Obama's uncle held by immigration authorities

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**youbedead**

dogma wrote:
RatBot wrote:
I think that's actually the law in El Salvador.

Caught driving drunk? Firing squad time.

Why stop there?

Involved in an accident in which someone is killed? Firing squad.

Dogma you've gone soft.

Thinking about driving. Firing squad.
Looking at an accident. firing squad.

**Troy**

dogma wrote:
Troy wrote:
Nope. Now that you brought it up I am in complete agreement that crime penalties need to be ratcheted up accordingly.

They won't be, of course, just as we aren't going to ratchet up the penalties for incidental fatalities in auto accidents.

Why? Because, like automobiles, cell phones are necessary to daily life. Compare this to a non-essential (arguably) like alcohol, or at least driving while under the influence of it, and you see why the punishment varies significantly.

Punishment isn't just calculated according to putting others in danger, or causing fatalities, if it were then we simply would punish the operation of automobiles.

Now you're mixing your own arguments. I'm agreeing that drunken driving offenses should be ratcheted up. As you note its "non-essential" (of course so is driving while playing on a phone or PDA).

**Ahtman**

Troy wrote:Now you're mixing your own arguments. I'm agreeing that drunken driving offenses should be ratcheted up. As you note its "non-essential" (of course so is driving while playing on a phone or PDA).

He didn't say they were essential to use while they were driving, but just essential in general. Most people won't need to drink alcohol as part of going to work or school, but cell phones are at this point an essential piece of daily life. It isn't mixing arguments at all. It is looking at the relative importance of the items in question.

**Troy**

Ahtman wrote:
Troy wrote:Now you're mixing your own arguments. I'm agreeing that drunken driving offenses should be ratcheted up. As you note its "non-essential" (of course so is driving while playing on a phone or PDA).

He didn't say they were essential to use while they were driving, but just essential in general. Most people won't need to drink alcohol as part of going to work or school, but cell phones are at this point an essential piece of daily life. It isn't mixing arguments at all. It is looking at the relative importance of the items in question.

As the instance is using cellphones while driving they are completely unessential part of anything. Again the point stands and I agree with Dogma we should jack up the penalties for driving while under the influence.

**Ahtman**

Troy wrote:As the instance is using cellphones while driving they are completely unessential part of anything.

If it essential to have on you and you drive, you will have a cell phone on you will you drive.

Troy wrote:Again the point stands and I agree with Dogma we should jack up the penalties for driving while under the influence.

Actually, I don't believe he has called for raising the penalties at all, and that you may have missed his point.

**dogma**

Troy wrote: Again the point stands and I agree with Dogma we should jack up the penalties for driving while under the influence.

I never said that. I actually believe the penalties are quite appropriate as is, at least in most places.