The Energon Pub

Liege Evilmus wrote:
Don't blame the show, blame the untaught ability to tell reality from fantasy!

best comment on this whole subject.

Man is that one seriously dumb kid.
HAsn't he heard of the difference between fantasy and reality?
And Naruto's a freaking cartoon!
Not to mention that he's TEN.
And why the freaking heck werent his parents looking after him?!

Didn't Looney Toons cause the same thing? Kids thinking they could survive mallets to the head, or something along those lines. It was part of my mom's attempt to teach me reality from fantasy.

Gaara of the Sand is the new Wile E. Coyote.

I truly hate some of you people.

Dark Zarak wrote:I truly hate some of you people.

But I looooove youuuuuu Zarak!

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.


All the people on here going on about survival of the fittest, how many of you are/have:

Fat?
Lazy?
Poor?
Bad eyesight?
An IQ below 100?
ADD?
Living at home?
Still a virgin?
Working at a dead end job?
A pothead?
"Trying to quit" cigarettes?
No education beyond high school?
Addicted to cheap toys made by underpaid and abused children in the third world?
Obsessed with a badly written, badly animated children's television show that went off the air over two decades ago?

"Stupidity" is relative.

The only people who have any right to talk about survival of the fittest are millionaire Olympic Medalists who are in MENSA, the Skull and Bones, industrialized world government, and descended from ancient nobility.

What appalls me most about this whole thing is how angry people are at this kid. They'll say they aren't, but why else do they claim he deserved to die?

It's like your own lives are threatened by these people, you're afraid of them.

Well, if you're so smart, and fit enough to survive, then they don't pose any threat to you, do they? Might as well stop worrying about them and stop acting like you know best about who can live.

Social Darwinists rank right up there with neo-nazi's, religious fundamentalists, dictators, terrorists, and anyone who works for a tabloid.

Liege Evilmus wrote:Just today I saw one of those video shows where a kid CHOOSE to light himself on fire and ride a bike off a ramp. He droped from the ramp like a stone and ran around in a circle like the idiot he is

Now I'm not sorry, but if your that dumb, you deserve it, you did it to yourself.

One of the most vile things I ever read. You actually put a after describing a kid running around on fire? You do realize burning is literally the most painful thing ever? Do you actually expect a child, in this pain, to have the foresight to stop and think, "Oh yeah, stop drop and roll"?

I hate the play this card because it's overused, but what if it was your kid? Or a friend or something? You wouldn't say, "he deserved it", you'd help him out. If you witnessed this kid in person, would you help him out?

It's easy to sit at the computer and laugh at people getting hurt, which is another thing I hate so much about this.

Shadowman wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:I truly hate some of you people.

But I looooove youuuuuu Zarak!

Oh stop. No really, you shouldn't have.

Regardless, I'm still alive.

Hm, out of that list, I'm just fat, and even that is disappearing.

I'm awesome.

I'm fat, but, because of that, I retain heat well (Like a whale) and I'm soft as a pillow. Chicks dig that. (Apparently)

TheMuffin wrote:Regardless, I'm still alive.

Yeah, I fall under most of that list, but, as far as I can tell, I haven't done anything dumb enough to get me killed...unless this is an M. Night Shyamalan movie...

well Im not fat....

I grew up watching all sorts of cartoons and never tried copying them.
I never thought I could detach my spine and turn into a truck after seeing transformers
I never went and swung sharp objects at my friends like ninja turtles
I never punched my friends expecting them to fall over and explode in sparks like power rangers.
this wasn't from parenting, this wasn't from someone telling me, this was common sense, yes, kids should have it by the time they're around 10.

Grendel wrote:I grew up watching all sorts of cartoons and never tried copying them.
I never thought I could detach my spine and turn into a truck after seeing transformers
I never went and swung sharp objects at my friends like ninja turtles
I never punched my friends expecting them to fall over and explode in sparks like power rangers.
this wasn't from parenting, this wasn't from someone telling me, this was common sense, yes, kids should have it by the time they're around 10.

Me too, and I was pretty impressionable. But, hey, no one, myself included, die from anything I did.

Except for Stevie McCormick. That bastard had it coming.... (Joking!)

Dark Zarak wrote:The only people who have any right to talk about survival of the fittest are millionaire Olympic Medalists who are in MENSA, the Skull and Bones, industrialized world government, and descended from ancient nobility.

I disagree.
The survival of a species depends on far more than merely the same handful of uber-(wo)men surviving, since that would cause inbreeding, likely emphasising any flawed genes they might carry.
Those descended from ancient nobility would be particularly susceptible to this, since inbreeding has been part and parcel of maintaining a "pure" bloodline as far back as records go. (or close enough)

Since it's of interest to every living thing, I see no reason for anyone to be excluded from a discussion about natural selection.

