The Energon Pub

Dark Zarak wrote:

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.

This is huge: You're not arguing against someone who says "stupidity should be lethal." In that case, where you continue to argue against that point, homelessJ will continue to think that is what you're labeling his argument, and can thus be interpreted as a strawman of his own viewpoint. We can argue about the "should" issue, but it must be made clear it is separate from junkion's. I don't think there's really any animosity towards the kid-- just apathy, indifference.

EDIT: And, to the rebuttal of my own-- just because viewpoints of stupidity are relative does not mean that they are relative in one's own mind-- someone can very well label what that kid did stupid and make a joke of it. However, it can be your opinion as well that they are being very callous in doing so.

DesalationReborn wrote:You're not arguing against someone who says "stupidity should be lethal." In that case, where you continue to argue against that point, homelessJ will continue to think that is what you're labeling his argument, and can thus be interpreted as a strawman of his own viewpoint.

But that's just it. How is the nature of his original post, and the thread title, not in the vein of "stupidity should be lethal"?

DesalationReborn wrote:just because viewpoints of stupidity are relative does not mean that they are relative in one's own mind-- someone can very well label what that kid did stupid and make a joke of it. However, it can be your opinion as well that they are being very callous in doing so.

I see the truth in that, but the fact remains that people who do stupid things themselves (everyone) have no right to mock someone's death by stupidity, perceived or real. It's not opinion, it's the definition of hypocrisy.

Me, Grimlock! wrote: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.

Dark Zarak wrote:God, I hate that so much.

What appalls me most about this whole thing is how angry people are at this kid.

It's there in black and white.
He confesses his own hatred of something, and then projects anger, presumably his own since nobody has yet indicated anger in their posts, onto other people.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:Logical fallacy!

Really? Which fallacy would that be then?

Me, Grimlock! wrote:It's the exact same thing.

No. Making an observation based on falsifiable facts is inherently different to jumping to a conclusion because you want to pick a fight.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:Besides all this, I'm not sure what kind of moral high ground you're trying to gain.

I seek nothing of the sort, there is no moral high-ground here.

Me, Grimlock! wrote: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?

Since they're hardly likely to see the funny side of it, I think that would be overly tactless, and downright rude, so no, obviously not.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:Would you tell an alcoholic, fat, disease-ridden couch potato with awful hygiene that he or she should die to his face?

Since it would achieve nothing, no.
Of course you're deviating from the issue at hand. That would be harrasment, with the effect of causing emotional harm to a particular individual, this thread was made for the purpose of discussing the news with some Darwin-Award style comic relief.

Me, Grimlock! wrote: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.

Congratulations, you can snide remarks about quotes taken out of context, deliberately misconstrued, and then turned into a straw man for you to take a swing at.

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.

How are you not a moderator?

Dark Zarak wrote:And straw man??? Please. What's the straw man? People who say "Stupidity should be lethal"? It's right here in the thread.

Okay, I count three people who have said that if one chooses a stupid course of action that is likely to have a catastrophic outcome, then that person deserves the fate they have chosen for themselves.
Nobody has said that stupidity in general should be lethal, merely expressed a lack of concern for those who bring their fate upon themselves.

The way I read it, they're judging behaviours, not people.
I will admit that I may be wrong in thinking that they're speaking about causality (sleeping in the bed one has made, for instance), as opposed to the abstract concept of actually deserving a fate. (like a murderer or a rapist being put to death)

Dark Zarak wrote:I don't see how it's a straw man when the very thread title and original post is so celebratory in nature.

That is the straw man.
Had I intended it to be celebratory I could have included exlamation marks, italics, bold, uneccessary capitalisation and emoticons.
I used plain text so as not to convey any particular feeling or sentiment.

Had I wanted to celebrate it would have looked more like this:

hypothetical thread wrote:Another one bites the dust.

That's one less NARUTARD fan.

Dark Zarak wrote: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.

That's a massive over-simplification, that I think results in a conclusion that does not really follow from the premises.
Stupidity comes in differing orders and magnitudes, with differing risks/rewards and probabilities involved.
Someone who eats McDonalds every day is arguably stupid for doing so, but chances are very good that they will live long enough to reproduce before the grease and fat kill them, whereas this kid's actions were immediately lethal.
That is less stupid than burying your head in sand. Much less so.

Dark Zarak wrote:How is that not supremacist?

It's not supremacist because nobody is making themselves out to be super-man or God's chosen people. The comments are coming from the perspective of a lot of insignificant individuals who just so happen to have survived as long as they have because they have a sufficient capacity to evaluate risks and avoid doing things that will probably get them killed immediately.

dark zarak wrote:* 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.

