“objectively bad”.
-
Can you demonstrate there is such a thing?
-
Can you demonstrate simply driving an automobile (or some transportation device) while drunk fits into that term?
Negligent of what? Of not acquiescing to your silly assumption?
If you’re differentiating, why in the hell did you even bring up “lot”? I didn’t say anything about a person driving on his own “lot”. Go back up and read. I said “Now what you’re saying is that as long as I own the road, I can drive on it no matter how drunk I am.” And your response was “Sure, someone could drive drunk on their own lot, but that is not even 1% of all driving so it is not really worth discussing.”
If you weren’t addressing the point I raised, why the hell is “lot” even relevant? Why would you even bother saying that? Are you just dancing again?
You did? You answered:
-Who declares this ban?
I suppose you could claim that your answer is “private road owners do”…but again, that’s just a ban on access to their private roads. They aren’t declaring “the act of driving drunk is now banned.” Who is making that declaration? And where does this person/group get that authority?
-Who is going to enforce this ban?
Again, if I drive drunk on my own road, obviously you can’t claim “the owner of the road will enforce the ban”. So, where exactly did you answer this question?
-Who is going to stop someone from getting in his car drunk?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-What’s going to happen to him when he does drive drunk and is caught?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-By whom?
where exactly did you answer this question?
-under what sort of justification is this unnamed source going to aggress on this drunk driver?
where exactly did you answer this question?