Boy was decapitated on waterslide at Kansas park says Source

[Gorgodeus]

You know damn well no place on this planet can you be jailed for negligence.

Never heard of criminal negligence eh?

[dusselldorf]

Never heard of criminal negligence eh?

How about negligent homicide?

[Zenotetsuken]

That is not a coherent line of logic..

How is actively pertaining from participating in dangerous activities, going to increase your risk of Dying?

More people die each year from having a heart attack/stroke/choking/slipping in the shower/kitchen accident/etc. than die from anything considered "Risky". Avoiding doing anything risky doesn't reduce your chances of dying, it only reduces your likelihood of dying from doing that specific thing.

Running down the highway in the middle of the night, doesn't make you any more likely to die than not doing that, it just makes you more likely to die sooner and from getting hit by a car. We still have a 100% chance to die no matter what we do, nothing changes that.

[Deleted]

More people die each year from having a heart attack/stroke/choking/slipping in the shower/kitchen accident/etc. than die from anything considered "Risky". Avoiding doing anything risky doesn't reduce your chances of dying, it only reduces your likelihood of dying from doing that specific thing. .

The outcome of death is still the same, you die. That's basically a binary state.

There is no distinguishing in "Died by doing X" or "Died by not doing X" - if you participate in things that are inheritly risky, you directly affect your chanses of survival.

[Deleted]

dayum

poor kid, poor family, horrible death

[Zenotetsuken]

B)The outcome of death is still the same, you die. That's basically a binary state.

There is no distinguishing in "Died by doing X" or "Died by not doing X" - A)if you participate in things that are inheritly risky, you directly affect your chanses of survival.

You are going to die; died because of what is irrelevant. A) is wrong, because B). You don't affect your chances of survival, directly or indirectly, you have no chance of survival. You are more likely to die WHILE doing any number of menial tasks, than you are to die BECAUSE you were doing something risky.

Risk is simply a construct of our mind's inability to come to terms with our own mortality.

You put on a parachute and jump out of a plane; Your mind accepts that THIS was the risky choice, because you have convinced yourself that this is the only thing that would kill you today, because you didn't have to do this. Yet, what if this was the day that you were meant to choke to death? You have no way of knowing the future, or possible outcomes of every decision/indecision you make, so you have no way to truly tell if you did something risky, or something that saved your life for another day.

[Deleted]

You are going to die; died because of what is irrelevant. A) is wrong, because B). You don't affect your chances of survival, directly or indirectly, you have no chance of survival. You are more likely to die WHILE doing any number of menial tasks, than you are to die BECAUSE you were doing something risky.

Risk is simply a construct of our mind's inability to come to terms with our own mortality.

You put on a parachute and jump out of a plane; Your mind accepts that THIS was the risky choice, because you have convinced yourself that this is the only thing that would kill you today, because you didn't have to do this. Yet, what if this was the day that you were meant to choke to death? You have no way of knowing the future, or possible outcomes of every decision/indecision you make, so you have no way to truly tell if you did something risky, or something that saved your life for another day.

Some things inheritly have a higher chanse of killing you ; Denying this, is ignoring an entire spectrum of possibilities and trying to excuse it with "It being a mental construct".

You are basically trying to superimpose rationalized logic that is inheritly flawed.

An example ; You put a gun to your head, you pull the trigger. You die. You died because of your own doing. The outcome of the situation, was very much in favor of that you would die. The fact of it occuring, was done by own hand.

You directly contributed to your own death. Your chanse of survival, would be higher if you did not do that.

Survival is merely the concept of avoiding Death, the fact that you can die from Old age or other things, does not conclude that you can't avoid death (You can avoid death in terms of avoiding it in a current happening, to some degree).

The fact that the human mind, cannot calculate risks in a accurate matter, does not eliminate that Risk is still a predictable factor, in terms of predicting the happenings of things.

You would just need to have the computing power to account for every single possibility, and count the ones where you don't die. Obviously, a human mind cannot do that, but it's still technically possible.

[Yunzi]

You would just need to have the computing power to account for every single possibility, and count the ones where you don't die. Obviously, a human mind cannot do that, but it's still technically possible.

