Southwest pilot arrested in SAV

[arkavgal]

Nothing you’re saying a disagree with BUT

Missing a huge point…you’re assuming that him losing his career, putting lives at danger, or anything bad happening was a factor in his decision making.

The disease told him, you won’t feel good till you do this and will convince him to justify it for any reason …everything else isn’t just a factor …it doesn’t exist.

This isn’t justification for him to get back in the seat after his treatment, additionally he should be reprimanded to the fullest.

But to assume he chose directly to ignore his role has Captain and mover of people, isn’t being honest for what his motivation is.

***
That being said if he was just on a bender or having a bad week…none of the above applies.
***

I'm not making an assumption about his motivations. Merely pointed out that getting in the seat is a deliberate choice.

 

[Roger Roger]

Does it really, truly, genuinely add to the social experience, or are we, collectively, all just a little bit psychologically / socially dependent on it?

AFAIK there is no scientific consensus on this, but a lot of the hypotheses for “why didn’t a gene for enjoying chemicals that make you extra vulnerable to predators and accidents get selected out back when our ancestors were trying out bipedality and eating spoiled fruit to get buzzed?” Center around some variation of “making the pack work together better” so…..maybe we are?

Of course as with most things biological and evolutionary even if there is truth to that, it’s probably only a small part of the picture. It could also be as simple as it’s baked into the way our brains and hormones (dopamine is a hormone right?) work and we’re backed into a corner, evolutionarily, where once our brains started getting huge there was no way to go back and re-evolve them without the brain chemistry that makes us subject to addiction and dopamine-seeking behavior. I think they call that an evolutionary ratchet?

IDK but it is an interesting thing to ponder. You’d think the apes that got wasted on spoiled fruit would have been selected out with Sabre-toothed-cat-like-quickness.

And then of course there’s the very non-scientific, but also funny and possibly slightly true joke that we spent several million years evolving consciousness and immediately started trying to forget it.

 

[Roger Roger]

I don't think this is really possible.

I do.

 

[pwttogfk]

AFAIK there is no scientific consensus on this, but a lot of the hypotheses for “why didn’t a gene for enjoying chemicals that make you extra vulnerable to predators and accidents get selected out back when our ancestors were trying out bipedality and eating spoiled fruit to get buzzed?” Center around some variation of “making the pack work together better” so…..maybe we are?

Of course as with most things biological and evolutionary even if there is truth to that, it’s probably only a small part of the picture. It could also be as simple as it’s baked into the way our brains and hormones (dopamine is a hormone right?) work and we’re backed into a corner, evolutionarily, where once our brains started getting huge there was no way to go back and re-evolve them without the brain chemistry that makes us subject to addiction and dopamine-seeking behavior. I think they call that an evolutionary ratchet?

IDK but it is an interesting thing to ponder. You’d think the apes that got wasted on spoiled fruit would have been selected out with Sabre-toothed-cat-like-quickness.

And then of course there’s the very non-scientific, but also funny and possibly slightly true joke that we spent several million years evolving consciousness and immediately started trying to forget it.

Funnily enough, I just was reading something about why we evolved an ethanol tolerance too…it was more about how doing stupid stuff while drunk was less deadly than most waterborne bacteria.

 

[Roger Roger]

Funnily enough, I just was reading something about why we evolved an ethanol tolerance too…it was more about how doing stupid stuff while drunk was less deadly than most waterborne bacteria.

Infectious disease has killed more humans than any other cause by a long shot so there’s som logic to that. But, other animals just evolved better resistance to waterborne bacteria. Still could very well be part of the picture. Like I said above, most of the time the full picture of evolution doesn’t follow the neat stories we like to tell.

 

[🦈💜]

I probably drink 3 or 4 times a year now days. With all the other things I try to do, it seems counter to that to drink on a consistent basis.

From a legal standpoint, I would think a good lawyer would be able to bring up the problems with doing a field test in an angled, multi layered, jetbridge.

The field sobriety test, in this case, showed clear evidence of nystagmus. Even I could see it from the bodycam view. Add to that a strong odor of alcohol and reports that drinking occurred until 4am, plus refusal to test, I'm dubious as to whether the field sobriety test even matters at that point. But if it does, both officers observe clear evidence of nystagmus consistent with impairment, barring any other medical conditions.

If he had failed on the gait portion or the balance portion alone, that might be grounds for tossing it. Most field sobriety tests are part of an investigation, not conclusive in and of themselves, and often contain an element of verbal judo. ("Backwards? I can't even do that sober.") But this one was pretty damning, and is only a component of the overall picture.

Just my 2¢

 

[🦈💜]

Yes. Next question.

We all have our own experiences in life, but I would suggest that you should carefully and honestly evaluate that answer.

 

[🦈💜]

I’m going to go ahead and disagree.

You can drink a beer, hop in your car and easily get a DUI.

Social pressures normalize drinking and driving even as we threaten to severely punish offenders.

I don't disagree that punitive action isn't the right answer, but there's an implicit assumption in your statement that it's inherently acceptable to drink a beer and then go to drive somewhere.

Why do we treat that as acceptable? Why do we, in fact, pressure people to do it? Drive to a friend's house, drive to a bar, have alcohol with dinner...?

It's an unhealthy culture, and the business end of "normalization of deviance."

I mean, that's literally what we're talking about here.

We've normalized the behavior of operating a motor vehicle after ingesting an impairing intoxicant, as if it's ok right up to some imaginary line.

Do we agree on that?

Should that person no longer be employable?

We need a better system than ... all of this. We isolate and severely punish people for doing things we've normalized, and appeal to "personal responsibility" to offset risk-taking behaviors.

In effect, we make the crime "getting caught."

It's also systemically worse for marginalized groups.

 

[Bob Ridpath]

Tough to watch

Agreed.

Tough to watch

 

[arkavgal]

Infectious disease has killed more humans than any other cause by a long shot so there’s som logic to that. But, other animals just evolved better resistance to waterborne bacteria. Still could very well be part of the picture. Like I said above, most of the time the full picture of evolution doesn’t follow the neat stories we like to tell.

Remember, evolutionary fitness only cares above survival until successful reproduction of viable offspring. Disease may kill a lot of people, but less likely to affect those of health reproductive age. After one stops reproducing, evolution is no longer in action.