Another celeb dead, blah blah blah. This one is pretty weird because I was JUST thinking about how dangerous his life really is. And he just started co-hosting a new show (with similar "jackass-crazy" stunts) on G4 with the lovely Jessica Chobot. Weird and a bit sad.


http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... test=faces

Drinking and speeding. Not weird and not sad at all. Good riddance.

The picture on twitter showing him partying and drinking just a few hours before the crash has been removed but It's pretty clear what happened...

Yup, with 2 people in the car, that definitely means beyond any shadow of a doubt that Ryan Dunn was above the legal limit and was also the driver. Case solved by Finlainea thanks to a Twitter picture.

It's amazing people drink and drive when they know better.

Oops sorry I was wrong, his friend was driving Dunn's porche because he was his designated driver, drank cola all night and followed the speed limit. The car just jumped on it's own over the protection rail because that's what cars do.

Whatever, I just think it's stupid to be glad someone is dead because they did (or did not) drink and drive. A good many people have done it in the past (including your friends and family, most likely), but that doesn't mean I wish every one of them died. /shrug

Death to anyone who has ever had a drink and operated a car. Even if they were separated by years.

_________________

I'm sad that they're dead, but for me it just illustrates how horrible the combination is.

I'll also never understand why people have to drink in order to have fun in their lives, but I'm sure that's a point of much disagreement(and I'll get labeled a troll for it!). If I want to pretend to be stupid by lowering my brain function, I can do that on my own, thank you.

I don't think he "deserved" it, though. He was trying to have fun in his own way, even if a bit silly, and he got killed for it. I don't find that just, and while doing it while driving isn't the smartest move in the book, it's not reason enough for anyone to die if it can be helped.

We're drifting into "New Orleans is God's Punishment" territory here on the Preachy Scale. We should probably wave off that.

I'm not glad anyone's dead -- but if he really did get tanked and then rev up his Porsche, he was basically a human RPG and I'm really glad no one else is dead.

Anyway we look at it, we lost a Jackass.

This thread won't be complete until someone brings up the fact that soldiers die every day.

Anyone?

... you already did, nananea!

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

..and evidently when I say I'm glad no one else is dead, I mean besides Zach Hartwell.

Gasp! I'm found out!

Blaming people for a natural disaster isn't quite the same as blaming the drunk driver for crashing his car and killing himself and another person.

It happened, he did it, that's that. He put himself, his passenger(s) and who knows who else in danger. I'm not going to sit here making excuses for him or crying my eyes out.

He pretty much murdered his passenger.

pulled a 9/11 in his 911.

_________________

Sure. But the "God's Wrath" contingent of our country will use any disaster, natural or otherwise, as ammunition for ultra-conservative whargarbling -- without regard for whether that ammunition fits their weapon terribly well. Dilating a discussion about drinking and driving out and making it a platform for a subjective argument about alcohol in general is different only in scope and content, not in kind. I say all this to explain the original objection, not to renew it. (This is not a flame-war with Venen.)

looks like the Westboro Baptist Church To Picket Ryan Dunn's Funeral

full story at huff n puff: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... lp00000009

And the, "made me feel bad for laughing" award goes to.... =D

Heh, I didn't realize the original reply was directed at me, but I can sorta see it now. I tend to think that the fact that if alcohol did not exist this event would not have happened, whereas there is no discernable evidence that if the "heathens" had followed God's way we would have never seen those natural disasters, makes the two arguments different in kind. That being said, I am not establishing a direct link between people generally consuming alcohol and the misuse of it via drunk driving, I am just suggesting that society would be a better place without it. If people can use something responsibly, I generally err towards the side of allowing it even if other idiots use it irresponsibly.

This isn't a "Ah ha! This event proves alcohol is inherently bad!" so much as it is a "Well, shit. I wouldn't mind if it didn't exist, or at least didn't have as much of a stranglehold on our society's late nights out." It's an eye-opener, not a statement of causality.

I'm not sure the "world with no alcohol" premise should be accepted so quickly, though. The problem isn't substances, it's people; if there were no alcohol, people would zone out on something else.

I agree with you in principle, and I'm not suggesting it'd be wonderland. However, I tend to view "If it wasn't X, it would be Y" in the same light as the slippery slope argument. While it occasionally has some merit, there are definitely circumstances where "If it wasn't X, it may well not be *anything* else".

People are always going to find ways to do dumb shit, but on occasion, when you take away a toy or two, they just may have a second thought or not view it as reasonable to participate in certain activities as a result. With something as widespread as alcohol consumption, you'll certainly get - at the VERY least - a small percentage of people that decide not to partake in something else. If for no other reason than whatever the secondary source of stimulation would be, there's a good chance it wouldn't be as easily accessible as alcohol is today.

It's people that are responsible for their actions, but that's separable from the idea that we can curb habits through a reduction of means.

I'm hesitant to endorse a full-fledged "Yea, let's get rid of all of it!", but at the same time I wouldn't unilaterally rule out some kind of regulations. It's certainly a tricky substance compared to a number of other drugs. Especially in the sense that people feel that they are in control when they really aren't, and that its effects creep up on you without warning - and for many, beyond that point it's simply too late. Countless people seem incapable of following a simple designated driver rule, especially if it means they can't enjoy a session of "let's play stupid and turn our minds to playdough" with their buddies.

I guess you could call it a contradiction on my part. I'm generally in favor of allowing such activities if it's proven that people can do something responsibly, which obviously can be done with alcohol. I'm just saying if it was banned, I wouldn't be the first guy out the door with warpaint and claymore in hand.

Just to stir the pot...


People will still steal even if it is illegal. We should just make stealing legal. People will still murder even if it is illegal. We should just make murder legal.

You can drink responsibly, in a manner that doesn't hurt yourself or anyone else.

You can't say the same thing for shoplifting or murder. Keep stirring.

_________________

doh!

Yea, that was pretty fucking stupid. Even for a pot stir.

To be fair, it stirred the pot just enough to provoke a rare Tyral post.

Not really a trend that should be continued.

_________________