The Energon Pub

homelessjunkeon wrote:"Another one bites the dust"
"bites the dust"
"bites... dust"
Dust/sand.
No, I guess I didn't make any comments about what he did to get himself killed.
Nope, definitely not.
Especially not in the thread title.

Then I apologize. I didn't get the reference in the thread title.

homelessjunkeon wrote:No offence here, but I'm not the one who needs to re-read anything.

Huh? Again, what, other than your laughing at him, would you have us believe with the "That's one less Naruto fan" comment? It doesn't exactly lend well to your case. It seems like one of those comedies where a character does something stupid like falls into a hole and, to save face, says, "I meant to do that" and expects everyone to believe him.

Anyway, I apologize if I read anything into your statement things you didn't intend, however I don't apologize for taking it that way considering the tone. I still believe the original intent was to laugh at the kid, but given that I have no proof to argue it, I can't.

However, if you really weren't laughing at the kid, you did a poor job of putting that across. But unless you want to talk in circles about such a sidebar to the intent of this thread, I don't see the need to continue this particular part.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Still, no matter what, my original thought stands: why are we taking any joy out of this at all?

Because two wrongs supposedly don't make a right.

How is it wrong to not laugh at this? Do you find it some sort of societal obligation? Maybe it's my being a parent, but I just don't find the death of a child all that funny. I admit that it was a stupid move to bury your head in the sand, but don't find it funny and don't know how others could.

I'll just say a couple things. First off everyone (mostly talking about the media here) is going the direction of saying that it's Naruto where the kid got the idea, there are other shows where people have control of Earth/sand type things. Other media seems to be more sure it was Naruto... but I need to see a quote on that to convince me.

edit: Okay I'm satisfied it was Naruto after finding this article
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/354 ... box11.html
Amazing what a little research will do.

Kids sometimes let their imaginations go wild, and this was just a tragic instance where this went wrong, I remember doing stupid things when I was a kid, but I did have adult supervision most of the time... still there were time were I didn't, as I'm sure happens to everyone. The parents could have been raising the kid well, but we all know kids don't always do as their told. The only info that we have is that his half brother was not sure what show the kid was watching. The parents could have been monitoring what their kid watched, they could have tried teaching their kid how to stay safe, they were at a friend's house so it's may have not been the kid's parent's fault that there was no supervision at the time.

So all this blame on bad parenting when honestly, there's not enough info to support that. Again, kids don't always do as their told, even though rules are often made to protect them. But they do grow up and know better. Would this kid have grown up to be a decent smart person? We'll never know now... but it was an accident, pure and simple.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:Sorry, but I find the whole thread here heartless. As a parent, I can imagine what the family is going through. Unless there's some elaborate joke I'm missing, why are we making fun of a child's death?

Save it for Fred Phelps and his ilk, not 10-year-olds with active imaginations.

No offense but IMO its the parents fault for there kid acting like a complete idiot. My brother watches my nephew like a hawk and makes sure that he knows whats real and whats not. You would never catch him imatating a cartoon thats dangerous like that.

Megatron-Ron wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:Sorry, but I find the whole thread here heartless. As a parent, I can imagine what the family is going through. Unless there's some elaborate joke I'm missing, why are we making fun of a child's death?

Save it for Fred Phelps and his ilk, not 10-year-olds with active imaginations.

No offense but IMO its the parents fault for there kid acting like a complete idiot. My brother watches my nephew like a hawk and makes sure that he knows whats real and whats not. You would never catch him imatating a cartoon thats dangerous like that.

No offense taken.......?

Maybe some of you should read this...

http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/ ... d55b9.html

"He wanted his organs donated because he felt that if he doesn't make it than other people should,” said his sister, Stephanie Porter.

"And we found out through his organ donation that he has saved children in five other families," Rick Porter said.

Five other children now surviving thanks to Codey.

And while his family and friends are left to mourn his loss, at the same time they celebrate his life and the profound gift he gave to other families.

