Dude shoves gaper out of the way

OldSpiceYour statement - "What if he didn't shove the kid... and some other dude died"? Implicit in your statement is that "shoving the kid" would make it less likely that "some other dude would die", otherwise, shoving the kid serves no purpose but to be a bully.
Since I fail to see how shoving the kid conveys any message that make it less likely to lead to "some other dude" dying, I see it as nothing more than being a bully. As such, I suggest that talking to the kid made more sense. You obviously disagree but have yet to explain how shoving the kid results in it being less likely that "some other dude dies".

As to your suggestion that "accidents happen" is a weak answer, I think of it more like gravity, you can ignore it but it's still there. If there is little you can do about something you either accept the possibilities or avoid those situations all together. Many years ago, I raced F2000 and Formula Atlantic cars. Sometimes there were accidents. sometimes people got hurt, sometimes people got killed. I have no reason to believe these racing incidents happened on purpose, they were always a tragic accident. Some drivers were better than others. I felt comfortable being wheel to wheel with certain drivers, others, not so much. The only way I knew to avoid the possible consequences was not to race. You pay your money and make your choices.

You accept the fact that the incident portrayed above could happen when you ski the mountain. Look at the terms and conditions of the resort you ski at. There is no "wall" separating the park/jump line and even if there was, a park skier could still inadvertently ski across the line for whatever reason. I never expected a car on a race track to be traveling in the opposite direction but it did happen on occasion when a driver had a big off and his momentum carried him across the track and on to another section. Sometime parts of a car would come off and become projectiles that no helmet could ever protect you from. It happens and you accept that possibility when the flag drops. When I fist started racing I was cautioned by another driver to maintain the racing line even if my car was having problems (it was) or move off the course all together. I guess he could have just run me off the track but for whatever reason, he decided to talk to me instead. Weird I know, but I appreciated it.

I'm not being "holier than thou" or "self righteous" as you suggest. Further, I didn't "build a straw man" and assign your name to it. You will probably want to become more familiar with the concept before you next use the term. What I did do was state what I thought was obvious and what you still fail to grasp. Knocking the kid down does nothing to change the possible outcomes and talking to him is far more likely to be effective. It called common sense.

Feel free to respond but I'm done here.

Let me get this straight; I supposed 2 hypothetical questions (both contingent on the kid not being shoved), but rather than respond you chose to assume a non-existent statement of your imagining and base your entire argument on it.

Not a straw man, you say?

When you were racing, did you have a helmet? A harness? Rollover protection? Were there marshals with flags at potential danger zones? Mandatory pre-race meetings? Was every conceivable safety measure not implemented before the race began?

For your comparison to hold true; you would need to be racing in reverse, looking over your shoulder, when a kid on a tricycle deliberately rides across the track from your blind side. How many duties of care would need to be breached for such a situation to occur?

Before you respond, please go back and read what I actually wrote. You're still wrongly assuming that I intend to justify the situation as it happened, and therefore you have no argument against me.

RICK_ROSSthis kid needs to be shamed, his sponsors should drop him. no excuses for this kind of behavior, ever.

God dammit he blocked me

can you guys not go on a witch hunt for this guy...it's not going to make anything better, and there's still the chance that this was faked...

Some awesome arguments that can be settled by 2 things. Skier code of conduct, and look before you drop.

jakeordieLet me get this straight; I supposed 2 hypothetical questions (both contingent on the kid not being shoved), but rather than respond you chose to assume a non-existent statement of your imagining and base your entire argument on it.

Not a straw man, you say?

When you were racing, did you have a helmet? A harness? Rollover protection? Were there marshals with flags at potential danger zones? Mandatory pre-race meetings? Was every conceivable safety measure not implemented before the race began?

For your comparison to hold true; you would need to be racing in reverse, looking over your shoulder, when a kid on a tricycle deliberately rides across the track from your blind side. How many duties of care would need to be breached for such a situation to occur?

Before you respond, please go back and read what I actually wrote. You're still wrongly assuming that I intend to justify the situation as it happened, and therefore you have no argument against me.

Ok, I lied about being done here.

As you seem educated, have some understanding of legal concepts, share a passion for cars and I'm a bit of a masochist, I will solider on for what its worth.

You presented two hypotheticals for some purpose. I made the assumption that you wished to present an alternative viewpoint in the hopes of eliciting a response. I obliged. When you use a hypothetical to make a point, you typically assume certain facts. In your second hypothetical you assume that switch dude does not shove the kid and then suggest that "some other dude could die" as a result. In doing so, you are implying that shoving the kid (or failing to do so) may have some impact on the outcome of the hypothetical you presented. I have not made a "non-existent statement of my imagination", it is implicit in your hypothetical. To conclude otherwise would render your hypothetical moot.

