Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Doesn't fit my sense of justice as to why the mom of a large family driving a minivan is somehow more morally responsible for the harm they caused by ending up in an accident than a reckless motorcycle driver is. I think the fine should reflect the circumstances that led to the accident rather than what you ended up in the accident with. Texting and driving isn't less bad just because you're driving a Miata.
The argument is that the degree of harm is much greater in the suburban childkiller.
Would you rather be hit by a lifted F-250 texting and driving or a Vespa texting and driving?
Vespa but that's irrelevant. The point of the punishment is to not have people text and drive - not to punish them for having a larger vehicle. The Vespa driver is not less morally culpable for ending up in the accident in the first place - just luckier that the consequences were less severe.
Would you make the same argument for gun violence? If a person commits armed robbery then should someone who used a .22 get a lesser sentence than someone who used a .45 ACP and if not, why? Larger caliber is more dangerous exactly the same way a larger vehicle is.
Many laws exist to reduce risk and harm. The difference in risk and harm of a speeding car vs. a speeding scooter should not require elaboration, as shown also by you choosing the Vespa.
If we accept that the risk and harm involved in a Vespa crash are less severe than a car crash, there is absolutely a difference in moral culpability. If you knowingly perform an action where the potential outcome is the death of some random person, you should be held responsible to a higher degree than if you knowingly perform an action where the potential outcome is a handful of bruises on a random person (I'm talking about general rules, not saying Vespa crashes don't involve more serious risks).
Same reason why breaking traffic laws on a bicycle generally carries less severe punishment than doing the same on a motorcycle or in a car.
No, because the person carrying the firearm made a decision to put other people's lives on the line. A .22 can kill a person, and the person carrying it knows this, yet chooses to use it to threaten someone.
Sadly the law often doesn't distinguish; dui on a bicycle in most states in America can carry the same penalties. In Japan, it can be 3 years in prison. The judge and cops often realize how absurd this is and apply leniency, but even that gets limited by minimum sentences designed to stop repeat DUI offenders from endangering the public in a car.
I have sympathy for an addict who makes the responsible decision to stop driving a car after getting a DUI, but then gets punished just as if they had kept endangering the public for riding a bicycle.
The reason texting and driving has a less severe punishment than DUI is because it represents a greater risk to the public and thus there is greater incentive to stop it.
If there was meaningful data that one was more deadly, but I seriously doubt a 22 is meaningfully less lethal when you're within arms reach of the victim.
I didn't say anything about DUI. I don't feel like you're engaging in good faith here but rather just avoiding addressing the obvious holes in your reasoning. This all reads more like anti-SUV post than a genuine attempt at finding the truth.