This shows me that the kid made one mistake and let his imagination go too far but was raised well, not being the overall idiot many here accuse him of being. Kids are sometimes stupid and parents aren't always around to watch every move. But for the kid to have the maturity level and the heart to want his organs to be donated tells me a different story then the one told by many here of a completely daft kid with parents that didn't care or raise their child right at all.

Didn't the first news article say that his parents decided to give his organs away and not he himself?

And as for doing something stupid, yes the kid was pretty stupid to stick his head into sand and get himself buried alive.

BUT! And here's the big but:

Doesn't stupidity make you human? I mean isn't mankind the most dumbest of all animals on earth?
What other animal destroys it's own habitat, kills and poisends the things it needs to survive and most importantly destroys it's own bloody planet?

The kid did something stupid, but so do we every bloody day of our lives, so why do you people do nothing els but piss at each athers legs and flam etch other over this?

Dead Metal wrote:BUT! And here's the big but:

Doesn't stupidity make you human? I mean isn't mankind the most dumbest of all animals on earth?
What other animal destroys it's own habitat, kills and poisends the things it needs to survive and most importantly destroys it's own bloody planet?

The kid did something stupid, but so do we every bloody day of our lives, so why do you people do nothing els but piss at each athers legs and flam etch other over this?

Actually, most creatures do-- the bacteria and lichen that break down rock formations into soil eventually deprive themselves of a home when it becomes soft loam, same with fungi and logs. Both predators and prey can eat themselves out of a food source-- happening with the deer in my area-- and grasslands generally give way to forested land if not for natural fires. The only check really is the environment and counteractive organisms, but, when a creature is especially successful, it's able to adapt so well that it can change it's environment at a rapid pace, and even degrade it's own processes.

Basically all life is in some form self-suicidal, and we're especially good at it, but we're also successful as a society partially because we can, to a point, control our rate and byproducts of living.

I cant make fun, I used to do similar stuff when I was a kid. my friends and I would play wrestlemania and do suplxes(sp?)and similar stuff to eachother all the time. I actually broke one ankle, and sprained the other jumping off a second story when I was 5 years old after watching the 89 Batman movie.

Sherade wrote:Okay, let me ask this.
How many have read Origin of Species?
A page?
Paragraph?
Sentence?
I haven't. So unless you have, Natural selection is out of the question.
But, if you still like the idea, let's put oursleves in a jungle with nothing but us and see how long we last.

I've read some, and my Biology course required me to learn about behavioural science and natural selection. So nyah to Shes


Shadowman-- but they do keep blaming video games for violence in youths! And it seems to be working!

I'd take a violent computer game over some nutcase japanese cartoon that thinks giant man-eating goats is the height of cool.


Talking about stupidity that removes us from the gene pool, I did run myself over with a quad bike
Obviously I'm too valuable to kill off


It's like my dear friend Agent Smith said- we are pretty much like a virus; sucking the life out wherever we go, killing everything so that we can mulitply. That's probably why we're so dominant.




From the looks of the snippet that's been posted, I am going to say the accident was the results of a slight misjudgment on the kid's part. Maybe he just lent on some sand to check his hole, and it have way? Happens to the best of us I'm sure (but obviously we catch oursevles).



Is this right?

Kids playing in wherever-- digging a hole for fun-- checks hole for summat (could be anything), and slips/ floor gives way.

homelessjunkeon wrote:How do you know they wouldn't survive without that same system in place?
Have you visited alternate realities where every other possible combination of economy and governance have resulted in the deaths of the people who post on this board?

Have you survived in the wilderness without the modern conveniences that the society you're dependent on provides? I mean long enough that you find yourself no longer missing anything modern, so you truly don't need it anymore. If not, then you can't use "natural selection" as a reason to laugh at this stuff. If so, then go right ahead.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

It's gone beyond what happened to this kid. It's about fat, lazy, cigarette smoking americans playing the stupid card.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is this "stupid card"?
Is it like the "race card", or different?

Yes. I was using "stupid card" in the same way that people sometimes say "playing the race card."

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Stupidity should be lethal. Stupidity should be lethal.

Last I checked it was "stupid actions of a particular order and/or sufficient magnitude are potentially lethal".
Am I reading a different thread?