It's only technically possible in a real totalitarian condition where something (God, a supercomputer, a future version of Google, etc.) possesses total knowledge.

In order for this thing to update it's knowledge and thus *maintain* the continued ability to account for every single possibility, it needs to be intimately connected to everything that has any capability of doing anything that changes the existing state of knowledge.

Unless this curious circumstance is supported by the beings that this thing is connected to, this is a tyrannical totalitarian system.

[Gorgodeus]

You are going to die; died because of what is irrelevant. A) is wrong, because B). You don't affect your chances of survival, directly or indirectly, you have no chance of survival. You are more likely to die WHILE doing any number of menial tasks, than you are to die BECAUSE you were doing something risky.

Risk is simply a construct of our mind's inability to come to terms with our own mortality.

You put on a parachute and jump out of a plane; Your mind accepts that THIS was the risky choice, because you have convinced yourself that this is the only thing that would kill you today, because you didn't have to do this. Yet, what if this was the day that you were meant to choke to death? You have no way of knowing the future, or possible outcomes of every decision/indecision you make, so you have no way to truly tell if you did something risky, or something that saved your life for another day.

Go look at the average life expectancy of various professions, then come back and try to claim that higher risk =/= higher chance of dying. Firefighters, for example.

[Holas]

You are going to die; died because of what is irrelevant. A) is wrong, because B). You don't affect your chances of survival, directly or indirectly, you have no chance of survival. You are more likely to die WHILE doing any number of menial tasks, than you are to die BECAUSE you were doing something risky.

Risk is simply a construct of our mind's inability to come to terms with our own mortality.

You put on a parachute and jump out of a plane; Your mind accepts that THIS was the risky choice, because you have convinced yourself that this is the only thing that would kill you today, because you didn't have to do this. Yet, what if this was the day that you were meant to choke to death? You have no way of knowing the future, or possible outcomes of every decision/indecision you make, so you have no way to truly tell if you did something risky, or something that saved your life for another day.

Your logic is pretty much fuck up if you believe this.
Not knowing the future does not mean you can't effect it by raising chance of dying. Yes, you will never know the "truth" of why you died and maybe some risky activity "saved" you but we are talking on chances.

If you play Russian roulette for a straight 24 hours then you are WAY more likely to die than napping in those 24 hours. Not sure how can you claim otherwise.

[oxymoronic]

You are going to die; died because of what is irrelevant. A) is wrong, because B). You don't affect your chances of survival, directly or indirectly, you have no chance of survival. You are more likely to die WHILE doing any number of menial tasks, than you are to die BECAUSE you were doing something risky.

Risk is simply a construct of our mind's inability to come to terms with our own mortality.

You put on a parachute and jump out of a plane; Your mind accepts that THIS was the risky choice, because you have convinced yourself that this is the only thing that would kill you today, because you didn't have to do this. Yet, what if this was the day that you were meant to choke to death? You have no way of knowing the future, or possible outcomes of every decision/indecision you make, so you have no way to truly tell if you did something risky, or something that saved your life for another day.

this is what happens when you smoke a fatty and over analyze a situation.

[Tyrianth]

Wow, are you really trolling this story? This happened in my town and I'm not amused by you posting paired with a troll question. You know damn well no place on this planet can you be jailed for negligence. So get off it. I mean we all enjoy a good troll now and again but, decapitated children seems like a poor taste decision.

That said, zero people in our city were surprised at this. That slide looked dangerous to everyone, and many kids were not permitted to ride it.

Lol negligence can be a criminal offence in pretty much any country, including the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

[Deleted]

The slide's name is German for ''(mentally) insane'' as well... poor boy

[apples]

It's only technically possible in a real totalitarian condition where something (God, a supercomputer, a future version of Google, etc.) possesses total knowledge.

In order for this thing to update it's knowledge and thus *maintain* the continued ability to account for every single possibility, it needs to be intimately connected to everything that has any capability of doing anything that changes the existing state of knowledge.

