Why Rape is not as bad as DUI

Approximately 12,000 people are killed by drunk drivers in the United States every year, which accounts for about 30% of all traffic-related fatalities.

Approximately 290,000 people are injured in drunk driving crashes every year in the U.S., which breaks down to about one person injured every two minutes. While many recover fully, tens of thousands of individuals are left with permanent, life-altering disabilities such as traumatic brain injuries and spinal cord trauma.

So yeah, drunk drivers and speeding drivers are single most harmful group in society. they hurt more people per year than all murderers combined.

Rapists are most hated people in the world, but there are other groups who deserve more to be most hated.

Rape is worse for several reasons.

1. Drunk driving helps you improve a skill. It's like Goku working out at 100x earth gravity in Dragon Ball Z. If you can drive between the lines drunk, you will never have a problem sober. Rape does not. It doesn't teach you how to be a better lover because the other person's satisfaction is disregarded. It doesn't teach you to be a better fighter because women aren't a challenge. Maybe if you're raping men this could be an argument, but most people aren't. It's the psychosexual equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel - no challenge, no growth.
2. Drunk driving is an American tradition. The Founding Fathers famously attended many wine-soaked gatherings and, after a night of revelry and heavy drinking, would ride their horses home. This is where the famous quip 'the horse knows the way' comes from. In celebration of America's 250th birthday, it's only right to revive this timeless tradition. Rape is not - the founding fathers weren't very fond of it at all. In fact, it's hard for me to think of a more ghastly, boorish hobby than rape.
3. The law in America is unfair which makes the statistics misleading. If you are drunk while driving, fault is often transferred to you, even if the same accident, had both parties been sober, would have left the other person entirely at fault. You could be driving at the legal speed limit, going through a green light, having downed a bottle or two, and a complete lunatic could run through the redlight and slam into the side of your car and, legally, you could be partially at fault for that. This is blatant and unfair discrimination against the lawful, loyal drunk driver and I won't stand for it. How many of those 'drunk driving fatalities' were caused by innocent intoxicated motorists being waylaid and ambushed by malicious, sober ones - fat white women watching Lilo and Stitch on their phone while they carelessly mow down innocent pedestrians before colliding with a perfectly competent, if tipsy, driver and ruining his life? Statistics never paint the full picture. There are also thousands of tipsy charioteers maneuvering their way safely and competently through our nation's roads every day, but they are what's called 'latent variables' - they cannot be measured and are not factored into the final numbers.
4. The venomous hatred of drunk drivers is a moral panic. The modern world hates fun, so drunk drivers are maligned and pilloried by a hypocritical and nasty shrews because they have fun before they get behind the wheel. Meanwhile, people who have just as much a potential for causing harm (supposedly, if we're going by the 'science') are another group: the tired. Driving while sleep impaired has been shown to cause just as many issues as driving with a BAC above the legal limit, but you don't have a bunch of meanspirited hags founding a 'mothers against tired drivers' group and ruining some slob's life for working a double shift at McDonalds. This is because America's sick Protestant work ethic sees overworking yourself before getting behind the wheel of a car as 'virtuous' compared to downing a few brews with the homies. The Calvinists ruin everything again!

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. Have fun out there on the roads!

Drunk driving helps you improve a skill

I was gonna type what else helps you improve a skill, but I stopped myself before typing it.

I measure how bad a traumatic event is by how often people go to the hospital over it.

Aaaaand that's all anyone needs to read.

Aaaaand that's all anyone needs to read.

You havent presented any arguments, so you are probably a drunk driver like RexFavilla.

Are you doing satire right now?

Plenty of drunk drivers out there. to an ordinary driver, what he is saying could seem like satire or a joke. to a drunk driver, those would look like good arguments for why he should drink and drive, because alcohol also reduces reasoning ability while person is drunk.

RemyBrown wrote:

Are you doing satire right now?

No, I firmly believe that rape is worse than drunk driving. You of course have no counterargument. Typical rapist - persuasion isn't their strong suit. It's somewhat atrophied as a faculty.

You havent presented any arguments, so you are probably a drunk driver like RexFavilla.

Remy isn't worth actually making arguments for.

Stutter? No. Say something that absolute nonsense? Yes.

Remy isn't worth actually making arguments for.

Freedom of speech does indeed allow you to not make arguments, and freedom of opinion likewise allows you to think that not making an argument counts as winning. But freedom of opinion likewise allows us to consider you a drunk driver. So yeah, win some, lose some.