Yes, they are. And that's not my point. My point is that people go around saying "stupidity should be lethal". That's a bumper sticker I see all the time. I've seen it in sigs as well. And I'm guessing these people probably also do stupid things, therefore they can't say it should be lethal.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

As they smoke, eat McDonalds, and drive around with $4 gas.

If these things are stupid, and the people posting here are able to survive doing them, does that not make them a better breed of man/woman?
Surely someone who can survive stupid habits is well adapted to their environment.

Again, that's not my point. My point is not whether or not they can survive doing them, the point is that those things are considered stupid, so therefore the people who do them have no right to complain about stupid people.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:Sorry, but as the person who opened a thread to bring up an article they thought was comical, called it "Another one bites the dust," and then said "One less Naruto fan," you'll be hard-pressed to convince me you were just laughing at the situation, especially when the only reference you made was to the kid (not the way he died). What else would you have everyone believe, that you were laughing with him? If that wasn't your intended message, please reread your posts to make sure you're coming through clearly.

Still, no matter what, my original thought stands: why are we taking any joy out of this at all?

Thank you. The title of this thread pretty much defeats the argument that "nobody is laughing at the kid's death."

Shadowman wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:As they smoke, eat McDonalds, and drive around with $4 gas.

I don't smoke, I eat fast food maybe once a month if I have the spare cash, and I don't even have a car. Do you have any more stereotypes I'm not a part of?

You play a lot of video games. You think zombies are cool and funny. You post on a transformers message board. All these things are considered stupid by somebody.

I hope you realize I'm not attacking you. I play video games. I think zombies are cool and funny. I post on a transformers message board. I went to McDonald's the other night, while driving around with $4 gas. I smoke weed which is worse than cigarettes legally and money-wise.

All these things are considered stupid by somebody, therefore we don't have the right to evoke "natural selection" as a reason to laugh at this sort of thing.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:especially when the only reference you made was to the kid (not the way he died).

"Another one bites the dust"
"bites the dust"
"bites... dust"
Dust/sand.
No, I guess I didn't make any comments about what he did to get himself killed.
Nope, definitely not.
Especially not in the thread title.

No, that's not what he meant, and you know it. What he meant was:

Song lyrics in the title, the very meaning of said lyrics being the celebration of killing people in a comedic setting like an action movie or something, and saying "one less Naruto fan", which sounds pretty celebratory to me, considering the fact that most people over 10 don't like Naruto.

You were using a title that was celebratory and comedic, and you were acting like it was a good thing he was gone because he was a Naruto fan. The post speaks plain as day. Stop dancing around the meaning of your own words with semantics and admit it. You are glad he's dead because of how he died, and because he likes Naruto. The post speaks plain as day. What's to misinterpret?

Rodimus.Prime wrote:I cant make fun, I used to do similar stuff when I was a kid.

Thank you. That's my whole point exactly, and even without needless rambling that people will just misinterpret on purpose to try and prove me wrong.

Dark Zarak wrote:No, that's not what he meant, and you know it. What he meant was:

Song lyrics in the title, the very meaning of said lyrics being the celebration of killing people in a comedic setting like an action movie or something, and saying "one less Naruto fan", which sounds pretty celebratory to me, considering the fact that most people over 10 don't like Naruto.

You were using a title that was celebratory and comedic, and you were acting like it was a good thing he was gone because he was a Naruto fan. The post speaks plain as day. Stop dancing around the meaning of your own words with semantics and admit it. You are glad he's dead because of how he died, and because he likes Naruto. The post speaks plain as day. What's to misinterpret?

Thank you. You read my mind. I didn't even get the title of the thread and the little pun to him dying face-first in a sandbox until it was pointed out, but I took it in the same way: celebratory. It's clear as day. The title of the thread sounded like the poster was all but dancing a jig.

Dealer wrote:Shadowman-- but they do keep blaming video games for violence in youths! And it seems to be working!

Not really. The only thing they achieved is getting stores to card people for M-rated games, like they do for alcohol.

