aren't, I guess it must be true!
The only thing that's bullshit is your argument. You can't lump state of mind (something that cannot be reasonably and objectively evaluated) along with BAC, which can be. While it's true that we should focus on reducing all factors that impair drivers, but we can and should focus only on those that we can do something about. More than that, we should only focus on those where we can reasonably expect our focus and attention to have a positive impact.
Then the statement is bullshit. As an example, it's silly to focus on people's state of mind while driving, because there is no way to someone's evaluate state of mind.
buddy lets get something out of the way: when in the internetz do not try to argue by pulling academic rank, unless you are going to provide proof. It is extremely unlikely you can claim a better academic cv than mine regarding logic related disciplines, but i am not willing to expose myself so my previous statement itself is worth shit.
if we now focus on what matters, i.e . the fact that u think you are a know it all little k unt, lets see what has been said
my original argument was: since there are many commonplace ways to drive impaired that cause similar impairment to being drunk it is bs to focus on drink driving
your answer was: "
Oh, I see... so just because other things are also distracting and cause impairment, we shouldn't focus on anything that is distracting and causes impairment. That's just brilliant! You, sir, are a brilliant thinker"my answer was: "my argument ..does not imply you should not focus on any of them. It implies that if you are going to talk about impaired driving then you should focus on all of them"
Now- my argument is airtight logically speaking and that is the end of it
the problem is that your 2nd post is a clear example of muddled thinking as you go on from avoiding to recognize that logically speaking your 1st objection was not valid, to challenge my argument in a totally different way. namely you made up your mind about which factors can be influenced and argue that factors that cannot be influenced are not worth focusing on- and go on to accuse me of having a bs argument
Now (again)
- who told your little head that my defense of taking into account all factors is in anyway concerned with getting the most effective outcome in terms of reducing deaths while driving? why do you even assume that reducing these deaths is what i consider to be the objective of the discussion. no one. you assumed
-you argue that since we cant do anything about the other factors we should focus on drink driving. Why?. there is no proof that 1) drink driving is responsible for a significant fraction of deaths compared with the other factors, 2) you cant do anything about the other factors of that. again you just assumed
you see , your problem is that you assume too much
now go fuck your community college self , and stay out of my way