I think you might be falsely thinking the the word tragic autimaticaly means Tragic for everyone Ie a human tragedy and that is not the case.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tragic

If someone dies against there will regardless of how stupid and risky ( playing russen rulet for example) it would still be fair to use the word "tragic" to describe the person dying.

From your position if you believe its simply a culling of the stupid and Darwinism , obviously its not tragic from your perspective but its tragic from the person that died perspective ( assuming they didn't want to die)







>> ^packo:

>> ^luxury_pie:
Well given he would be stupid enough to not pack a parachute, I guess concerning this particular situation I agree with packo.
But he did pack on, and it failed him. I wonder if packo was aware of that.

yes i was aware he jumped with a pack, and that he opened it too late or that it malfunctioned... that was never specified
and at no point did I say my way of feeling about the situation EVERYONE must feel
in regards to things that adrenaline junkies do, this included... the fact that there was a choice made to do it in the first place takes TRAGEDY out of the situation for me... why? because I'm assuming he knew the risks and was taking them on... let alone how that affects any family/friends this person may have impacted with this resulting jump... and keep in mind, his decision to do a potentially life threatening thing does impact those groups of people, even if it is his own choice...
myself as a bystander who has no direct connection to this person, feel more sorry for his family and friends than I do for him... they were put in a situation (whether he asked their permission/blessing/etc) where really they had no control of the situation, and had to watch a person they care about get severely injured... that's why i consider it more likely than not, that the person jumping is probably of a self-centered mindset
there's a reason they call it adrenaline JUNKIE... and not adrenaline ENTHUSIAST
that's why my sympathy is low for this person, he made his choice, he gets to live with the consequence (and so do the people this choice impacted)... i wouldn't send money to a collection in his benefit or even a get well card... i shake my head and move along
it all comes down to choice, and imho it was a foolish (no matter the precautions taken) and self-centered choice...
and him getting back up on the horse to do something like this again wouldn't be a display of human courage and perseverance, but something more akin to a drug addict scoring their next hit
10,000s of people starve to death every day, 150,000 or so die everyday; alot from TREATABLE disease/infection, lots of children are abused, or forced to grow up too soon, or aren't given a chance at a productive future... sorry if I don't lump this guy who chose to wingsuit jump off a bridge, in with those truly tragic situation

>> ^luxury_pie:

Well given he would be stupid enough to not pack a parachute, I guess concerning this particular situation I agree with packo.
But he did pack on, and it failed him. I wonder if packo was aware of that.


yes i was aware he jumped with a pack, and that he opened it too late or that it malfunctioned... that was never specified

and at no point did I say my way of feeling about the situation EVERYONE must feel

in regards to things that adrenaline junkies do, this included... the fact that there was a choice made to do it in the first place takes TRAGEDY out of the situation for me... why? because I'm assuming he knew the risks and was taking them on... let alone how that affects any family/friends this person may have impacted with this resulting jump... and keep in mind, his decision to do a potentially life threatening thing does impact those groups of people, even if it is his own choice...

myself as a bystander who has no direct connection to this person, feel more sorry for his family and friends than I do for him... they were put in a situation (whether he asked their permission/blessing/etc) where really they had no control of the situation, and had to watch a person they care about get severely injured... that's why i consider it more likely than not, that the person jumping is probably of a self-centered mindset

there's a reason they call it adrenaline JUNKIE... and not adrenaline ENTHUSIAST

that's why my sympathy is low for this person, he made his choice, he gets to live with the consequence (and so do the people this choice impacted)... i wouldn't send money to a collection in his benefit or even a get well card... i shake my head and move along

it all comes down to choice, and imho it was a foolish (no matter the precautions taken) and self-centered choice...

and him getting back up on the horse to do something like this again wouldn't be a display of human courage and perseverance, but something more akin to a drug addict scoring their next hit

10,000s of people starve to death every day, 150,000 or so die everyday; alot from TREATABLE disease/infection, lots of children are abused, or forced to grow up too soon, or aren't given a chance at a productive future... sorry if I don't lump this guy who chose to wingsuit jump off a bridge, in with those truly tragic situation

Football is really headed downhill. But you gotta admit, it's been heading downhill for a long, long time. Just compare it to rugby, and you'll see how it is being driven into the ground by safety precautions and rules against having fun.

That being said, I have no problem with rules against showboating. But a player has the right to celebrate a little! There's a big difference between raising your arms and doing a chicken dance.