Dark Zarak wrote:Have you survived in the wilderness without the modern conveniences that the society you're dependent on provides? I mean long enough that you find yourself no longer missing anything modern, so you truly don't need it anymore. If not, then you can't use "natural selection" as a reason to laugh at this stuff. If so, then go right ahead.

Right...
So in order to be able to justifiably evoke natural selection, I have to throw away all of the behavioural adaptations that humans are capable of as a result of the way we have evolved and rough it in the style of a much hardier animal?

That is quite possibly the most stupid nonsense I have ever heard. You really are grasping at straws now.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Stupidity should be lethal. Stupidity should be lethal.

Last I checked it was "stupid actions of a particular order and/or sufficient magnitude are potentially lethal".
Am I reading a different thread?

Yes, they are. And that's not my point. My point is that people go around saying "stupidity should be lethal". That's a bumper sticker I see all the time. I've seen it in sigs as well. And I'm guessing these people probably also do stupid things, therefore they can't say it should be lethal.

I've left the quote in there because I am, evidently, reading a totally different thread.

Song lyrics in the title, the very meaning of said lyrics being the celebration of killing people in a comedic setting like an action movie or something, and saying "one less Naruto fan", which sounds pretty celebratory to me, considering the fact that most people over 10 don't like Naruto.

You were using a title that was celebratory and comedic, and you were acting like it was a good thing he was gone because he was a Naruto fan. The post speaks plain as day. Stop dancing around the meaning of your own words with semantics and admit it. You are glad he's dead because of how he died, and because he likes Naruto. The post speaks plain as day. What's to misinterpret?

Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from now.
You've seen something that gets your back up because of your personal experience when driving, and you've decided to project your own feelings onto other people so you have an artificial conflict to try and win.

Dark Zarak wrote:Yes, they are. And that's not my point. My point is that people go around saying "stupidity should be lethal". That's a bumper sticker I see all the time. I've seen it in sigs as well. And I'm guessing these people probably also do stupid things, therefore they can't say it should be lethal.

We've all done stupid stuff. This kid just did something stupid enough to get himself killed. There's a big difference there. They have a whole website dedicated to people like that.

homelessjunkeon wrote:Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from now.
You've seen something that gets your back up because of your personal experience when driving, and you've decided to project your own feelings onto other people so you have an artificial conflict to try and win.

How can you say that? He didn't come right out and spell it out for you with the words "This is the reason I'm posting, because of my own driving experiences." If I can't conclude by your posts that you started this thread to mock Codey, then don't go assume things from other posts either. Using that argument undoes your own defense. It's a double standard. Logical fallacy and all that, right? Besides, he brought his story up on page 4 after a few other posts.

homelessjunkeon wrote:So in order to be able to justifiably evoke natural selection, I have to throw away all of the behavioural adaptations that humans are capable of as a result of the way we have evolved and rough it in the style of a much hardier animal?

That is quite possibly the most stupid nonsense I have ever heard. You really are grasping at straws now.

I didn't think so. One of the things that would make one guy hardier than the next is to know how to survive without conveniences.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Have you survived in the wilderness without the modern conveniences that the society you're dependent on provides? I mean long enough that you find yourself no longer missing anything modern, so you truly don't need it anymore. If not, then you can't use "natural selection" as a reason to laugh at this stuff. If so, then go right ahead.

Right...
So in order to be able to justifiably evoke natural selection, I have to throw away all of the behavioural adaptations that humans are capable of as a result of the way we have evolved and rough it in the style of a much hardier animal?

That is quite possibly the most stupid nonsense I have ever heard. You really are grasping at straws now.

What doesn't make sense now? You can't use natural selection as a reason to defend laughing at this kid because you are not the fittest animal either. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Get off your ass, go outside, go into the real world and survive all manner of different scenarios, dangerous or not dangerous, wilderness and urban, and then come back and start acting like the "fittest".

I used wilderness survival as an example of an environment people are generally not fit in. It could be anything. War zones, ghettos, even stuff like the stock exchange or corporate business. You have to be the best adapted to your environment in each one to survive or succeed or both. You are probably not fit to survive in all of them, so therefore you are not "the fittest" so quit using it as a reason.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:My point is that people go around saying "stupidity should be lethal". That's a bumper sticker I see all the time. I've seen it in sigs as well. And I'm guessing these people probably also do stupid things, therefore they can't say it should be lethal.