Unless this curious circumstance is supported by the beings that this thing is connected to, this is a tyrannical totalitarian system.

That's some 1800s logic. A being which operates outside time could easily calculate the consequence of action without effecting either the consequence or the action. And that's just one example of a non tyrant being able to maintain a false omnipotence

[Zenotetsuken]

Some things inheritly have a higher chanse of killing you ; Denying this, is ignoring an entire spectrum of possibilities and trying to excuse it with "It being a mental construct".

An example ; You put a gun to your head, you pull the trigger. You die. You died because of your own doing. The outcome of the situation, was very much in favor of that you would die. The fact of it occuring, was done by own hand.

You directly contributed to your own death. Your chanse of survival, would be higher if you did not do that.

Survival is merely the concept of avoiding Death, the fact that you can die from Old age or other things, does not conclude that you can't avoid death (You can avoid death in terms of avoiding it in a current happening, to some degree).

Your logic is pretty much fuck up if you believe this.
Not knowing the future does not mean you can't effect it by raising chance of dying. Yes, you will never know the "truth" of why you died and maybe some risky activity "saved" you but we are talking on chances.

If you play Russian roulette for a straight 24 hours then you are WAY more likely to die than napping in those 24 hours. Not sure how can you claim otherwise.

This is the flawed logic. Your argument has been whittled down to sticking a gun to your head and pulling the trigger is more "risky" than not.

Going to a waterslide or jumping out of a plane or any number of other things that are considered "Risky" aren't any more risky than the drive to get to the place where you would be going on the waterslide, or to jump out of the plane, you just don't hear about those incidents, because they are normal every day things.

So you don't go do something "risky" and instead decide to go grocery shopping. You still have a chance of dying while doing that, you just think that you have less of a chance, because you aren't doing something "dangerous". While there is no real statistic to track, I would with full confidence say that more people die while grocery shopping (as in driving to the grocery store, shopping for groceries, then driving back home) than die from parachuting, or doing any other activity people consider "risky".

As I already said, "If the EXTREME unlikeliness of something bad happening keeps you from doing something, then NOT doing something is just as likely to kill you."
Sticking a gun to your head and pulling the trigger doesn't fall under the "EXTREME unlikeliness" part, it takes some real mental gymnastics to try to connect the 2.

Go look at the average life expectancy of various professions, then come back and try to claim that higher risk =/= higher chance of dying. Firefighters, for example.

Doing something repeatedly, exponentially increases your chances that the potential for something to happen, actually will happen. They walk into buildings that are on fire, day after day.
Their mortality rate isn't a direct result of being a firefighter, it is the direct result of repeatedly going into burning buildings. You would see a higher mortality rate among non-firefighters if they repeatedly went into burning buildings as well.

[Mayhem]

The problem is things can get caught in the netting, as we see here.

That´s not the problem, that´s the purpose.

[Kaleredar]

"parts of the park will remain open?"


"Hey kids, who wants to go to the park where that kid just got his head sliced off? Pile in the car!"

[Holas]

-snip

I think its pretty clear you have no real education (which is ok as you are probably in middle of high school). The terms that confuse you are chances/probabilities vs. binary results.

If you go to grocery store and have 1e-7% chance to die. then yes the 2 outcome options are alive and dead but they are NOT 50% each.
If you shot yourself in the head and have 95% chance to die then while there are 2 outcomes just like going to grocery, still you are more likely to die doing it then going to grocery.


Could it be that MORE people die going to grocery then from head shots? YES it could be but that doesn't mean going to grocery is the same or more risky than getting shot in the head, it only means MORE people going to grocery than getting shot in head. If you want to compare the chances you also need to divide the number of deaths in each activity by the number of people doing it. Guess what? - MORE people going to the grocery....

Infracted - Flaming

[boyzma]

I heard somewhere there was a question if he was even tall enough to ride that ride. Ya know the stupid plywood person at the gate that kids have to be as tall or taller than his finger or whatever? Seems like if it turns out he wasn't tall enough someone running the ride would be in a shit wad of trouble. Poor kid, poor family

[kail]

Damn, I though this only happened in Final Destination.