>> ^jimnms:

This was at an air race, not an air show. There is a difference. In an air show the planes are not allowed to fly over the crowd. There is an air show scheduled here in October, and people are going ape shit over this because the media keep saying this crash was at an air show. The local news was blowing fear out it's ass the other night, and had a spokesman from the air show organization on who was trying to explain the difference to them.


Thanks, jimnms, that was my first thought/question when I saw this video. Didn't realize air races lacked the same precautions!

>> ^chilaxe:

It's negligence on his part to not manage his health condition when he knew he'd be driving a vehicle. His lack of reasonable precautions put a lot of people's lives in danger.
If he gets a payday from this, it will have been the luckiest day of his life.


Sometimes shit happens. What if he did take care of himself and his condition just happened? What if it is rare for him?

I get what you are saying, but medical issues happen (I.e., seizures and diabetic shock)

It's negligence on his part to not manage his health condition when he knew he'd be driving a vehicle. His lack of reasonable precautions put a lot of people's lives in danger.

If he gets a payday from this, it will have been the luckiest day of his life.

>> ^hpqp:

If he took the proper health precautions, the only thing morally wrong about it would be lying to his partner.
>> ^Lithic:
Well, arguably a lot, especially since he was married at the time. >> ^hpqp:
What's morally wrong with getting car-head from a prostitute?




And maybe the cheating.

If he took the proper health precautions, the only thing morally wrong about it would be lying to his partner.

>> ^Lithic:

Well, arguably a lot, especially since he was married at the time. >> ^hpqp:
What's morally wrong with getting car-head from a prostitute?

@Mekanikal
it does not appear to me that the ambulance attempted to slow down at this intersection. i've never seen an ambulance do that before stateside. they always slow down -- often nearly to a stop -- even when traffic is relatively light.

@Trancecoach
in that case, the ambulance REALLY should have slowed down. just because the driver of the van made a mistake doesn't mean the ambulance driver is bereft of responsibility for that accident. if either driver took more precaution at the intersection there wouldn't have been an accident.

>> ^burdturgler:

So .. Why do I think the odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe is zero? Risk of detection. During the crime. Yes, whoever compromises the lockbox may be detected after the crime, but by then my shit is already stolen.

Detection by who? Neighbors? Easy, wear your gear, break down the door. If someone asks what's going on, say "got a report about someone smelling smoke." Stuff the baggy uniform with whatever you like, then walk out and say "false alarm."

>> ^burdturgler:
You know, police have similar methods with weapons, maintaining inventory and control over ammunition and firearms, making authorized personnel sign out for things .. yet innocent people still get shot.

Umm, I'm sure guns and ammo have been stolen from cops, but I doubt it's the leading source of guns used to commit crimes. Besides this is sorta my point, all the precautions in the world won't guarantee you won't get robbed. Even the police get robbed.

You could just as easily wind up burned alive in your house because it took the fire fighters too long to bash down your door. That seems worse than the infinitesimally small added risk that you might get robbed because there was a fire lockbox outside.

>> ^burdturgler:
Besides all that, it's my place. Seriously, do I not have the right to decide who I give the keys to my property? You're literally saying it's OK to rip my keys out of my hand because that's what's in the greater good. I just think, fuck that. It's my place. Use "one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors".

Well, sure, you have the right to give a key to whoever you like. But the thing is, the fire department is legally allowed to enter your home without your permission now, solely on the basis of their own judgement about whether it's warranted or not.

Giving them a key isn't some big change in terms of the limits on your rights to control access to your residence, the legal authorization for the fire department to do their job without your express consent was.

For some reason you're comfortable with them having the legal authority to damage your property and enter your home at will, but not for them to enter your home at will without the property damage.

>> ^burdturgler:
Also, banks do physical security for shit as well. Banks get physically robbed easily and fairly often. Seems like I hear way more about bank robberies than I do about 'thwarted' bank robberies anyway.
Maybe that's just cable "news" though.


Yeah, that's more of a cable news thing. The real wealth of banks is really, really hard to steal these days because it's not kept in cash or in some vault. Bank branches don't really have much of value in them at all.

I mean think about it, do you really think there are physical paper bills for all the dollars in every account everywhere in the world? For even 10%?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

@NetRunner - No one is saying the Fire Department will use the keys for ill will. They're saying that an individual could. Please, allow me to render your point moot and borderline retarded. People are assholes and degenerate pieces of shit. Giving your key to the government is just one more way for someone to fuck you over. Yes, I'd MUCH rather the FD break my door down than to have a key to my house just out there floating around.

