Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #61
    Herald of the Titans Zenotetsuken's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Between my chair and keyboard
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Holas View Post
    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....

    Which is exactly what my post and the previous 3 posts I made were about. You can try all you want to argue that it isn't about chance/probability, but that is the only thing you can judge it by. YOU can try to figure out the math if you want, but I'm not going to.
    The first step Math Wiz, is you need to figure is out how many people who were thinking about doing something risky, but decided not to, because it is just too dangerous. I will wait.


    The original post that I responded to said "People should be cautious about roller coasters/water slides...yes millions of people ride them each year and for 99.99% of them nothing happens, however these stories pop up for every water/amusement park everywhere. On a regular basis.

    Statistically speaking you're not likely to be a statistic, but someone somewhere is going to be.

    Of course you're probably more likely to get into an auto accident on the way to the water park than get into an injury while on a water ride, but that's a story for another day."

    To which I responded "The exact same thing could be said of ANYTHING... eating bananas, or walking across the street, or NOT walking across the street, or sitting down in a chair, or going to the bathroom, or taking a shower or etc. etc. etc. etc.

    If the EXTREME unlikeliness of something bad happening keeps you from doing something, then NOT doing something is just as likely to kill you."

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenotetsuken View Post
    Which is exactly what my post and the previous 3 posts I made were about. You can try all you want to argue that it isn't about chance/probability, but that is the only thing you can judge it by. YOU can try to figure out the math if you want, but I'm not going to.
    The first step Math Wiz, is you need to figure is out how many people who were thinking about doing something risky, but decided not to, because it is just too dangerous. I will wait.


    The original post that I responded to said "People should be cautious about roller coasters/water slides...yes millions of people ride them each year and for 99.99% of them nothing happens, however these stories pop up for every water/amusement park everywhere. On a regular basis.

    Statistically speaking you're not likely to be a statistic, but someone somewhere is going to be.

    Of course you're probably more likely to get into an auto accident on the way to the water park than get into an injury while on a water ride, but that's a story for another day."

    To which I responded "The exact same thing could be said of ANYTHING... eating bananas, or walking across the street, or NOT walking across the street, or sitting down in a chair, or going to the bathroom, or taking a shower or etc. etc. etc. etc.

    If the EXTREME unlikeliness of something bad happening keeps you from doing something, then NOT doing something is just as likely to kill you."
    The risk of injury or death from water parks per ride is doubtless much higher than that per incident of eating a banana or sitting down in a chair. Yes opportunity cost applies to any sort of risk, but it is erroneous to equate water slide rides to going to the bathroom.

  3. #63
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    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.
    Chill.
    Don't lose your head over it.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenotetsuken View Post
    Which is exactly what my post and the previous 3 posts I made were about. You can try all you want to argue that it isn't about chance/probability, but that is the only thing you can judge it by. YOU can try to figure out the math if you want, but I'm not going to.
    The first step Math Wiz, is you need to figure is out how many people who were thinking about doing something risky, but decided not to, because it is just too dangerous. I will wait.


    The original post that I responded to said "People should be cautious about roller coasters/water slides...yes millions of people ride them each year and for 99.99% of them nothing happens, however these stories pop up for every water/amusement park everywhere. On a regular basis.

    Statistically speaking you're not likely to be a statistic, but someone somewhere is going to be.

    Of course you're probably more likely to get into an auto accident on the way to the water park than get into an injury while on a water ride, but that's a story for another day."

    To which I responded "The exact same thing could be said of ANYTHING... eating bananas, or walking across the street, or NOT walking across the street, or sitting down in a chair, or going to the bathroom, or taking a shower or etc. etc. etc. etc.

    If the EXTREME unlikeliness of something bad happening keeps you from doing something, then NOT doing something is just as likely to kill you."
    You don't need to calculated those who "think" and didn't do it. Its irrelevant. I "think" i will jump from 100 meters height but I won't and ill go napping instead - whats my chances of dying? I understand where you getting at -you want to calculate the people who did "non-risky" activity instead of "risky" and died. Your line of thought is twisted and completely wrong. This is not how you solve problems -this is how you try to complicate a problem hoping the other guy will give up. (maybe this tactic works with your friends - i known many geeks who were using this tactic to make them look smart. It always seemed pathetic to me).

