Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
Threads like this are frustrating. You have half the people responding with logic and half responding with emotion and straw-man. It's certainly no way to hold a debate.
|
I don't see logic in this statement either. You stereotype the people who don't agree with you as emotional, who use fallacies to argue. The people who agree with you, are calm and collected and use logic.
Is that argument supposed to win me over? That is like me saying your a cold hearted person who could care less if someone is killed, whereas I love and care for people who are innocent victims.
Drinking and Driving is illegal. It is a criminal offence like assault. You get caught doing it, you get a record, fine/jail time. That is a fact.
Therefore, if you aid someone who is committing a crime, let's say assault, by yelling "The cops are coming!", you now made yourself accomplice to the crime. Hence you are obstructing justice.
Now if someone who is drunk decides to drive (criminal offence), and receives information that helps them circumvent being caught due to information you provided, how is that person not liable?
Let me give you a logical example:
In the case of the assault, the criminal gets away, only to assault and kill someone a few blocks away. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by yelling "The cops are coming!" to face justice? at least morally?
Now take the drunk driver. They take and alternate route due to information you provided, and hit someone in a cross walk, killing them instantly. Would you want the person who assisted in the crime by posting the check stop on twitter to face justice? at least morally?
I would like to hear your answer for both. Is it Yes for both or No.
Or is it somehow different, and a straw man argument? If this is the case, please enlighten me as to how it is just that.