And if you look at my comments again, you'll see that I said that's a legitimate complaint, but that additional safeguards would be the natural response to that if you otherwise agreed with the idea.

For example, have the keys kept in a safe, to be checked out by the fire supervisors for their shifts. Logs get kept about who had which key when, and if one goes missing or a crime gets committed with one, then there's a paper trail that can be used to track who did what.

I'm well familiar with insiders stealing public information. I never quite brought myself to say it earlier on this thread, but I work for a financial services company that handles the transactions for, well, essentially every bank you've ever heard of.

As a result, I'm pretty familiar with the kinds of precautions you can put in place to prevent information theft. It seems like physical asset theft is even easier to track since you can't just take a picture of it with a cameraphone to steal it...

>> ^MarineGunrock:

As for your comment regarding apartments: No, tenants do not own the space, but it is their private area. Even the companies that own them aren't allowed to enter without permission.


I'd want to look at the law about this, but I've had landlords literally have people into my apartment for a tour without my permission before while I was out.

Hell, multiple companies did it, even.

They only seem to need your permission if you're there.

Well, now you're making me think you got ripped off by greedy capitalists who weren't honest with you about what they're offering you.

Who chipped your dog? What service did you purchase from them? Did they tell you it was an alternative to getting a license, because they provide the animal control services for your area?

You need to be registered with animal control. They're not just doing it to discern pet from stray, but also to keep an eye on the pet population, the flow of animals in & out of homes, etc. And of course the fee is helping defray the cost of the entire animal control operation, not just tags.

Now I personally am not in love with the idea of charging a fee to pet owners. Economically speaking, it'd make more sense for animal control to pay people $5-$10 to register their pets, and then pay for the entire budget of animal control (including that $5-$10 responsible owner bonus) with property taxes, since the bulk of animal control's costs are aimed at picking up strays and helping maintain public health & safety for a geographic region, not tags & registry.

Would you prefer that set up? I would.

>> ^blankfist:

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.
By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?
It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.

Well, calling me a dipshit is probably unnecessary, though I'm more than fine with it. As always. I'm not going to summon dag here like some other Sifters.

That aside, @NetRunner, thanks for the history lesson, but the point is that I've already taken the proper precautions in giving him his vacines and even gone above and beyond when giving him tracking (tags + RFID), so I don't need the government to charge me that $20 a month. See? I don't require their one-size-fits-all solution to lost dogs. We, in the private sector, already have that covered.

By the way, if Animal Control ever picked up my dog, they'd first see the tag and call me. In case that was lost they'd most likely scan for the RFID chip. So, why do they need me to pay for a (emphasis mine) YEARLY REGISTRATION FEE?

It's obviously to generate revenue not for protection since I've already covered my basis. So, please, respond to that. Thanks.

Seeing some blatant ignorance here. ALF is a decentralized organization. If it wasn't, they'd be arrested for all the property crime they commit. I could go out right now and commit something in the name of ALF and as long as my action respected ALF's mission goals, my action would be accepted as ALF's. Here is ALF's motto on wikipedia: "Any act that furthers the cause of animal liberation, where all reasonable precautions are taken not to harm human or non-human life, may be claimed as an ALF action."


Soooo... no. No to almost every comment on here.

I dunno, you can see his feet twitch around at about :45...>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:
We see a man sitting in a chair for 4 seconds before he is immobilized by the police. How exactly did you determine that he has mobility issues? For all we know, he could have just thrown the owner of the wheelchair to the ground and ridden his chair down the block. And let me kick start your imagination regarding reasons to body slam him: He was armed with a knife, or a stun gun, or an extending baton, or a gun, or brass knuckles, or just his own knuckles. He was assaulting the officers, or bystanders, or family members, or children. He was resisting arrest for an extended period of time, or trying to evade the officers. Again, we have HALF THE STORY at best.

He has mobility issues. Clue number 1: HE NEVER MOVES HIS LEGS.
Like I said, I don't like choosing a side when we have only half the story, but common sense leads me to side against the two officers body-slamming a skinny old dude. If he had just thrown somebody from the scooter, where is that person? If he had a weapon, why are the officers not seen putting an object into evidence?
The reaction of the crowd and the behavior of the officers after the take-down indicates that the worst thing that the guy could have done was mouth off and maybe take a weak-ass swing at one of them.
I'm certainly open to other possibilities, but you gotta come up with something realistic. I was the one throwing out possibilities for the video where a cop tackles a teenage girl, but this crosses even my line of acceptable police precaution.