    You're last sentence actually make sense. If indeed an activity that people might be injured from has extremely low chance of getting hurt (water slides) and we replace it with another extreme low chance activity (walking on the street) then you are correct, it mostly doesn't really matter. This was NOT the debate though. The debate was that you claimed that doing risky activity does not increase your chances of getting hurt because you might get hurt from a non-risky activity you do instead. That sentence is completely wrong.

    I will stop here though as I think my point went through and if you still don't agree then we can decide we don't agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by MeHMeH View Post
    The people you are calling "terrorists" are in fact "freedom-fighters", no amount of stabbings is going to change this.

  5. #65
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    21,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    The risk of injury or death from water parks per ride is doubtless much higher than that per incident of eating a banana or sitting down in a chair. Yes opportunity cost applies to any sort of risk, but it is erroneous to equate water slide rides to going to the bathroom.
    Depends on how you eat your banana *wink*

    OT: This is why I generally hate amusement park rides that are designed and advertised as "The world's whatever whatever whatever". You know some corners were cut.

    I'm looking at you Six Flags, you deathtrap of a shithole.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Belize View Post
    Depends on how you eat your banana *wink*

    OT: This is why I generally hate amusement park rides that are designed and advertised as "The world's whatever whatever whatever". You know some corners were cut.

    I'm looking at you Six Flags, you deathtrap of a shithole.
    Cedar Point had/has (don't know if it still is, but was at its inception) the tallest roller coaster in the world. Well, has had multiple times, but top thrill could still be. If I remember right the only death they've had at their park was from a storm knocking down a tree on someone and a heart attack on one of their rides. Not really ride caused deaths.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  7. #67
    Over 9000! Poppincaps's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Twilight Town
    Posts
    9,498
    I'd make the park give me every damn cent they have. It wouldn't help me reconcile, but the park needs to pay in some way for allowing this to happen.

  8. #68
    Herald of the Titans Zenotetsuken's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Between my chair and keyboard
    Posts
    2,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Holas View Post
    You don't need to calculated those who "think" and didn't do it. Its irrelevant. I "think" i will jump from 100 meters height but I won't and ill go napping instead - whats my chances of dying? I understand where you getting at -you want to calculate the people who did "non-risky" activity instead of "risky" and died. Your line of thought is twisted and completely wrong. This is not how you solve problems -this is how you try to complicate a problem hoping the other guy will give up. (maybe this tactic works with your friends - i known many geeks who were using this tactic to make them look smart. It always seemed pathetic to me).

    You're last sentence actually make sense. If indeed an activity that people might be injured from has extremely low chance of getting hurt (water slides) and we replace it with another extreme low chance activity (walking on the street) then you are correct, it mostly doesn't really matter. This was NOT the debate though. The debate was that you claimed that doing risky activity does not increase your chances of getting hurt because you might get hurt from a non-risky activity you do instead. That sentence is completely wrong.

    I will stop here though as I think my point went through and if you still don't agree then we can decide we don't agree.
    Honestly my whole point was this: Don't let your fear of the possibility that something bad will happen keep you from enjoying life. There is a risk in literally every single thing we do, and we don't live forever, so go have some fun while you are alive.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Zenotetsuken View Post
    Honestly my whole point was this: Don't let your fear of the possibility that something bad will happen keep you from enjoying life. There is a risk in literally every single thing we do, and we don't live forever, so go have some fun while you are alive.
    You can manage risk though. Like, anything other than driving through kansas? Ya, they don't have money to employ safety inspectors because taxes are evil apparently. I'm not doing anything I think might have needed any type of inspector there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by rawhammer View Post
    Chill.
    Don't lose your head over it.
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA I'll see you in hell for making me laugh at that one. No, but seriously, how do you get decapitated on a water ride? You'd have to try pretty hard for that to occur.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Deuse View Post
    BWAHAHAHAHAHA I'll see you in hell for making me laugh at that one. No, but seriously, how do you get decapitated on a water ride? You'd have to try pretty hard for that to occur.
    They were velcroing people into the ride for "safety." The straps don't stay on (there were multiple complaints), and in testing, they saw that things often fly off, so they put in nets. Kid's straps came off, he became air born and his head got caught in the netting is what I'm guessing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelorra View Post
    There's only one rule to not die in a stupid way: don't put yourself in a stupid situation...

