I read what you wrote but was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Just to be clear, you're saying that you'd prefer drunk drivers in cars versus bikes because you're more concerned about the drunk driver's safety than people they might run into/over?

My speculation is that lowering the drinking age should result in fewer deaths overall for this very reason. I don't want drunk drivers to die either but if I had to choose I'd prefer the drunk drivers to die over the person that they hit. I also reject your premise that crashing into something with your bike is more dangerous than crashing into something with a car, seatbelt or not. Speed is a pretty big factor and while drunk biking is surely dangerous it's a lot less likely to crash at higher speeds.

I'm not as concerned about the safety of the drunk as I am about anyone else who may be near them while operating their chosen vehicle.

With that in mind a bike is better.

Let me help you out. It was this one:

A drunk 14 year old on a bike is probably in more danger than a drunk 21 year old in a car.

You are very bad at communicating. You were correct in your initial comment, but really went off the rails and said many incorrect things afterwards

Walking and biking is statistically more dangerous, mile per mile, for a drunk person than driving. The caveat is this excludes externalities such as injuring other people

Had you said that, I think more people would have understood what you meant. As it stands, it sounds like you're advocating for drunk driving