Drunk Driving

Yeah, the fact that she is ugly now is something that needs to be said. The fact that she is ugly is the point. That is the point that they want to get across. Just by looking at her face, you wouldn’t know that for 1 year she did not have any eyelids (a doctor was able to repair it), that her father had to administer eyedrops EVERY 2 hours. You wouldn’t know that she can’t do anything by herself because she only has (I believe) 3 fingers left and then only barely. You wouldn’t know that she is now light sensitive. That she is propably legally blind. The fact that ANYONE on this earth can end up looking like her, can be made “ugly”, to be maimed; that is the point…

The Guest above is me.

Interestingly Tom, my zeal so took over my action that I nelgected to add the phrase “while DUI”.

So on the scale of moral accountability, you would put the high school student who hit Jacqui’s car after having a six pack of beer above, say, a sober serial rapist who slashes up his victims’ faces?

It’s a rhetorical question, voltaic. Drunk drivers who cause horrible accidents should make you angry, but don’t lose your sense of perspective.


They sued the car company (Ford, I believe). It was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Now if it was one of those Firestone/Explorer fiascos, they were more than right to sue, IMP.

They sued for the carmaker not protecting (securing) the fuel tank. Considering the time of the accident and the time it takes to sue these large companies, I would hazard that Ford was willing to settle out of court so as to avoid further bad publicity.

I was explaining my thoughts on this to GMicek just now. No I don’t think they should be more or less morally accountable than a serial rapist. I think they should have the same moral accountability, i.e. that both should be considered capital crimes. I didn’t say that the cops should be able to bust a cap in the DUI on scene.

As far as I am concerned, a person who kills or maims while DUI is the same as a person who kills or maims with a gun during a robbery or anything else. Putting him behind a wheel instead of a trigger doesn’t change my perspective on it.

He was keeping it real, Chet and Erik/Jakub-edgy style. If she was fat, it would be pure comedy gold. Like they might ask if when she burned, did her gravy boil or curdle? See, it practically writes itself, and I’m not even funny.

Of course life isn’t fair, and I’m just being honest here. See, in 2003, we’re a tact- and manners-optional society. As long as you’re being funny, that is.[/quote]

Cause Jack Lord KNOWS she comes here so often that she’s gonna HAVE to run into his statements sooner or later.

Next time you people have a hard time distinguishing between a joke and an insult, here’s one little exercise you can try:
Look over your right shoulder. Return to center.
Look over your left shoulder. Return to center.
Did you see the person someone was talking about?
If not: joke.
If so: insult.

As far as I am concerned, a person who kills or maims while DUI is the same as a person who kills or maims with a gun during a robbery or anything else.

Voltaic, you might want to extend your concern a little further and explore the concept of intent. I’m sure there are some nice lawyers on this forum who could help you out.


I give you credit for being consistent in your views. But there are very few moral or legal philosophers who would want to completely dismiss the concept of volition, or as Tom refers to it, intent. That’s why we have three degrees of murder.

Wow, what a great out. It doesn’t even matter if the room is full of the person’s peers, friends, or relatives, or the comments are particularly inflammatory, so long as they’re not there, it’s pure comedy gold!

Meh, women don’t get innapropriate humor. Go back to watching your Passions or East Enders and leave the Stooges and Bernie Mac to us.

Captain clearly you have not read enough Koontz yet. This was not a joke.

Oooooooh, then ‘my bad’. Thanks for setting me straight. And call me Cookie.

Hey now, I like the 3 Stooges, but they’re no Marx Brothers.

Hey now, I like the 3 Stooges, but they’re no Marx Brothers.[/quote]

Yes, but it’s well established that you are the ideal woman so you don’t count. :P

I appreciate you NOT speaking for me. You apparently haven’t read enough “me” yet.

I thought I already explained my words, but I’ll try again. You guys will love it… you can then accuse me of “back-filling” in the classic vein of Jessica and Chet. Or simply use your imagination to come up with something even wittier.

There is a great deal of romanticizing of the handicapped. From the PC term “physically challenged” to the tendency toward pity or “hugs and kisses” to the frequent comment “they make up for it in other ways! they are better people in all other ways than other humans!” My only thought is that these humans are trying to ease their own discomfort by overcompensating for the other person, and simultaneously adhering to their own beliefs in Equality by ensuring that the other person is Equal (whether he wants to be or not).

In every way it is their HANDICAP that is focused on. According to “normal” humans, it is their handicap that defines them.

To me a human without a hand is a human without a hand. A woman hideously burned is an extremely ugly woman who has most likely gained character and compassion. I don’t ask a human where his hand is, I ask him what he did today, or what he thinks of so-and-so issue. I absolutely treat him differently… no two-handed hand-shakes, no tree chopping.

I focus on what humans can do, what their value is, not what they can’t do or what they lack. All humans that I’ve ever met have had strengths and weaknesses. You can call all of these weaknesses “handicaps”, which means that all humans I’ve ever met are handicapped.

Beautiful women make my day better by their mere presence (and anything more is definitely a bonus). Ugly women disgust me and the only reason I don’t turn away so soon is the fascination produced by something SO ugly. Kind of like the fascination humans have for watching train wrecks.

A homely woman who gets NO attention wishes she were hideously burned so that the world would love her. Its purely the fault of romantics, train wreck lovers that this is the case.


I focus on what humans can do, what their value is, not what they can’t do or what they lack.

I realize this was basically trolling, but based on these comments, your treatment of women is interesting. You say you don’t define a handicapped person by their handicap while at the same time admitting you define a burned woman solely in terms of her looks. Why isn’t a hideously burned woman just a hideously burned woman?

In the absence of any other information, a human is deemed “normal”.

We are shown a picture of an extremely ugly woman. A bit of information is provided. She is therefore an… “ugly bitch”.

It is commentary on the fact that humans care about what is unusual about another person, especially with humans they don’t “know”.

As someone else in this thread said, the whole POINT is her looks. Otherwise she’s just a “nobody”.

From the perspective in which we see her, she’s an “ugly bitch”.

Now, with respect to my personal views…

There are what… 6 Billion humans on the planet? Excluding the very young and old maybe 5 Billion. The vast majority of these humans are total strangers to me. This extremely ugly woman is equally strange to me, except that I know she is extremely ugly. So she’s an “ugly bitch”. “Bitch” is a traditional holdover from counteracting romanticism.

What she is is a hideously burned woman.

I personally would be better off if that was a picture of a man, given that I take pleasure from beautiful women and displeasure from ugly women.