I've left the quote in there because I am, evidently, reading a totally different thread.

No you're not. You just don't understand my examples, apparently. I've bolded the point. You might notice it's the exact same vein as what I just told you above. The same point. The same thread. Stop talking about a different thread without explaining what doesn't make sense.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Song lyrics in the title, the very meaning of said lyrics being the celebration of killing people in a comedic setting like an action movie or something, and saying "one less Naruto fan", which sounds pretty celebratory to me, considering the fact that most people over 10 don't like Naruto.

You were using a title that was celebratory and comedic, and you were acting like it was a good thing he was gone because he was a Naruto fan. The post speaks plain as day. Stop dancing around the meaning of your own words with semantics and admit it. You are glad he's dead because of how he died, and because he likes Naruto. The post speaks plain as day. What's to misinterpret?

Okay, I think I understand where you're coming from now.
You've seen something that gets your back up because of your personal experience when driving, and you've decided to project your own feelings onto other people so you have an artificial conflict to try and win.

The driving thing was only an example of how we all do stupid things. I'm not inventing a conflict. I'm calling you out for being hateful and acting like somebody deserved to die when they didn't kill or rape anybody.

I think you're the one inventing a conflict, every time I say something to you, you attack a different aspect of what I'm saying, other than the point I was making.

Forget my driving story. It's only an anecdote to the real point at hand, which is, in as plain English as I can possibly make it:

"Everybody does stupid things, and since natural selection would not favor us in every circumstance, it is hypocrisy to use it as a reason to laugh at the deaths of people we consider beneath us."

Shadowman wrote:We've all done stupid stuff. This kid just did something stupid enough to get himself killed. There's a big difference there. They have a whole website dedicated to people like that.

Just because that website exists doesn't mean it's justified to laugh at people's deaths just because we consider them to be beneath us.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Shadowman wrote:We've all done stupid stuff. This kid just did something stupid enough to get himself killed. There's a big difference there. They have a whole website dedicated to people like that.

Just because that website exists doesn't mean it's justified to laugh at people's deaths just because we consider them to be beneath us.

If it wasn't, that site wouldn't be so well known.

And, by the way, the difference between the stupid things I do, and the stupid things other people do, is that I didn't die from my stupid things. I survive, therefore, I am better.

Shadowman wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:

Shadowman wrote:We've all done stupid stuff. This kid just did something stupid enough to get himself killed. There's a big difference there. They have a whole website dedicated to people like that.

Just because that website exists doesn't mean it's justified to laugh at people's deaths just because we consider them to be beneath us.

If it wasn't, that site wouldn't be so well known.

Crack cocaine is well known too...

Shadowman wrote:And, by the way, the difference between the stupid things I do, and the stupid things other people do, is that I didn't die from my stupid things. I survive, therefore, I am better.

Of course. But so what? You have to be better than someone?

There's still a difference between adults who should know better and kids who are still learning. I have less symphony for an adult who honestly should now better who dies as a result of a stupid reason, especially if that person is breaking the law, or if they do that stupid thing while intoxicated.

To me the Darwin Awards are lessons for people not to do illegal things, not doing foolish things while drunk, or being safe with dangerous equipment (Even if some the of the stories are most likely urban legends).

Adults have more responsibility over their own actions, children are still maturing and learning as they go along.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Shadowman wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Just because that website exists doesn't mean it's justified to laugh at people's deaths just because we consider them to be beneath us.

If it wasn't, that site wouldn't be so well known.

Crack cocaine is well known too...

The point is, as long as someone can find humor in something, they'll be able to laugh at it. There's no such thing as 'inherently just'-- justice is a concept built on personal contemplation and social interaction, and is thus subjective. Saying 'I can't find humor in this' does not lead to 'therefore no on else can't or should not'-- they just did.

Shadowman wrote:And, by the way, the difference between the stupid things I do, and the stupid things other people do, is that I didn't die from my stupid things. I survive, therefore, I am better.