I understand and respect that.
However, I disagree on the basis that humans have evolved to a point where genetics has largely taken a back-seat to behaviour in determining who is fit to survive, and that his death has prevented the opportunity for his reasoning and behaviour to be copied by others.

dark zarak wrote:it's the definition of hypocrisy.

I disagree on the basis that there is a difference between orders and magnitudes of stupid actions. The people who find humor in the manner of the kid's death are all still alive as a result of a fundamental difference in behaviour.

Dark Zarak wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote:just because viewpoints of stupidity are relative does not mean that they are relative in one's own mind-- someone can very well label what that kid did stupid and make a joke of it. However, it can be your opinion as well that they are being very callous in doing so.

I see the truth in that, but the fact remains that people who do stupid things themselves (everyone) have no right to mock someone's death by stupidity, perceived or real. It's not opinion, it's the definition of hypocrisy.

Again, opinions are subjective, and a 'right' is what you take for your self and what others allow you-- I see no inherency to it. As one man's definition of stupid may differ from another, so may another's definition of humor or hypocrisy. And, so far gone, I've yet to see hypocrisy labeled a crime. All we are left with is a simple clash of opinion, and, in that respect, I think I have made my point.

HJ has argued the other himself, but, frankly, I believe I have stated my position about as clearly as I could up to now, and have not much more I can think to add.

Dark Zarak wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote:just because viewpoints of stupidity are relative does not mean that they are relative in one's own mind-- someone can very well label what that kid did stupid and make a joke of it. However, it can be your opinion as well that they are being very callous in doing so.

I see the truth in that, but the fact remains that people who do stupid things themselves (everyone) have no right to mock someone's death by stupidity, perceived or real. It's not opinion, it's the definition of hypocrisy.

I don't see hypocrisy in criticizing a dead person.

Stupidity, at least in the way you're putting it, is relative. There are those who would consider me stupid, and there are those who would consider someone who willing asphyxiates themselves to death in a sandbox stupid.

But, in the end, I'm alive, he's not, I win.

DesalationReborn wrote:I don't think there's really any animosity towards the kid-- just apathy, indifference.

Someone doesn't create a thread or post in one out of apathy or indifference. I've been apathetic toward thousands of things; it doesn't motivate me to talk about it at all. If I felt apathetic toward this thread, I'd shrug my shoulders and move on, much like I imagine anyone else would. I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone here feels animosity toward Codey, though.

Strawman, maybe. I admit I`ve deviated from the actual topic here, but it boggles me that you use arguments about assuming and observed behaviour on others yet don't like it used on you to try to prove a point about your own arguments.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:It's the exact same thing.

No. Making an observation based on falsifiable facts is inherently different to jumping to a conclusion because you want to pick a fight.

And you've done that exact same thing here again. I can verify to you I didn't come on here to pick a fight. I didn`t outright state that in any of my posts, so please stop making assumptions. Picking fights with fellow Seibertronians isn't something I enjoy. But congratulations on making brash judgments and putting words in my mouth.

Here is why I think you`re laughing at the kid or his death: opening the thread in the first place, calling it what you did, saying the various things you`ve said here. And you`ve said nothing to make me think otherwise. You don`t think that`s observed behaviour, well it`s just as observable as anything you`ve seen to lead you to your conclusions about either Dark Zarak or me... unless you`ve been staking out our houses.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Me, Grimlock! wrote: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.

Congratulations, you can snide remarks about quotes taken out of context, deliberately misconstrued, and then turned into a straw man for you to take a swing at.

homelessjunkeon wrote:Nobody is laughing at the death itself, nor saying that it's a good thing. The manner of the death was idiotic, 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.

Here is the whole context of the part it pertains to, then. Everything you said before it has been the point you were trying to make all along. Therefore, I took the rest at face value. If that was an ironic statement, make some indication, but it was very plain to me. Nothing deliberately misconstrued. But nice try.

Congratulations, you can snide remarks

Back atcha.

Anyway, I've stated my point: I don't think this kid's death is particularly funny, nor do I think laughing at it or him is particularly necessary. Chase after my arguments however you want and use arguments you don't like people using on you, but like DR, I have little more to add so I'm signing off.

Me, Grimlock! wrote:

DesalationReborn wrote:I don't think there's really any animosity towards the kid-- just apathy, indifference.

Someone doesn't create a thread or post in one out of apathy or indifference. I've been apathetic toward thousands of things; it doesn't motivate me to talk about it at all. If I felt apathetic toward this thread, I'd shrug my shoulders and move on, much like I imagine anyone else would. I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone here feels animosity toward Codey, though.