Well, if you're so smart, and fit enough to survive, then they don't pose any threat to you, do they? Might as well stop worrying about them and stop acting like you know best about who can live.

Perhaps we're concerned that perfectly good genes are being removed from the gene-pool by people's negligence, reducing overall genetic diversity, and thusly reducing the likelihood of humanities long-term survival? (unlikely I know, but you could at least consider the options before making an assumption about other's motivations)

That, or we could be concerned that other people's idiocy may actually harm us, or those we care about.
Notice the article mentions that the other kids held him under the sand while he thrashed around before realising something was wrong.
All it takes is for some dumbass to grow up and buy a car to ruin/end any number of lives.

Social Darwinists rank right up there with neo-nazi's, religious fundamentalists, dictators, terrorists, and anyone who works for a tabloid.

Oh come now. Well, I'll give you tabloid journalists, but I hardly think indifference to those considered inferior can be compared to murderers, megalomaniacs, and those who would willingly engage in pro-active ethnic cleansing.

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"

LOL...Carlin always has the best words on general-poplation stupidity!

Liege Evilmus wrote:Just today I saw one of those video shows where a kid CHOOSE to light himself on fire and ride a bike off a ramp. He droped from the ramp like a stone and ran around in a circle like the idiot he is

Now I'm not sorry, but if your that dumb, you deserve it, you did it to yourself.

My feelings exactly! Survival of the fittest. If you're an idiot and act as one, you deserve what idiocy brings you!

Liege Evilmus wrote:Sand Boxes, a timeless childhood toy, get ready to go the way of fireworks and lawndarts.

I SO miss lawndarts! The ones they make now are so impotent!

Liege Evilmus wrote:To these parents I say, love your kids, teach your kids, be kind to your kids, but most importantly, smack them in the back of the head!

See if a kid never takes a hit, they'll never know that pain is bad. If they don't know that pain is bad, more of your whiney idiot brats are gonna kill them selves and **** it up for the majority born with common sense.

OMG! A person after my own heart on this matter!! YAY! Another advocate of knowledge-through-experience! How can you ever know that burns hurt like hell if you don't touch a hot stove at least ONCE in your life!

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:The only people who have any right to talk about survival of the fittest are millionaire Olympic Medalists who are in MENSA, the Skull and Bones, industrialized world government, and descended from ancient nobility.

I disagree.
The survival of a species depends on far more than merely the same handful of uber-(wo)men surviving, since that would cause inbreeding, likely emphasising any flawed genes they might carry.
Those descended from ancient nobility would be particularly susceptible to this, since inbreeding has been part and parcel of maintaining a "pure" bloodline as far back as records go. (or close enough)

Since it's of interest to every living thing, I see no reason for anyone to be excluded from a discussion about natural selection.

Yes, that is true but I made the list to prove a point. We all have traits that are considered "stupid" by somebody. Therefore, we cannot have the right to pick who deserves to die because of it.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Well, if you're so smart, and fit enough to survive, then they don't pose any threat to you, do they? Might as well stop worrying about them and stop acting like you know best about who can live.

Perhaps we're concerned that perfectly good genes are being removed from the gene-pool by people's negligence, reducing overall genetic diversity, and thusly reducing the likelihood of humanities long-term survival? (unlikely I know, but you could at least consider the options before making an assumption about other's motivations)

But that's not even natural selection. How could perfectly good genes be overtaken by bad ones? If they're better genes, they can't not survive.

That's a completely unfounded fear.

homelessjunkeon wrote:That, or we could be concerned that other people's idiocy may actually harm us, or those we care about.
Notice the article mentions that the other kids held him under the sand while he thrashed around before realising something was wrong.
All it takes is for some dumbass to grow up and buy a car to ruin/end any number of lives.

That is a valid concern, yes. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with laughing at someone's death that has already happened, and obviously didn't harm you.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Social Darwinists rank right up there with neo-nazi's, religious fundamentalists, dictators, terrorists, and anyone who works for a tabloid.

Oh come now. Well, I'll give you tabloid journalists, but I hardly think indifference to those considered inferior can be compared to murderers, megalomaniacs, and those who would willingly engage in pro-active ethnic cleansing.

Think about what you're saying. "Indifference to those considered inferior" is the very thing that drives murderers, megalomaniacs, and those who would willingly engage in pro-active ethnic cleansing.

It's the very same thing!

How is laughing at death, and saying the death was deserved and good, not just as bad as doing the killing yourself? Because you didn't actually do it? Because you wouldn't? Then why is it funny?

Now I totally buy that if you play with matches you're going to get burned. I totally buy that if you do something stupid, something stupid will happen to you. I totally buy that those kids were completely retarded.

But that doesn't make it funny.


