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.
Aww... and here I thought we could compare degrees!
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 my, you sure did ace the ad hominem class!
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
You can focus only things you can't objectively quantify or measured, but I'm not sure that gets you anywhere. You, being the non-measuring type, may see things differently I guess.
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
Your "argument" - such as it is - is about as air-tight as goatse-man's asshole: it assumes that all causes of impairment are equivalent and pairwise indistinguishable. Clearly they are not.
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
Your argument is bullshit, no matter how you cut, slice or dice it. See above.
- 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
My objection doesn't concern itself with whether your approach aims to reduce or increase deaths; the goals of your approach are irrelevant. My objection concerns itself with the fact that you think that every cause of impairment is indistinguishable from every other cause of impairment and that all deserve equal consideration. That is clearly not the case.
-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
No. I argue that since we can objectively quantify and measure only some factors of impairment we should focus on them. I see no point in focusing on what I can neither measure nor quantify.
you see , your problem is that you assume too much
My problem is that I think that rational debate is possible with people like you. I guess that is an assumption of sorts...
now go fuck your community college self , and stay out of my way