    well thats kind of a f'ed up way to look at this situation.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    They were velcroing people into the ride for "safety." The straps don't stay on (there were multiple complaints), and in testing, they saw that things often fly off, so they put in nets. Kid's straps came off, he became air born and his head got caught in the netting is what I'm guessing.
    that just seems so stupid, to use VELCRO to hold people into a ride where you have the potential to be ejected.
    what was the netting there for? for obstacles other than people? cuz it doesn't seem to have done a good job and doing what it was supposed to do.
    It's been a while actually since I've received a message from scrapbot...need to drink more i guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by Butter Emails View Post
    Trump is a complete shitbag that's draining the country's coffers to stuff his own.
    It must be a day ending in Y.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Glnger View Post
    that just seems so stupid, to use VELCRO to hold people into a ride where you have the potential to be ejected.
    what was the netting there for? for obstacles other than people? cuz it doesn't seem to have done a good job and doing what it was supposed to do.
    The netting was for people who fly off the ride, ya. Velcro is widely regarded as a poor method of restraint because it's not all that great in the first place, and then it degrades over time. It never should have been approved to go into operation. Kansas voted into office people who don't believe in government though, so it's not surprising their inspection apparatus failed miserably here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  15. #75
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Glnger View Post
    that just seems so stupid, to use VELCRO to hold people into a ride where you have the potential to be ejected.
    what was the netting there for? for obstacles other than people? cuz it doesn't seem to have done a good job and doing what it was supposed to do.
    Velcro can actually be very strong and more than enough to hold a person down.

    The issue here is that they opted for a state with little to no regulations so they could build this. As a result a kid got decapitated (ironically enough, the son of the governor who fought for lesser regulations on businesses).
    (This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    The netting was for people who fly off the ride, ya. Velcro is widely regarded as a poor method of restraint because it's not all that great in the first place, and then it degrades over time. It never should have been approved to go into operation. Kansas voted into office people who don't believe in government though, so it's not surprising their inspection apparatus failed miserably here.
    really? the netting was for people? seriously? jesus christ. did anyone take a test dummy and eject it into that netting at 65+ mph?

    It's been a while actually since I've received a message from scrapbot...need to drink more i guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by Butter Emails View Post
    Trump is a complete shitbag that's draining the country's coffers to stuff his own.
    It must be a day ending in Y.

  17. #77
    Titan Frozenbeef's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Uk - England
    Posts
    14,098
    Soo how did he get decapitated?

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrianth View Post
    Velcro can actually be very strong and more than enough to hold a person down.

    The issue here is that they opted for a state with little to no regulations so they could build this. As a result a kid got decapitated (ironically enough, the son of the governor who fought for lesser regulations on businesses).
    that's a real nut punch of reality
    I'm not trying to be flippant but maybe this will be a teaching moment on regulations at least for safety... probably not though. just like gun deaths.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozenbeef View Post
    Soo how did he get decapitated?
    65mph+ those metal bars that hold the netting up?
    That netting looks like it belongs in a child's play pin, not industrial amusement park rides.
    It's been a while actually since I've received a message from scrapbot...need to drink more i guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by Butter Emails View Post
    Trump is a complete shitbag that's draining the country's coffers to stuff his own.
    It must be a day ending in Y.

  19. #79
    Well that's awful. When I was a little kid I went on a water ride that was pretty similar to this and when we went down the massive drop I realized I was lifting out of my seat with only a metal bar to "hold" me. I was so small that I could have easily fit between the seat and the bar with my entire body and the only reason I didn't actually fly out of it was because I physically held onto the bar to prevent it. No seat belts or anything.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    The netting was for people who fly off the ride, ya. Velcro is widely regarded as a poor method of restraint because it's not all that great in the first place, and then it degrades over time. It never should have been approved to go into operation. Kansas voted into office people who don't believe in government though, so it's not surprising their inspection apparatus failed miserably here.
    I like the title of the article I got that picture from.
    Did Kansas City Government Make Verruckt Waterside Less Safe By Requiring Safety Netting?
    http://www.inquisitr.com/3415533/did...afety-netting/
    It WAS the government regulations, not the LACK of government regulations? hahaha. there is no bottom to how low some scumbags will go, I'm sure the kid would have been MUCH better skidding across the concrete instead..
    It's been a while actually since I've received a message from scrapbot...need to drink more i guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by Butter Emails View Post
    Trump is a complete shitbag that's draining the country's coffers to stuff his own.
    It must be a day ending in Y.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •