tree68 schlimm How would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse? Ya know, it's going on right now in our local media. The word Darwin doesn't come into play, but the shaming is rampant, if indirect. What happened? A driver crossed the centerline and collided head-on with another vehicle. The other vehicle was being driven by a popular high school student. The incident happened several days ago, and every day since there has been a story in the media about how great the high school student was, and how much he'll be missed. In other words, every day since the accident the family of the driver who caused the incident has had their nose publically rubbed in the dirt about how their family member killed this kid. It was initially reported (in the media) that the driver who caused the accident had been tailgating and passing other drivers. It was also mentioned that the incident occurred on a hill. I'm sure the intention is to celebrate the life of the high school kid, but they sure are making the other driver (who also died) look like a piece of you-know-what.
schlimm How would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse?
Ya know, it's going on right now in our local media. The word Darwin doesn't come into play, but the shaming is rampant, if indirect.
What happened? A driver crossed the centerline and collided head-on with another vehicle. The other vehicle was being driven by a popular high school student.
The incident happened several days ago, and every day since there has been a story in the media about how great the high school student was, and how much he'll be missed.
In other words, every day since the accident the family of the driver who caused the incident has had their nose publically rubbed in the dirt about how their family member killed this kid.
It was initially reported (in the media) that the driver who caused the accident had been tailgating and passing other drivers. It was also mentioned that the incident occurred on a hill.
I'm sure the intention is to celebrate the life of the high school kid, but they sure are making the other driver (who also died) look like a piece of you-know-what.
I think there is considerable difference. The news is just reporting the facts as being relevant to the story, and that is their job. It may make the driver look bad, but those are the facts. What the media is not doing is going out of their way to editorialize by directly insulting the driver who caused the crash; and gloating over the fact that driver was at fault, and was therefore was a stupid idiot or moron.
Russell
schlimmHow would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
ACY Schlimm: Absolutely correct. To my mind, being cruel just because you can, is probably (at best) a sign of immaturity. Tom
Schlimm:
Absolutely correct. To my mind, being cruel just because you can, is probably (at best) a sign of immaturity.
Tom
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
SD70M-2DudeAnd for the PC crowd here, I should add that in grade crossing accidents the train crew can be injured or even killed, depending on train speed and what type of vehicle is involved. So forgive us for mocking those whose negligence will not only scar our psyches (leading to depression, substance-abuse, divorce and maybe even suicide), but could very well kill us on the spot.
How would you like it if a member of your family were killed while illegally jaywalking and the town newspaper ran a headline awarding him/her a Darwin award and calling him/her "stupid" an "idiot" or worse? It is not PC, it is just common decency.
It doesn't surprise me that some railfans would favor making public Darwin award recommendations based on second-hand accounts of grade-crossing accidents; however the concept of train-crew members taking that approach surprises me. My personal frame of reference is the military; and I never had any even semi-humerous thoughts about people whom I perceived as a threat. I can't say that it would have been, in some way, wrong for me to have taken a mocking approach to them; however it never occurred to me to do that.
ACY There are specific rules for winning the Darwin Award, as set out by Wendy Northcutt in her 2000 book, The Darwin Awards, Evolution in Action (Dutton). Since the publication of that first book, there have been at least two successors. 1. The candidate must remove himself from the gene pool. (This is usually, but not necessarily, by his death.) 2. The candidate must exhibit an astounding misapplication of judgment. ("Using bullets as fuses, reenacting the William Tell stunt, and bungee jumping with rubber bands are all worthy Darwin activities.") 3. The candidate must be the cause of his own demise. ("A hapless bystander done in by a heavy anvil dropped from a skyscraper is an unfortunate tragedy. If, however, you are smashed by the anvil you rigged above your own balcony to kill those squawking pigeons, then you are a Darwin contender.... A tourist trampled to death by a rampaging bull in a parking lot is merely suffering from bad luck. If you are gored to death during the 'running of the bulls' while riding naked in a shopping cart piloted by your drunken friend, you are a candidate for a Darwin Award.") 4. The candidate must be capable of sound judgment. ("....That means no children, Alzheimer's disease sufferers, or Downs Syndrome patients [sic]....") 5. The event must be verified. Does that clear things up? There has to be an element of recklessness. Tom (Edited & amplified)
There are specific rules for winning the Darwin Award, as set out by Wendy Northcutt in her 2000 book, The Darwin Awards, Evolution in Action (Dutton). Since the publication of that first book, there have been at least two successors.