Of course. But so what? You have to be better than someone?

Well, if the criteria is longevity of survival, he's already 'better' than the subject we're discussing. You forget 'fit' is merely what keeps you alive, and one can be considered 'fit' as long as they continue to live in a way more benefited than others, but that in itself is as well determined by an ever-changing environment. 'Fit' is not so much a manner of 'best,' but more so who lasts longer and is there to thrive at the end of the day. A hippo is great in the Nile, but put it in the middle of the Sahara, and there's a problem. Same for a lion in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. As long as one exists, or dare even excels, in it's own field of influence, it's considered 'fit.'

Me, Grimlock! wrote:How can you say that?

Quite easily, he's running around putting words in other people's mouths (stupidity should be lethal- ad infinitum), and acting like he's demolishing these straw-men with the lance of moral superiority, and trying to throw up arbitrary and nonsensical barriers to participation in a discussion of who is fit to survive.
None of what he has said has any basis in fact or logic, and when his faulty reasoning is pointed out he accuses people of missing the point.

He didn't come right out and spell it out for you with the words "This is the reason I'm posting, because of my own driving experiences." If I can't conclude by your posts that you started this thread to mock Codey, then don't go assume things from other posts either.

There is a difference between an assumption based on what you want to read, and a deduction based on observed behaviour.

Using that argument undoes your own defense.

What do I need to defend?
It's there, clear as day, a tasteless pun in place of what might otherwise be a thoroughly boring thread title right above an opportunity to take a jab at Naruto, a famously terrible anime.

Logical fallacy and all that, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Dark Zarak wrote:What doesn't make sense now? You can't use natural selection as a reason to defend laughing at this kid because you are not the fittest animal either. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Get off your ass, go outside, go into the real world and survive all manner of different scenarios, dangerous or not dangerous, wilderness and urban, and then come back and start acting like the "fittest".

Again, not laughing at the kid, laughing at the stupidity of what he did. We've been over this.
I don't recall anyone in this thread making themselves out to be the best adapted creature on earth either.
Again, we're clearly not reading the same thread.

I used wilderness survival as an example of an environment people are generally not fit in. It could be anything. War zones, ghettos, even stuff like the stock exchange or corporate business. You have to be the best adapted to your environment in each one to survive or succeed or both. You are probably not fit to survive in all of them, so therefore you are not "the fittest" so quit using it as a reason.

The fact of the matter is that having survived past ten because I didn't do anything to get myself smothered in sand. That puts me at least one-up on this kid. I don't have to be the alpha-male to end all alpha-males, I am better adapted to survive than him.
Are you really trying to tell me that no creature on this earth is qualified to discuss natural selection because there is nothing that can survive in every conceivable environment or circumstance?

No you're not. You just don't understand my examples, apparently.

You have no examples, you're putting words in people's mouths and telling them to shut up because you've decided that there is some arbitrary pre-requisite for being able to discuss natural selection.

I'm calling you out for being hateful and acting like somebody deserved to die when they didn't kill or rape anybody.

Nobody here is being hateful, least of all me. Nor am I acting like anyone deserved to die.
The reason I say you seem to be reading a different thread is because somewhere between the website and your conscious mind this thread seems to be getting substituted with some kind of supremacist tirade against the underman.

I think you're the one inventing a conflict, every time I say something to you, you attack a different aspect of what I'm saying, other than the point I was making.

You have no point. Not one.

Shadowman wrote:And, by the way, the difference between the stupid things I do, and the stupid things other people do, is that I didn't die from my stupid things. I survive, therefore, I am better.

Quoted because it's one of the few things I've read today that follows from factual premises.

Dark Zarak wrote:You have to be better than someone?

According to you, yes, he has to be better than everyone in order to be able to discuss natural selection.

DesalationReborn wrote:There's no such thing as 'inherently just'-- justice is a concept built on personal contemplation and social interaction, and is thus subjective.