So many people on this board, myself definitely included, would fit the bill of inferior in at least somebody's eyes. Hell, I'm at least
60% of my own list. The worst ones even. The only good things I can say about myself are things like "caring" "creative" "thinks outside the box" "hungry for knowledge of different subjects". In other words, a bunch of Hallmark crap, but I think they're awesome traits to have. They are not, however, awesome in an extroverted, social kind of way, and therefore I'm a bonafide loser by a lot of people's standards. I say those people are stuck up pigs, and the minute I screw up badly enough, thousands of self-centered people would declare the world is better off without me, even if I didn't hurt anyone.

The same is probably true of everyone in this thread, with varying degrees of how much the list matches you.


Liege Evilmus, Pyrostrata, did you even read my post?

Life is still play time when you're 10...

Dark Zarak wrote:

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:The only people who have any right to talk about survival of the fittest are millionaire Olympic Medalists who are in MENSA, the Skull and Bones, industrialized world government, and descended from ancient nobility.

I disagree.
The survival of a species depends on far more than merely the same handful of uber-(wo)men surviving, since that would cause inbreeding, likely emphasising any flawed genes they might carry.
Those descended from ancient nobility would be particularly susceptible to this, since inbreeding has been part and parcel of maintaining a "pure" bloodline as far back as records go. (or close enough)
Since it's of interest to every living thing, I see no reason for anyone to be excluded from a discussion about natural selection.

Yes, that is true but I made the list to prove a point. We all have traits that are considered "stupid" by somebody. Therefore, we cannot have the right to pick who deserves to die because of it.

At least for me, it's like 'Ok... he willingly buried his head in sand... now what did he damn well expect?' It's like those people in New York that got hit by cars for talking on the phone while crossing the street. I don't believe in 'deserves,' and ill will is not something I usually throw around, but I simply can't go 'aw... poor kid.. dying for willingly doing something with the high chance pf exactly that consequence...' Call me callous, but I simply can't get emotional over such things. If he were 6 years old, or even younger, then I would quite probably feel much more sympathy, but this incidence just plain boggles my mind.

Dark Zarak wrote:Liege Evilmus, Pyrostrata, did you even read my post?

Don't expect everyone to want to listen.

Dark Zarak wrote:

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:The only people who have any right to talk about survival of the fittest are millionaire Olympic Medalists who are in MENSA, the Skull and Bones, industrialized world government, and descended from ancient nobility.

I disagree.
The survival of a species depends on far more than merely the same handful of uber-(wo)men surviving, since that would cause inbreeding, likely emphasising any flawed genes they might carry.
Those descended from ancient nobility would be particularly susceptible to this, since inbreeding has been part and parcel of maintaining a "pure" bloodline as far back as records go. (or close enough)

Since it's of interest to every living thing, I see no reason for anyone to be excluded from a discussion about natural selection.

Yes, that is true but I made the list to prove a point. We all have traits that are considered "stupid" by somebody. Therefore, we cannot have the right to pick who deserves to die because of it.

Why not?
Keep in mind we're not speaking in absolute, or universal terms here, or trying to make out that we're perfect. We can only speak from our individual perspectives, all of which are that at 10 years old a person should have at least a modicum of "common sense".
I see nobody begrudging the uber-men of the world their opportunity to deride us because of our foibles.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Well, if you're so smart, and fit enough to survive, then they don't pose any threat to you, do they? Might as well stop worrying about them and stop acting like you know best about who can live.

Perhaps we're concerned that perfectly good genes are being removed from the gene-pool by people's negligence, reducing overall genetic diversity, and thusly reducing the likelihood of humanities long-term survival? (unlikely I know, but you could at least consider the options before making an assumption about other's motivations)

But that's not even natural selection. How could perfectly good genes be overtaken by bad ones? If they're better genes, they can't not survive.

That's a completely unfounded fear.

You might notice that in most human societies genetics is now mostly a secondary factor, excluding extreme scenarios, in terms of who reproduces the most.
If you look at who has the most children, it tends to be those who are least successful.
For all we know this kid could have spawned the one bloodline capable of withstanding a hypothetical super-plague that will otherwise exterminate mankind.
In which case we would have lost those genes, not because he was genetically inferior to those who survive, but because of a chosen behaviour.

homelessjunkeon wrote:That, or we could be concerned that other people's idiocy may actually harm us, or those we care about.
Notice the article mentions that the other kids held him under the sand while he thrashed around before realising something was wrong.
All it takes is for some dumbass to grow up and buy a car to ruin/end any number of lives.

That is a valid concern, yes. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with laughing at someone's death that has already happened, and obviously didn't harm you.

Mockery is a widely used means of enforcing social normative values in almost every culture in the world.

homelessjunkeon wrote:

Social Darwinists rank right up there with neo-nazi's, religious fundamentalists, dictators, terrorists, and anyone who works for a tabloid.