No, I firmly believe that rape is worse than drunk driving. You of course have no counterargument. Typical rapist - persuasion isn't their strong suit. It's somewhat atrophied as a faculty.

I cant tell if this is satire either.

So yeah, win some, lose some.

Yes, I'm so concerned about "winning" some random forum board discussion. Man, you sure showed me! /s

Jesus, maybe I should have a drink. It's only noon, but it'd make this entire thread easier to read.

maybe I should have a drink

What "should" be done depends on what you want. But the topic is rapists vs. drunk drivers, and you are currently siding with drunk drivers.

But the topic is rapists vs. drunk drivers, and you are currently siding with drunk drivers.

Neither sounds good? Yeah, neither sounds good. Lets have neither of them.

Lets have neither of them.

the topic doesnt allow option "neither". the topic is comparing which is worse, with only 2 sides available. You either side with rapists or with drunk drivers. Society loves drunk drivers more, so it is expected for more people to side with drunk drivers.

the topic doesnt allow option "neither".

Why doesn't it? The topic of the forum post is "Why rape is not as bad as DUI", with no other listed rules to moderate the discussion outlined within the first post. Nothing in the site's rules that disallow me from expressing a different opinion. So I pick neither. Well, neither or just whatever memes I find on my phone. You can pick.

Nothing in the site's rules that disallow me from expressing a different opinion.

I mean, sure, but there are only two possible sides of the topic:

A. Drunk drivers are worse than rapists

B. Drunk drivers are not worse than rapists

Because the options are mutually exclusive, there is no "both", and because those are only logical options possible, there is no "neither".

But I checked your profile big issues, and we are in 66% agreement. So I cant see why we cant agree here.

I mean, sure, but there are at least three possible sides of the topic:

A. Drunk drivers are worse than rapists

B. Drunk drivers are not worse than rapists

C. They both suck

FTFY

A. Drunk drivers are worse than rapists

B. Drunk drivers are not worse than rapists

C. They both suck

C is not a 3rd option. If they both suck equally, then its B. If drunk drivers suck more, its A. And if rapists suck more, its still B.

Personally, I would rather enter a rapist's house than enter in a car with a drunk driver. If rapist rapes me, I can tell myself that it didnt actually happen. But if die in car crash due to drunk driver, then I die and cant tell anything anymore.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Within B is a myriad of other positions that aren't the same. Within B is:

1. Rapists are worse
2. Both suck
3. Neither suck

None of those argue the same thing.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Within B is a myriad of other positions that aren't the same.

thats not false dichotomy. those are just sub-categories of same category. Any of them true makes category true. In same way word "rapists" includes all rapists, and none of those rapists are same, but category includes them all in one.

If they were the same category, they'd be saying similar things. And as similar as the opinions "Both suck" and "neither suck" are...

If they were the same category, they'd be saying similar things

No, they would not be saying "similar things", they would be proving same category.

Both equally suck = Drunk drivers are not worse than rapists

Neither suck = Drunk drivers are not worse than rapists.

Also, on this particular topic, person either defends rapists or drunk drivers, because society's default position already is that rapists are worse than drunk drivers. Should society be convinced to change their mind, rapist's position would improve in comparison.

So if someone says "they both equally suck", he is actually defending rapists.

No, they would not be saying "similar things", they would be proving same category.

Your categories suck, and the fact that you're insisting that they are the only two that are defendable is dumb.

So if someone says "they both equally suck", he is actually defending rapists.

Idk where you got "equally" from anything I've said. This isn't the suffering Olympics here.

Your categories suck, and the fact that you're insisting that they are the only two that are defendable is dumb.

I mean, you can say that logic is dumb, that math is dumb, sure.

Idk where you got "equally" from anything I've said.

Because there are only 3 possible options:

A. Rapists are worse than drunk drivers

B. Drunk drivers are worse than rapists

C. Rapists and drunk drivers are equally bad

So pick and choose what you want to defend. A defends drunk drivers. B and C defends rapists.

I mean, you can say that logic is dumb, that math is dumb, sure.

Lol

Because there are only 3 possible options:

A. Rapists are worse than drunk drivers

B. Drunk drivers are worse than rapists

C. Rapists and drunk drivers are equally bad

So pick and choose what you want to defend. A defends drunk drivers. B and C defends rapists.

Ah yes, the ol' "measure human suffering" contest. Because that's definitely reliable and not at all inconsistent in any way.