Well, if the criteria is longevity of survival, he's already 'better' than the subject we're discussing. You forget 'fit' is merely what keeps you alive, and one can be considered 'fit' as long as they continue to live in a way more benefited than others, but that in itself is as well determined by an ever-changing environment. 'Fit' is not so much a manner of 'best,' but more so who lasts longer and is there to thrive at the end of the day. A hippo is great in the Nile, but put it in the middle of the Sahara, and there's a problem. Same for a lion in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. As long as one exists, or dare even excels, in it's own field of influence, it's considered 'fit.'

This bears repeating. As many times as it takes to sink in.

homelessjunkeon wrote:There is a difference between an assumption based on what you want to read, and a deduction based on observed behaviour.

What you did is exactly the same! You'd like to think that it's not, but it is. What did you observe about Dark Zarak? That he brought up an example to make a point? Because it's impossible to observe that he brought it up to project feelings. Don't know about you, but I can't observe feelings over the Internet.

I inferred from your post that you were laughing at the kid, and as much as you'd like to dance around semantics and pretend you didn't, that's exactly what it looks like. I made an observation based on your post. You didn't spell out your intention (even though it's quite clear), so fought me on it.

However, you inferred that Dark Zarak's intent of getting involved is to get something about his driving off his chest. He didn't come right out and say it, but you decided it was okay to call him on it. Logical fallacy!

You want to infer Dark Zarak's intent on getting involved, then allow me to infer that your intent in starting this thread was just to laugh at someone. It's the exact same thing. You can't whine when someone infers something about you from your post and then do the same to someone else. Don't bend the rules here just to fit your arguments.

homelessjunkeon wrote:Quite easily, he's running around putting words in other people's mouth

Yeah. You're not. Dark Zarak waited a few posts before letting his feelings out and you caught him. Really. And you opened this thread because you felt hurt that an uber-man somewhere derided you because of your foibles.

Besides all this, I'm not sure what kind of moral high ground you're trying to gain. Laughing at Codey's death instead of laughing at Codey himself is, what, marginally less deplorable? Opening up this thread isn't exactly warmhearted. Maybe I was raised differently, but I just don't find a 10-year-old's death something to point out so smugly and apathetically. Doesn't matter if he or she was doing something stupid at the time.

Would you go up to the parents at this kid's funeral and tell them you started a thread to laugh at the way he died? Would anyone here admit to his parents that they chimed in? And all this talk about survival of the fittest. We can quote Darwin or Murphy's Law all we want, but unless our names are Captain America, we're all subject to be weeded out based on one criterion or another. I may exercise regularly, watch what I eat, and don't smoke or drink, but I have asthma, a low bloodloss threshold, and probably a number of other things that make me less than the ideal specimen. Yet people see fit to point out that one person here or one person there (in this case, a kid) should die. Would you tell an alcoholic, fat, disease-ridden couch potato with awful hygiene that he or she should die to his face? Tell a person born with blindness that he or she deserves their outcome. What if one of these was our mother, father, best friend, son, or daughter? Let's tell them they should die just like some have said about Codey.

homelessjunkeon wrote:and mocking the actions leading up to it serves to reinforce the notion that similar acts are a bad idea among our fellow board members

Yeah. You really posted this to help all of us at Seibertron to learn what not to do. Thanks. I won't go bury my head in sand now.

I have to say, reading what you want is different from reading what you see, and interpretation here is crucial. I'm seriously wondering: who is talking "should" and "deserves to"? All I've ever seen here is "has" and "probably will."

And, frankly, I've only seen one side trying for "moral high-ground"-- the other is simply rationally stating why they aren't guilted by such, simply defending an entitlement to an opinion.

DesalationReborn wrote:I have to say, reading what you want is different from reading what you see, and interpretation here is crucial. I'm seriously wondering: who is talking "should" and "deserves to"? All I've ever seen here is "has" and "probably will."

And, frankly, I've only seen one side trying for "moral high-ground"-- the other is simply rationally stating why they aren't guilted by such, simply defending an entitlement to an opinion.

Maybe so. It's quite easy when impressions become concrete in your head. I only know I don't think it's "taking the moral high ground" to laugh at a kid's death. Maybe that's why I think I'm taking it. I hope I'm taking it.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:How can you say that?