Oh come now. Well, I'll give you tabloid journalists, but I hardly think indifference to those considered inferior can be compared to murderers, megalomaniacs, and those who would willingly engage in pro-active ethnic cleansing.

Think about what you're saying. "Indifference to those considered inferior" is the very thing that drives murderers, megalomaniacs, and those who would willingly engage in pro-active ethnic cleansing.

It's the very same thing!

No it's not the same thing at all.
Murderers most often kill for reasons of hatred/anger or for personal gain. Megalomaniacs seek to control other people because their position(s) could be threatened by anyone not under their thumb.
Those willing to engage in pro-active ethnic cleansing are most likely to do so either because there is a perceived shortage of resources and they want to eliminate competition for those resources, or because they're racists who feel the need to defend the "purity" of what they consider to be their race. Either of those examples involves an element of threat, whether real or perceived, to the survival of a person or groups genes.

How is laughing at death, and saying the death was deserved and good, not just as bad as doing the killing yourself? Because you didn't actually do it? Because you wouldn't? Then why is it funny?

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.

the minute I screw up badly enough, thousands of self-centered people would declare the world is better off without me, even if I didn't hurt anyone.

The same is probably true of everyone in this thread, with varying degrees of how much the list matches you.

Replace probably with definitely.

Dark Zarak wrote:But that's not even natural selection. How could perfectly good genes be overtaken by bad ones? If they're better genes, they can't not survive.

That's a completely unfounded fear.

Because the likelihood of bad genes surviving is increasing rapidly. or hadn't you noticed how the death rate has decreased in the past couple thousand years?

This is why I'm starting to hate the internet with a passion. It allows the horrible people to show themselves as they really are. No matter how much they sugar coat themselves in person for the sake of saving face...they always come online and show their true colors.

Horrific.

Finding humor in a child's death makes you....

Nah. You know what? It's not worth it. I'd get banned and have to face God for saying what I was about to say to some of you.

...it's not worth it.

I hope you grow a heart, people. You need it.

I love having to repeat the obvious. Most of us here do not find humor in the death of a child. We're finding humor in an act of stupidity.

Plus you mean to tell me that you have never, ever laughed at a persons stupidity which ended up injuring them?

Now, lets take a look at why we find humor in acts of stupidity. For one, it's how a lot of people cope with tragedy and pain. Have you ever been in so much pain that you just laughed at the entire situation you're in?

Secondly, we laugh because the people who commit these acts of pure stupidity should know better.

Also, I find it extremely funny at the hypocrisies plaguing the country. When a child dies from an act of his own means, be it stupidity or what not, we claim he didn't know any better.

But when a child ends up killing a classmate with a gun in front of 20 witnesses, we try him as an adult saying he should have known better.

I've said it before, I agree that it is a tragedy as to what happened to the child, and what his parents are having to go through. However I cannot believe that any child, lacking any mental facilities or not, would be dumb enough to do this.

That is what I laugh at.

So please, do not pull the holier-than-thou card, just because people view a situation in a different light.

Well, I agree Hugo.

It's the select few people on here who are actually stating he deserved it, that the death is funny, and basically giving the impression that it's awesome when a "stupid" person dies.

Those are the ones that I'm talking about.



As for the whole bad genes surviving thing, maybe they are and maybe they're not, but it still goes back to my list and the point I was making with it.

We all have traits that are considered stupid by somebody, so therefore we are no better, so therefore how do we even know it is blanket "stupidity" that causes people to do certain things? In this particular case, yes, it was. But there are so many other cases out there that you don't know what the hell is causing it.

The perfect example is Road Rage. It's so easy to say "Oh yeah, look at that idiot who just ran that red light and then actually stopped for a second in the middle of the intersection. What a moron. He actually deserves to die or at least get hurt and suffer horribly and pay hospital bills for the rest of his life."

After all, what could possibly make somebody do such a retarded act, besides being a moron?

Well, I actually did that. I didn't get hurt but I actually ran a red and stopped in the middle of the intersection. Why? Because of three factors, none of which were apparent to other drivers. 1) I'm a newbie driver who only started at 27 because of an eye condition that kept me from driving before. 2) I have ADD and OCD and am in the process of getting insurance to pay for treatment. 3) I had two other people in the car, both of whom were yelling and carrying on.

I was not high, but I might as well have been.

So I was confused, I ran a red, and then in my flustered and panicked state, stopped for a moment before moving on. I was of course embarrassed as hell and pissed off all afternoon that people had seen me do that. I take the train into the city these days.


The point is, genes or not, in most cases we can't know everything so therefore saying stupidity should be lethal is self-centered, short-sighted, and probably the worst trait of humanity in general.

Another show of terrible parenting.

Natural selection claims another idiot.