Strawman, maybe. I admit I`ve deviated from the actual topic here, but it boggles me that you use arguments about assuming and observed behaviour on others yet don't like it used on you to try to prove a point about your own arguments.

I'm just trying to talk about what I see-- false interpretation is at least a part of the many heated arguments I've seen. And maybe apathy might be the wrong term-- what I'm trying to purvey is a lack of any real emotional connection to the instance, a lack of sympathy towards the kid and thus a way to see humor. The death of the individual in and of itself does not evoke joy, happiness, or pain in any manner. The reader does not see the kid in question, but more so the incident of which he reads, and that is the major point in humor. The person does not identify, does not see pain, and thus can more easily make a joke.

At least that is my interpretation-- I've never gotten sad at any news story I can remember. Twenty-seven dead in Iraq, carcrash in south suburbs, 6 shot in NIU, etc. Simply statistics to me. Unless there is some sort of personal interest in it, people will not feel sad, and, even then, at best can be applied is a tag of callousness, but, hey, that's just your opinion, and everyone is entitled.

And I have to say, I try not to use fallacious arguments-- it's not only my nature, but the simply the realization that the use of such only really ends in my embarrassment if I'm facing a skilled rival. I'm not really all too sure where I have.

With that said, I personally think this is starting to go in circles. I do like to understand the other side better, but I rather think the sides have been represented and, being opinion, all we can really do is agree to disagree. I'm just seeing your conversation with HJ, and seeing the veiled insults starting to occur for each side, and it's leading into dangerous territory. I'm just wondering if it would be more affable to mutually break the whole thing off and simply take to your separate corners, as I'm seeing less and less substance and more and more personal attacks for each side of the debate. If there are more points to get across, fine, but this is something that cannot be truly won, and mutual understanding can only go so far.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:God, I hate that so much.

What appalls me most about this whole thing is how angry people are at this kid.

It's there in black and white.

He confesses his own hatred of something, and then projects anger, presumably his own since nobody has yet indicated anger in their posts, onto other people.

Thanks for showing it out of context. The hatred thing was of a specific attitude. Why shouldn't I post that I hate something? I'm in this thread arguing against it.

Dark Zarak wrote:

TheMuffin wrote:Stupidity gets you know where and I look at this as another example of Survival of the Fittest.

Liege Evilmus wrote:George Carlin said it best, "it's natural selection, the kid that eats the most marbles doesn't have kids of his own"

God, I hate that so much.

The real context. I was talking about how I hate the natural selection thing.

And as for "projecting my own anger", MeGrimlock said it best:

Me, Grimlock! wrote:Someone doesn't create a thread or post in one out of apathy or indifference. I've been apathetic toward thousands of things; it doesn't motivate me to talk about it at all. If I felt apathetic toward this thread, I'd shrug my shoulders and move on, much like I imagine anyone else would.

There is anger in the thread.

I'm not projecting anything. I said people are angry because they are saying he deserved to die. How is that not angry? Liege Evilmus even posted a story about video of a kid who caught fire and "ran around like the idiot that he was " complete with a smiley. It was of a different kid, but why else would he have posted it if he didn't have the same attitude about this?

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:And straw man??? Please. What's the straw man? People who say "Stupidity should be lethal"? It's right here in the thread.

Okay, I count three people who have said that if one chooses a stupid course of action that is likely to have a catastrophic outcome, then that person deserves the fate they have chosen for themselves.
Nobody has said that stupidity in general should be lethal, merely expressed a lack of concern for those who bring their fate upon themselves.

A lack of concern is, "What a tard, I don't feel sorry for him at all."

Saying stupidity should be lethal is, "They deserved the outcome, no matter how catastrophic, despite the fact that they may or may not have been unaware of the outcome."

I'm seeing both attitudes in here, so I used the example of the "stupidity should be lethal" slogan I've seen around to illustrate how f'ed up some people's thinking is.

It's not a straw man that people are saying "stupidity should be lethal". If they are saying he deserved to die as a result of it, that is saying it should be lethal.

homelessjunkeon wrote:The way I read it, they're judging behaviours, not people.
I will admit that I may be wrong in thinking that they're speaking about causality (sleeping in the bed one has made, for instance), as opposed to the abstract concept of actually deserving a fate. (like a murderer or a rapist being put to death)

It's not just causality when you outright say they deserve it. If they were to say "Well, if you do something stupid, you're gonna have something stupid happen to you," that would be causality because that really is just one action following another.

