Under the influence responsibility

I was just having a conversation with a lefty and he said if your girlfriend gets hammered and sleeps with another guy its not her fault, its the alcohol taking over. That's when i said you can never not be responsible for your own actions under any circumstances. That's when he brought up the incident when the guy took bath salts and ate someones face. I agree no person in their right mind would do such a thing, so is there ever a time when one isn't actually responsible for their own actions? I said alcohol and bath salts are not even in the same category but it wasn't enough for us to see eye to eye. How could I explain the concept of responsibility to someone like this?

buying a lambo on a 95% APR makes me so happy im not responsible for the car payments.

You were wrong in regards to the person eating someone's face not being responsible for the heinous act.

Have you ever experienced alcohol induced amnesia?

Get drunk and rape her.

well of course he is responsible, his argument was no person in the proper state of mind would do this, so could alcohol lead people to do things they don't want to do?

I think its persons responsibility not to get into condition where they would loose their ability to control themselves. Lot of old wisdom from different cultures have preached this idea, ie roman, viking, or samurai. You should not drink that much that you cant control yourself. I wonder if this drinking your face off and then bragging about it is relatively new thing.

If you knowingly and willingly take a substance that you are aware makes you act in an irrational or uninhibited fashion for recreational purposes, then you are responsible for whatever actions you may take while under the influence of said substance because you knew of the risks beforehand.

Just my opinion.

if she gets drunk and gets behind the wheel and kills a person is she not at fault? If she gets drunk and does irrational things is she at fault? She wasn't forced to drink and ultimately being an adult it is her responsibility to know and control herself. If she knows that she does these things when she is drunk, by continuing her drinking with that in mind . She is still at fault. Why is this a hard concept for some..

If you drive drunk and kill someone it's your fault and you'll get a severer punishment than if you were clean

the question isn't if alcohol makes you forget, but rather do things you don't want to do.

>300x168

babby's first shit poast?

that's the argument I used, but the question isn't from a legal perspective. its asking if bath salts can cause you to do things you don't want can alcohol do it as well?

just picked it off google images

The War on Drugs is based on the stupid assumption that you lose all control when you take drugs.
That also promotes nigger-tier behavior level. Unless you took something like scopolamine (which does destroy your willpower and induces temporary memory loss, which is why it's used in psyops) you are ALWAYS responsible for what you do.

Wouldn't / Would

>I was just having a conversation with a lefty

Ah, found the problem.

>I think its persons responsibility not to get into condition where they would loose their ability to control themselves.

This.

There is a reason drunk driving is a crime. It is your job as a citizen to drink responsibly.

Getting piss drunk and fucking around is the same concept.

Leftists carry within them a thirst for mass murder. That's why he needs a mental way out, a way of absolving himself from responsibility, because he knows that one day he might want to claim he wasn't responsible and others would want to judge him harshly.

One of the things you can most count on in life is that if a liberalist tells you something the truth is very nearly the complete opposite.

In your case the liberalist is trying to pull the common liberalist trick of splintering responsibility. The next logical step here, once you've accepted the alcohol has taken over, is to hold its manufacturer financially liable. See Dick Gregory, manganese in malt liquor.

If you drink and drive you are the aggressor. The argument with consent is that someone else forcing themselves onto you makes them the aggressor because they are purposely going after someone who can't consent in good faith. Just my 2 cents

I've been hammered before, I feel like everyone gets really drunk once or twice. While it's easy to see how you can answer yes or no incorrectly I could never justify being an aggressor. Even after 10 shots I still knew I couldn't drive

You are still responsible for consuming that much alcohol, bath salts, meth, heroine, whatever else. Choices choices...

If your girlfriend "gets hammered" why are you dating such a person?
If your girlfriend fucks another guy it's grounds for a double murder followed by a suicide for being a such shit you couldn't keep her attention.
You are at all times responsible for your actions and the effects those actions have on yourself and those around you. Regardless of what the drugs do to your state of mind, you chose to use them in the first place.
The libshit will never learn to accept the concept of personal responsibility. It's poison to their very way of life.

So does that mean if I rape a chick while im drunk its completely okay cause I wasn't in my right mind?

so nobody is responsible when a driver gets hammered and then runs people over onna sidewalk.

also the idea that negligence or accident equals no responsibility is how children think the world works.

Only if you aren't white.

Seems like a false equivalent. It's a lot easier to say yes to something you'll regret then to actually get behind the wheel of a car and drive. It's saying "yes" vs getting into your car and driving knowing you are drunk. One takes a lot more to do

You would be hammered and so would she. So why do her feefee's after the fact matter more

...

>implying jake wouldn't just be pushing rope at that point anyhow
the russians hacked this

>If you drink and drive you are the aggressor.

It doesn't fucking matter, dickhead. You are equally as responsible for your own actions when sober as when you are drunk. You even admit this at the end of your argument.

Unless you were forced to get drunk or high against your will by someone else, you are 100% responsible for your actions while you are under the influence of any kind of substance. Period.

Responsibility is a simple concept. Adults make decisions and decisions have consequences. You are responsible for the consequences of your decisions.

Why are liberals so afraid of person responsibility?

Fear is the only thing that convinces a liberal, user. They're fine with niggers until they get mugged by one. They're fine with mudslimes until they know someone who got blown up by one. don't waste your time. let the school of hard knocks bitchslap them and shove red pills down their throat

Of course it can. But they're still responsible for their actions since they chose to get drunk.

Ask him this

>So If I get drunk, rape and murder your entire family, you're cool with it?

came to post this

you know what to do op

you're correct. you are always responsible for your actions.

suprisingly the only drug i've ever done that made me think someone could actually do something they didn't mean to do because they were legitimately hallucinating is benedryl.

>I was just having a conversation with a lefty and he said if your girlfriend gets hammered and sleeps with another guy its not her fault

isn't that the same exact sentiment here in Sup Forums?

dont matter at all


you break it you bought it

it dont matter if its a relationship or a body

if you fuck up its your fault 100%.

its not

>i sowwy

>no consequences

welcome to the adult world

They are responsible if they took the alcohol/bath salts on their own accord.

Nice proxy you got there

Yep sure have, woke up in a gutter 3 suburbs from the party. Where the fuck was I going.

You are still responsible for getting in a state that you had no notion of the consequences of your actions and therefore exposing not only yourself, but everyone around you to possible danger and wrong actions. The person had the choice of being in control of themselves, and choose NOT tom far different from say, a mental disease where a person had no choice but lack that control.

Giving up control is the equivalent of giving consent to your "instincts" and that whatever they tell you to do, you are ok with it.

In an ideal world, drugs would not be illegal but knowingly taking a substance that makes you lose control would be illegal. It's difficult to enforce unless we start building infrastructure for the purpose of taking drugs recreationally. For example all drugs could be bought and consumed in an adult-only park with cameras and doctors, and those who show symptoms of addiction would receive help and support. For those who consume prudently and in moderation it would just another type of amusement park.

They made the choice to consume the substances in both cases. Whatever happens as a result is their responsibility.