I think that a lot of the problem is that we're all in the choir here, and don't need no stinkin' preachers. We look on the victims as people who should know as much about trains, their weight, and their momentum as we do, and when something happens we shake our heads, think the victims should have known better (because we do!), and somehow perversely feel that they won't have any more kids as "inferior" as they were.If, somehow, our knowledge about such things got out in the direction of the people who need to hear the message, we wouldn't get very far with comments questioning their intelligence.A few months ago, there was a sequence of railroad/highway collisions shown on videos, with trains from all of the major railroads, Amtrak included, wiping out the cars, trucks, or whatever involved. I wonder how myuch footage like that would make people think. Internalize the message--this is what could happen to you if you take trains too lightly in such situations.(Coming to and from Michigan on the "scenic route", we often drive east to west across Hammond, Indiana. And even thought I don't see the scene itself, whenever we drive in the vicinity of the NICTD station there, I recall the video of the driver racing across the parking lot with a carload of kids, hoping to get out of there in advance of the CSX train on adjacent trackage. We didn't see the result on the video, but remember vividly what happened.)
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Carl,
Then there's the side that says we should be politically correct and never offend anyone. Some will be offended because they have nothing to be offended about.
Norm
Norm48327 Carl, Then there's the side that says we should be politically correct and never offend anyone. Some will be offended because they have nothing to be offended about.
Give me a break! It is not about "political correctness" at all. It is about not needlessly dancing on the graves of the dead by making unnecessary crude, insensitive, inane insults so that some insecure people can feel better about themselves.
It's about good manners and civility in public, stuff we should have learned as children.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmGive me a break! It is not about "political correctness" at all. It is about not needlessly dancing on the graves of the dead by making unnecessary crude, insensitive, inane insults so that some insecure people can feel better about themselves. It's about good manners and civility in public, stuff we should have learned as children.
Nah, you give us a break. You made your point many posts ago.
What the people who caused their own death or the death of others in these cases did was break the law. Nobody here is defending them for breaking the law.
People here are defending them against having their memory insulted by self-righteous critics who presume to know that the deceased had a motive that the critic finds unsuitable. Since the critic rarely knows what that motive was or even the state of mind of the dead driver, the critic is in no position to be so judgmental of the driver.
What the critic is doing is insulting the deceased, if the deceased is not a friend or relative of the critic; and also if the deceased was not working in an occupation approved of by the critic. If any of that were the case, the deceased would be forgiven by the critic, and be honored as being a victim of circumstances.
EuclidWhat the critic is doing is insulting the deceased, if the deceased is not a friend or relative of the critic; and also if the deceased was not working in an occupation approved of by the critic.
Precisely! Norm (and others) objects to responding to those who keep insisting on insulting those victims. When the insults and denigration cease, the calling them out for what they do can cease.
schlimmPrecisely! Norm (and others) objects to responding to those who keep insisting on insulting those victims. When the insults and denigration cease, the calling them out for what they do can cease.
I do not object per-se to your responding to others about that. What I, and presumably others, object to is the constant hammering away at those who may disagree with you. You said it isn't right to denegrate them. I agree, but we don't need to be reminded of that in your every other post.
I would quantify your method as "If you can't get them to agree, then shout them down".
Norm48327 I do not object per-se to your responding to others about that. What I, and presumably others, object to is the constant hammering away at those who may disagree with you. You said it isn't right to denegrate them. I agree, but we don't need to be reminded of that in your every other post. I would quantify your method as "If you can't get them to agree, then shout them down".
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?
Norm48327I do not object per-se to your responding to others about that. What I, and presumably others, object to is the constant hammering away at those who may disagree with you. You said it isn't right to denegrate them. I agree, but we don't need to be reminded of that in your every other post.
Norm, I am in general agreement with that. You have not been one of the insulters. But when one of them resurfaces with the need to hurl insults on the dead, some of us will continue to call them out.
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?
I was under the impression the discussion was between schlimm and myself. Your opinion was not solicited.
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?
Discussions on a thread are open to all. PMs are the place for private discussions.
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.
The only death they cause is their own, and then through some intentional action that defies logic and common sense.
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.
Flame away.
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...
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!
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.
https://archive.org/stream/originofspecies00darwuoft#page/n5/mode/2up
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."
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
EuclidA 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.
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.
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.
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,”
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...
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?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
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)
Perhaps some folks on here are seeking nomination for the Marquis de Sade Award.
schlimm Perhaps some folks on here are seeking nomination for the Marquis de Sade Award.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PixJ_y_ilmI&t=6m57s
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.