Darwin at work

SixPapaCharlie said:
So according to you this would be funny if he maimed himself and lost an eye or something?

I mean you say "It's one thing to laugh about someone who does something stupid and is lightly injured. It's another to laugh at someone's death."

So tell us where the line is.

If he spent the next 40 years in vegetative state?
What exactly is and isn't worthy of being called a moron?

It's terrible he died but (and his parent's know this) He died doing what kills people. (I know it doesn't make it less painful for them) but they know it and so does everyone else. He was being a jackass and it killed him and nobody should be surprised by it. Sad? yes. Surprised no. Is it funny? Well he was the first person to die this way in 180 years because it seams most people know that this is really stupid.

Anyway, if you can make a chart showing the tracability matrix between level of humor versus severity of injury, that would be helpful.
Click to expand...
I don't know where the line is for considering something funny and I'm hardly the arbiter on what's funny and what isn't, but I suspect it falls somewhere short of having your head blown up and that most people would agree with that.

I guess the line would be where you feel comfortable going around work or your neighborhood saying "omg it's so funny that this retarded 22 year old who was engaged to be married and didn't have a criminal record and generally seemed like a nice kid blew his head off lol zomg rofllllmao." Or "omg I just saw this video where this dumb 16 year old kid became permanently blind and is bleeding everywhere lolol it's so funny lol"
Or whether that's simply something you would say behind the comfort of your internet keyboard and monitor. If the latter, I'd imagine it's not as funny as you think.

Then there are things that comfortably fall on the side of funny, eg where some dumbass does something stupid like ghost riding the whip, gets thrown off the car, and stands up at the end of the video, uninjured except for a few cuts and bruises or maybe a broken bone. And we can all say, "I hope that kid learned a lesson and won't be as dumb in the future," but we know he's going to be ok.

Maybe there's some gray area, but this ain't it.
 
Last edited:
Btw, what I do find ridiculous about this story is that the mother now wants the state to ban fireworks (which were legalized just a couple years ago). That I'm *not* okay with. You do not punish everyone else because of one person's stupidity. As unfortunate as this accident is, the parents have no one to blame here except the victim. And yes, this guy is a legitimate cautionary tale about why fireworks and alcohol don't mix.
 
frcabot said:
Btw, what I do find ridiculous about this story is that the mother now wants the state to ban fireworks (which were legalized just a couple years ago). That I'm *not* okay with. You do not punish everyone else because of one person's stupidity. As unfortunate as this accident is, the parents have no one to blame here except the victim. And yes, this guy is a legitimate cautionary tale about why fireworks and alcohol don't mix.
Click to expand...

Our society does this routinely. There are tons of examples. The FAA rules on OSA screening come to mind in a hurry.
 
Bob Noel said:
One sad part is the brother's claim that "He's not an idiot" and blaming the death on a misfire. Apparently the mortar didn't lauch, it basically exploded on top of his head.
Click to expand...

Yes, because as we know, all normal, sane, rational, intelligent people use their head to launch large mortar propelled fireworks.
 
The radio news this morning - his brother says the guy was goofing around, put a mortar on his head, (unclear if it was in a tube or was the bare shell) and was pretending to light the fuse. Accidentally lit it for real.
 
Matthew said:
The radio news this morning - his brother says the guy was goofing around, put a mortar on his head, (unclear if it was in a tube or was the bare shell) and was pretending to light the fuse. Accidentally lit it for real.
Click to expand...

So the guy was even dumber than initially reported.
 
So...yesterday morning I ran across the article on the Internet (referenced above) titled "Mom Of 22-Year-Old Man Who Died After Lighting Fireworks On His Head Wants Stricter Laws"

So I clicked on it, not to read the article, but rather to read the comments at the end of the article. I knew there'd be some gems. There always is on the Internet and I wasn't disappointed!

The very first one was "come on lady, face it, you raised an idiot."

But my favorite:

One person commented, "I guess he should have worn a helmet."

To which someone responded, "NO, his DAD should have worn a helmet!"

That one made me laugh out loud.
 
timwinters said:
So...yesterday morning I ran across the article on the Internet (referenced above) titled "Mom Of 22-Year-Old Man Who Died After Lighting Fireworks On His Head Wants Stricter Laws"



So I clicked on it, not to read the article, but rather to read the comments at the end of the article. I knew there'd be some gems. There always is on the Internet and I wasn't disappointed!



The very first one was "come on lady, face it, you raised an idiot."



But my favorite:



One person commented, "I guess he should have worn a helmet."



To which someone responded, "NO, his DAD should have worn a helmet!"



That one made me laugh out loud.
Click to expand...


Ok, that's pretty funny right there. :D
 
"I'm honestly embarassed for you."

Well even though a bit crude, his point is a valid one. Darwin is NOT at work here. What is at work is the Law of Natural Selection. Which was described by Darwin. The subject of the post will not procreate any longer, so the essence of his argument is correct, if not a bit crude.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top