We've moved on, Reilly. I just disagree with you. I never said it was justifiable. You are not debating me if you want to pretend I ever said that. You are just arguing with a straw man.
You can throw out any absurd circumstance you choose in order to attempt to diminish statistics. It doesn't mean that said circumstances are relevant or meaningful. Again, unless you're prepared to argue that 32% of all drivers at any given time have BAC over the legal limit, I don't see how you can argue that there isn't an incredibly strong correlation. I'm curious, out of ALL drivers EVER on the road, what percentage would you estimate are driving with a BAC over the legal limit?
Here's a good example: Mel Gibson. Mel Gibson was pulled over for driving drunk, but were journalists villifying him for being intoxicated behind the wheel? NO! They were villifying him for making racist remarks (which he deserved to be villified for). Also, I never heard a journalist say Gibson should be kicked out of the Screen Actors Guild or be forced to stop acting/directing.
We've moved on because you referred to me as a "MADD propagandist"? That's utter bullshit, like most of what you post.
I think he's good at giving the illusion he's making a strong argument but essentially he sidesteps or ignores the fundamental flaws In his arguments
I'm sorry, but your absurdly minimal circumstances can hardly be taken as "fundamental flaws". I'm curious, how significant do you think the 'other factors' are in causing accidents? I could argue with equally insignificant circumstances such as 'perhaps alcohol impairment CAUSED the other factors, such as not wearing a seat belt'. They're as relevant as your argument, which is to say, not very.
Ahahaha. You're free to believe whatever you choose. Despite what you may assert, I'd hate to take that constitutional protection away from you. BTW, you never answered my question. Did I call it? Are you a lawyer?
minimal circumstances? So you're saying that all alcohol "related" fatalities occur under the exact same conditions and exact same circumstances? Because that's what you're implying by dismissing ALL the variables that come into to play. I guess controlled studies shouldn't exist because it's all minimal circumstances!!! Like I said, you just posted up some skewed numbers and are riding them to death in attempt to show how lopsided it is...when in fact, it's not to the extent you claim. and no you can't argue that alcohol impairment caused not wearing a seatbelt if it wasn't the person who was drunk. anyways, i'm done. this is just becoming circular
Edwards dui Anyone who does this in Nfl for first times should give 20,000 to MADD 2nd time 3 game suspension anymore thrown out from nfl forever.Anyone with him car should give 5,000 to MADD
some people will find excuses for a drunk driver as long as he is a star football player. if a drunk driver hits them or their family member however they soon start singing a much different tune about how innocuous drunk driving is.
No, nor do they have to in order to demonstrate that alcohol impairment has a significant effect on driving ability and on the relative likelihood of being involved in and/or causing a fatal accident. No, I didn't. I didn't dismiss them, I refused to give them the level of significance you'd like to. No reasonable person could possibly believe that said factors can account for the strong correlation. Your last sentence is an absurd reach with zero relevance to the topic at hand, although I'd love to see you argue how a controlled study could possibly be conducted on drunk driving. Please, I must reiterate, tell me to what extent you actually and honestly believe the other factors contribute to those numbers. I'm curious. You keep saying it's not as lopsided as I claim, but you've given me no idea of just how 'off' you feel those numbers are. You can't just dismiss them because they're inconvenient to you. I acknowledged that the numbers don't account for those other factors. I don't feel the factors are relatively significant. LOL. My whole point was that it's an absurd argument on both sides. How many of those 13,000 deaths do you feel qualified to explain away? Good idea.
Fair enough. You win. This post convinced me. I'll just listen to what you have to say. Remind me again how gay marriage needs to be stopped to protect the lives and morality of children, but attempts to curb drunk driving to protect lives is just unnecessary nanny state prohibitionism.
I say yes... and it's not alledged. I think it could also have the bonus affect that Goodell would consider the team dealt with it and let it go. If it gets to him later on, along with the fact the guy is on probation, it could cost him 4 games.
Your staff and front office have no idea how to struture discipline within your team...you guys are playing with fire...The trickle down affect from lack of discipline in your locker room is apparent....Brickashaw, Gohlston, and edwards being out at 5 in the morning drinking is just one incident of what iam talking about, cheeseburgers another, edwards taunting rookies like a punk another, ets...Iam trying to not be biased when I say this, but iam not quite sure how you can honestly be proud of how your team conducts themselves as men. Gross leadership is in place for the jets franchise.
Since 2000 Miami has 25 arrests, since 2005 they have 17, since 2007 13 Since 2000 Jets have 8 arrests, since 2005 they have 4, since 2007 3 Care to try again? Edit: Needed to add, of the 24 arrests 11 involved alcohol or drugs and 6 were for battery on a wife or girlfriend with 2 of them pregnant at the time.