To put the word "deserve" into it, is to mean "deserve". It's to mean an explicit and direct wish of pain, suffering, and death upon a person who has, in this case, not committed any crime. That is what I'm arguing against, and that is where I'm getting the whole anger thing from. Not my own projection.

homelessjunkeon wrote:Had I wanted to celebrate it would have looked more like this:

hypothetical thread wrote:Another one bites the dust.

That's one less NARUTARD fan.

You're trying to tell me, that simply stating the words, "One less Naruto fan", and a tasteless pun title, are indicative of an objective and balanced tone, and the meaning of the words does not speak for itself, but needs over the top emoticons to express any kind of opinion?

I don't buy it.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote: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.

That's a massive over-simplification, that I think results in a conclusion that does not really follow from the premises.
Stupidity comes in differing orders and magnitudes, with differing risks/rewards and probabilities involved.
Someone who eats McDonalds every day is arguably stupid for doing so, but chances are very good that they will live long enough to reproduce before the grease and fat kill them, whereas this kid's actions were immediately lethal.
That is less stupid than burying your head in sand. Much less so.

Yes but people will just apply these orders and magnitudes to whoever they are ridiculing, not realizing that they themselves could have it happen to them if they make a big enough mistake or if the people doing the ridicule don't know the whole truth.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:How is that not supremacist?

It's not supremacist because nobody is making themselves out to be super-man or God's chosen people. The comments are coming from the perspective of a lot of insignificant individuals who just so happen to have survived as long as they have because they have a sufficient capacity to evaluate risks and avoid doing things that will probably get them killed immediately.

But some of them are also saying death and suffering as a result of ignorance were deserved. That is supremacist.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

dark zarak wrote:* 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.

I understand and respect that.
However, I disagree on the basis that humans have evolved to a point where genetics has largely taken a back-seat to behaviour in determining who is fit to survive, and that his death has prevented the opportunity for his reasoning and behaviour to be copied by others.

If you're saying it's no longer about Natural Selection by genetics, but Natural Selection by behavior, I understand and recognize that.

But it's beside the point now, anyway. The point is that stupidity is relative, and explicitly using the word "deserve" when talking about pain as a result of it, is an angry and callous attitude.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

dark zarak wrote:it's the definition of hypocrisy.

I disagree on the basis that there is a difference between orders and magnitudes of stupid actions. The people who find humor in the manner of the kid's death are all still alive as a result of a fundamental difference in behaviour.

That is true, but that doesn't change the fact that, stupidity being relative, if one of our actions (mistaken or simply ignorant) resulted in painful consequences, people might be calling us stupid and laughing at us. Then they would say we had a stupidity of a greater magnitude and fundamentally different behavior, so therefore they're better than us.

Case in point: My driving story. It was the result of newbie confusion, and a chaotic and disruptive atmosphere in the car, but if I had gotten a ticket for running the red, people would have said, "he deserves to pay $400, because look how stupid he was." But it wasn't the result of stupidity.

I bring that up again because I'm saying stupidity is relative to a reasonable degree, and you can put orders and magnitudes on it all you want, but they will always be applied the same way. One person is more stupid than another.

And I think this is a side-track anyway. If you saw a retarded guy walk right up to a stove and press his hand on the burner and then stand around screaming afterwards, would you laugh and say "you deserve all that pain now", or would you say "what did you learn today?" Yeah, the guy is really stupid, but those are two different attitudes, and I'm seeing the former all too often these days.


My point now, is that saying they "deserve" it, regardless of the reason, is disgusting and vindictive, and in many cases hypocritical because they are not above stupidity themselves. Whereas to just say it's causality, and laugh at the irony, lack thereof, or just the sheer ridiculousness of the situation, is another thing entirely.

Dark Zarak wrote:My point now, is that saying they "deserve" it, regardless of the reason, is disgusting and vindictive, and in many cases hypocritical because they are not above stupidity themselves. Whereas to just say it's causality, and laugh at the irony, lack thereof, or just the sheer ridiculousness of the situation, is another thing entirely.

Ok, I can see we're both interpereting things very differently, and as such this isn't going anywhere. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

yeah i agree i feel there pain i dont have childern but i feel it im am surprised they didint try to make the naruto show look bad what they also forgot to mention which should have been mention in the video naurto has pg13 rating from begining to end of the show 10 year old wahtcing anime with rating like that blood, swearing maybe, killing, and more.

Okie doke. So now that I've let this go for a while, I believe we've all run our course and said what we wanted to say. And since it's now going in circles I'm locking it down.