1. The candidate must remove himself from the gene pool. (This is usually, but not necessarily, by his death.)
2. The candidate must exhibit an astounding misapplication of judgment. ("Using bullets as fuses, reenacting the William Tell stunt, and bungee jumping with rubber bands are all worthy Darwin activities.")
3. The candidate must be the cause of his own demise. ("A hapless bystander done in by a heavy anvil dropped from a skyscraper is an unfortunate tragedy. If, however, you are smashed by the anvil you rigged above your own balcony to kill those squawking pigeons, then you are a Darwin contender.... A tourist trampled to death by a rampaging bull in a parking lot is merely suffering from bad luck. If you are gored to death during the 'running of the bulls' while riding naked in a shopping cart piloted by your drunken friend, you are a candidate for a Darwin Award.")
4. The candidate must be capable of sound judgment. ("....That means no children, Alzheimer's disease sufferers, or Downs Syndrome patients [sic]....")
5. The event must be verified.
Does that clear things up? There has to be an element of recklessness.
(Edited & amplified)
Considering that every member of our society should know that trains are fast, powerful death-dealing machines (thanks to Operation Lifesaver etc), racing one to a crossing seems pretty reckless to me. And how fitting is that book cover!
And for the PC crowd here, I should add that in grade crossing accidents the train crew can be injured or even killed, depending on train speed and what type of vehicle is involved. So forgive us for mocking those whose negligence will not only scar our psyches (leading to depression, substance-abuse, divorce and maybe even suicide), but could very well kill us on the spot.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Undoubtedly a bright woman (though her academic career fizzled) and a worthy nominee for the Marquis de Sade Award.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PixJ_y_ilmI&t=6m57s
schlimm making unnecessary crude, insensitive, inane insults so that some insecure people can feel better about themselves.
Hey, let's be happy that the incident did not happen at a silent crossing, because then we'd have to sift through endless rounds of anti-nimby type insults as well.
schlimm Perhaps some folks on here are seeking nomination for the Marquis de Sade Award.
Perhaps some folks on here are seeking nomination for the Marquis de Sade Award.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid tree68 Euclid A simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,” The very crux of a Darwin Award is that it was not a mistake - it was an intentional action. Well perhaps the formal "Darwin Award" has specific rules that rule it out in cases of mistakes. However, the formal Darwin Award is commonly linked on an informal basis to the moron/idiot insults that flow from the public in the comments that follow every news report of a grade crossing crash. Clearly, these critics are not cutting anyone slack because their demise was caused by a mistake. And that is what I think we are talking about here. I am not sure where you stand with this matter. I have the impression that you have gone back and forth here on whether a person should be insulted for making a mistake; but it might have something to do with how you define a mistake. Earlier, in this thread we pursued this matter, and you told me: “Miscalculation and distraction are not chance." The context was that an innocent mistake cannot be based miscalculation and distraction. But just for clarification let me ask it this way: What would be an example of a driver getting killed in a crossing crash where it was caused by an innocent mistake?
tree68 Euclid A simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,” The very crux of a Darwin Award is that it was not a mistake - it was an intentional action.
Euclid A simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,”
The very crux of a Darwin Award is that it was not a mistake - it was an intentional action.
Well perhaps the formal "Darwin Award" has specific rules that rule it out in cases of mistakes. However, the formal Darwin Award is commonly linked on an informal basis to the moron/idiot insults that flow from the public in the comments that follow every news report of a grade crossing crash. Clearly, these critics are not cutting anyone slack because their demise was caused by a mistake. And that is what I think we are talking about here.
I am not sure where you stand with this matter. I have the impression that you have gone back and forth here on whether a person should be insulted for making a mistake; but it might have something to do with how you define a mistake.
Earlier, in this thread we pursued this matter, and you told me: “Miscalculation and distraction are not chance."
The context was that an innocent mistake cannot be based miscalculation and distraction.
But just for clarification let me ask it this way: What would be an example of a driver getting killed in a crossing crash where it was caused by an innocent mistake?
EuclidBut just for clarification let me ask it this way: What would be an example of a driver getting killed in a crossing crash where it was caused by an innocent mistake?
Does it really matter? No matter what I offer, you'll put your spin on it...
In my youth about 300,000 American troops on R&R to Sydney visited Darwin, very briefly, to refuel the plane and maybe have a warm dark beer.
