Hacker News Reader

So your argument is that the right to drive a road-legal vehicle dangerously on private property is more important than the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road?

View on HN

You already have the right to not get killed by a drunk driver on a public road.

I think you’re attempting to play with words to skirt around the question, despite the fact you know exactly what I’m saying. But let’s phrase it a different way.

Are you saying it’s more important for people to have the ability to drive road-legal cars dangerously on private property, than it is to prevent fatal accidents caused by drunk drivers?

Your question is simply not relevant, that isn't the choice being made here.

Who decides whether or not a question is relevant? Your refusal to even engage the question proves that you believe your freedoms are worth more than the lives of others.

Typically, the person responding to a question gets to decide their response. I hope that clears things up for you. I disagree with your conclusion, but yes, I will refuse to engage further.

This is a false dichotomy. There are myriad ways to prevent drunk driving that are not this technology.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com