Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRachel
This characterization of my comments is juvenile and you know it (I hope, for your sake). Laughable, sir. Seriously, put down the shovel.
These statements are not in conflict with each other. Perhaps read them again. Moreover, your paraphrase of my remarks was incorrect at best, outright lying (more probable) at worst. This is not FoxNews, you are not Hannity, and I am not you. Twisting my words is not going to win you any points.
Assertions were made. Period. Were they not?
Next.
Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
|
Third time laughable. One more and I call bingo! (Bigot is the free space). And why do you keep saying Hannity? Total episodes ever watched of Hannity; zero. Ingraham, zero. The news is never on my TV here. We're sports, Seinfeld and Disney Jr. almost exclusively (and the Bachelorette or some awful CW show when I lose control of the house).
I'm not twisting your words. You said very clearly that results are unknown and then said we've instituted policy because we believe the results will show effectiveness in the policy. Those statements are absolutely at war with each other. You can really hope things work, but you will not know.
And as it relates to your interjection; drunk driving lowers inhibitions. This is fact. It lowers reaction time. This too is fact. And it tends to make you terribly drowsy which can cause you to fall asleep. Fact #3. These are undisputed and so driving while drunk is a no no. There is direct causation to exponentially higher risks in fatality, accidents, property damage etc.
To my knowledge, no such risk exists when leaving your home in the COVID era. I have yet to see that study, or that science but if it can be quantified in a way that makes the risks to people as clear as drinking and driving, then that will go a long way in getting people on board w/ lockdown restrictions. If no such science exists, then pshaw I say.