My research on Darwinism has been limited to two Darwin award discussions by Fred Frailey on his Trains.com blog. I don't believe that he's made an award to anyone who has been seriously injured or killed; however I don't know if that's a criterion for exclusion.
EuclidA simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,”
tree68 Euclid What the people who caused their own death or the death of others in these cases did was break the law. Most "Darwin" candidates aren't breaking any laws, except perhap those of physics and/or common sense. The only death they cause is their own, and then through some intentional action that defies logic and common sense. It's simply another way to note that what a person did, intentionally, defies logic and/or common sense. I'm sure all of us have, at one time or another, noted that someone did something that defied logic and/or common sense, or did so ourselves. Flame away.
Euclid What the people who caused their own death or the death of others in these cases did was break the law.
Most "Darwin" candidates aren't breaking any laws, except perhap those of physics and/or common sense.
The only death they cause is their own, and then through some intentional action that defies logic and common sense.
It's simply another way to note that what a person did, intentionally, defies logic and/or common sense.
I'm sure all of us have, at one time or another, noted that someone did something that defied logic and/or common sense, or did so ourselves.
Flame away.
It is more than just another way to note what someone did. If you want to note that someone made a mistake and got killed as result, why not just note that they made a mistake and got killed? The “Darwin Award” is so much more and I suspect that using it in this perverted way will have its own Darwinian effect on the evolution of the race.
A simple innocent mistake can lead to an action that “defies logic and common sense,” as you say. That is the cause of many grade crossing fatalities. Does something that merely defies logic and common sense really rise to the point of requiring ridicule?
schlimm More concisely: "Natural selection is a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment."
More concisely: "Natural selection is a natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment and that leads to the perpetuation of genetic qualities best suited to that particular environment."
Now, wouldn't that include being aware of one's surroundings and staying out of the way of moving locomotives, trucks, cars, turning propellers, etc?
Exiting this thread before the arrival of the forum police.
Norm
When that natural process is hijacked by a class or political party in control of a state, it becomes a distorted corruption of Social Darwinism.
https://archive.org/stream/originofspecies00darwuoft#page/n5/mode/2up
tree68That some seem to think that anyone who refers to someone as a "Darwin" candidate is bitter, unfeeling, etc., is completely out of the ballpark. It's simply another way to note that what a person did, intentionally, defies logic and/or common sense.
Whoever came up with that rationalization lacks an understanding of the theory of natural selection, which was Charles Darwin's contribution to biology.
None of the following ended in death or serious injury, to my knowledge; however, had they - the individuals would have been Darwin candidates for the stupidity they displayed
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
EuclidWhat the people who caused their own death or the death of others in these cases did was break the law.
Most "Darwin" candidates aren't breaking any laws, except perhap those of physics and/or common sense. And while their actions may cause the deaths of others, generally they do not. In fact, if they do cause the deaths of others, they are usually referred to as "negligent," and if they survive the incident, they'll be criminally charged.
That some seem to think that anyone who refers to someone as a "Darwin" candidate is bitter, unfeeling, etc., is completely out of the ballpark. It's simply another way to note that what a person did, intentionally, defies logic and/or common sense.
I'm sure all of us have, at one time or another, noted that someone did something that defied logic and/or common sense, or did so ourselves. Those of us of an age probably heard at least once from their mother, "You could have been killed!" That person may not have died as the result of their action, but it's likely that it was said to their face that what they did was stupid.
Norm48327 Euclid It seems to me that this is going both ways here. If somebody says you are wrong, you can either accept that by not responding or respond back in a way that you feel will futher clarify your point. It is just the practice of debating. Why should one side be required to stop and accept something that they believe is wrong? I was under the impression the discussion was between schlimm and myself. Your opinion was not solicited.
Euclid It seems to me that this is going both ways here. If somebody says you are wrong, you can either accept that by not responding or respond back in a way that you feel will futher clarify your point. It is just the practice of debating. Why should one side be required to stop and accept something that they believe is wrong?
I was under the impression the discussion was between schlimm and myself. Your opinion was not solicited.
Discussions on a thread are open to all. PMs are the place for private discussions.
EuclidIt seems to me that this is going both ways here. If somebody says you are wrong, you can either accept that by not responding or respond back in a way that you feel will futher clarify your point. It is just the practice of debating. Why should one side be required to stop and accept something that they believe is wrong?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.