Quite easily, he's running around putting words in other people's mouths (stupidity should be lethal- ad infinitum), and acting like he's demolishing these straw-men with the lance of moral superiority, and trying to throw up arbitrary and nonsensical barriers to participation in a discussion of who is fit to survive.
None of what he has said has any basis in fact or logic, and when his faulty reasoning is pointed out he accuses people of missing the point.

My examples aren't faulty reasoning, they are tirades that I use to illustrate further my point, which I do have.

And straw man??? Please. What's the straw man? People who say "Stupidity should be lethal"? It's right here in the thread. I don't see how it's a straw man when the very thread title and original post is so celebratory in nature.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:What doesn't make sense now? You can't use natural selection as a reason to defend laughing at this kid because you are not the fittest animal either. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Get off your ass, go outside, go into the real world and survive all manner of different scenarios, dangerous or not dangerous, wilderness and urban, and then come back and start acting like the "fittest".

Again, not laughing at the kid, laughing at the stupidity of what he did. We've been over this.

Wrong. The thread title, and the original post was definitely laughing at the kid.

And even if it's not, just like Me Grimlock said, laughing at the death itself then? I can see an "Oh my God can you believe this?" with the sheer ridiculousness bringing laughter out as a base emotional response only, but underneath that, the human mind is still able to think, "ultimately it's pretty tragic and disgusting, so why celebrate it?"

homelessjunkeon wrote:You have no point. Not one.

For the millionth f'ing time:

People should not laugh at this kid, or how he died, on the basis of him being stupid, because they also do stupid things.

That is my point. Right there. It may even be in even plainer English than the last time I posted it, which was in bold.

homelessjunkeon wrote:You have no examples, you're putting words in people's mouths and telling them to shut up because you've decided that there is some arbitrary pre-requisite for being able to discuss natural selection.

I'm sick of you saying I have no examples, and no point.

What do you call my driving story? It's an example of how something seemingly stupid might not be, and therefore we should not judge people based on stupidity.

The "stupidity should be lethal" slogan I've seen in sigs, and bumper stickers, being an example of how people do truly agree with the idea.

homelessjunkeon wrote:The reason I say you seem to be reading a different thread is because somewhere between the website and your conscious mind this thread seems to be getting substituted with some kind of supremacist tirade against the underman.

Because that's exactly what I'm seeing in this thread. Some kid died from doing an action he should have known better against, and now he's the butt of jokes. How is that not supremacist?

DesalationReborn wrote:There's no such thing as 'inherently just'-- justice is a concept built on personal contemplation and social interaction, and is thus subjective.

Well, if the criteria is longevity of survival, he's already 'better' than the subject we're discussing. You forget 'fit' is merely what keeps you alive, and one can be considered 'fit' as long as they continue to live in a way more benefited than others, but that in itself is as well determined by an ever-changing environment. 'Fit' is not so much a manner of 'best,' but more so who lasts longer and is there to thrive at the end of the day. A hippo is great in the Nile, but put it in the middle of the Sahara, and there's a problem. Same for a lion in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. As long as one exists, or dare even excels, in it's own field of influence, it's considered 'fit.'

All right fine. You got me. I was wrong to use the surviving in different environments as a example of how nobody is fit enough to use natural selection as a reason to laugh at death.

I guess all of us, including myself, are in fact qualified to say he was weeded out of the gene pool, though I don't know what genes there are for stupidity.

Which shows that my original point still stands:

People should not laugh at this kid, or how he died, on the basis of him being stupid, because they also do stupid things.

Stupidity is relative, as I illustrated in the example of my driving story, so now I put forth the idea that it's not even about natural selection at all.* If stupidity is relative, then this kid did something stupid not because he had the genetic tendency toward stupidity, but because he was simply ignorant, misinformed, and very badly supervised.

None of which is good reason to laugh at his death, rather than just thinking "damn that sucks for him. Should've been smarter", and then going on with our lives instead of needing to have something over the kid.


* No, I'm not inventing a new argument here. I am actually able to admit when I'm wrong with a point, and now I have been able to refine my larger point in light of my new realization.