I chose to answer your hypothetical with a question and you took offense, preferring instead that I answer your question directly. I questioned your statement and whether shoving the kid would in fact play a role in the outcome. It is a legitimate question directly raised by your hypothetical and one that you have yet to address other than to suggest that I am making a straw man argument here. That is not what a straw man argument is and my question directly utilizes that facts that you present. It is not as you suggest, "a non-existent statement of my imagination". It is in fact, implicit in your hypothetical.

In your last response you present a nonsencical hypothetical. Assumption of the risk (something I raised) and breach of a duty of care (something you raised) are two very well defined legal concepts. Assumption of the risk assumes that the risks are understood or should be, and looks at what is reasonable to assume given the circumstances. If you play with dynamite you assume the risk that you might blow your fingers off or worse as these are reasonable possibilities. On a race course, you certainly assume the risks that I outlined and more. Your hypothetical involving racing in reverse while looking over your shoulder and hitting a child on a tricycle is not a reasonable risk one would assume and is therefore, not a legitimate hypothetical. On the other hand, a friend of a friend hit a deer while doing a test and tune at Sears Point and suffered serious facial injuries. Was that a risk he assumed? Maybe. Deer frequented the area back then and were known to cross the track. That being the case, did the track operator have a duty of care to eliminate or a least diminish the possibility that such an incident would occur? Maybe.

As I stated previously, switch dude is skiing on an open mountain and not a closed race course. Is it reasonable to assume that others might enter into the park with little understanding of the flow? Is the incident in question reasonable to assume under the circumstances? I think it is and said as much. Should the resort do more to separate the park from the ill informed? Maybe, but until they do, I think it reasonable to assume such incidents are likely and therefore I ski accordingly.

Finally, I don't wrongly assume you are attempting to justify the situation as it happened. You can't. Switch dude committed a battery against the child and there is no justification for that. Anyone who says otherwise needs their head examined. What I continue to question is your second hypothetical which implies that shoving or not shoving the kid could in some way impact the outcome ("what if he didn't shove the kid...?"). I certainly don't believe shoving the kid serves any purpose and advocated that a conversation would be more effective. As your hypothetical suggests shoving the kid or not doing so is an operative fact, please explain how so?

Steven

JsNeagleI don't actually understand how this video has been viewed so many times and there aren't already assault charges pending... To the skier in the video who pushed the kid: You're a complete dick and YOU'RE the one who should get out of the terrain park.

i agree. and whoever filmed it and didnt report the assault should be charged as well. maybe the lil homeboy wanted to ski off the side and land on the side of the landing that he sees all the cool kids on NS do. gotta start somewhere.

the assaulter should be prosecuted and banned from that mountain and any other surrounding mountains so he is forced to ski that lil pvc rail in his front yard at his mom's house.

jakeordieYou didn't answer the question. Would your opinion of gaper kid be different if switch dude was dead because of this?

Suggesting that "the right thing" is for switch dude to play dad or yellow jacket for everyone that does this sounds ludacris HEADS UP WOOP WOOP

Would your opinion of switch dude be different if the gaper had hit his head and died?

It's stupid to consider hypothetical situations that are extremely unlikely and what actually did happen in this video was a kid made a stupid mistake and the park skier assaulted him in a way that is no more likely to make him realize his mistakes than simply talking to him.

This is awful. We have all been in a similar situation. I have never EVER even thought of pushing a kid who cut me off, stood on a landing, etc.. However, I assume the "pusher" is a young kid, most likely in high school kid, who's brain isn't fully developed. I don't want to cut him any slack, but I feel like that perspective is important. That being said, I think the "pusher" should be forced to ride snowlerblades for the rest of the season ;)

or banned from the mountain AND newschoolers.. as we all know he's on here.

Gotta admit, after reading these more level headed, better thought out responses, I was a dick with my first response. Definitely not cool to do this. I was definitely doing this shit when I was a little kid, but I was lucky to know some older kids who were pretty good in the park and I learned park etiquette through them. I get snaked all the time and it sucks but definitely better to just shrug it off or talk to the kid(s) and explain how they're endangering themselves and others.

jjdsteezeLOL that must be you in the video

Not me in the video lol I wish I got to consistently ride at mountains with rails and jumps that nice. See my above response. I was definitely wrong with my first post.

For me and like many of you I'm sure, this video is years worth of dormant anger from so many infractions at the hands of gapers manifesting itself in primal and satisfying justice. Admittedly, I did enjoy seeing the kid get shoved, however, I'm sure that feeling emerged as some sort of deep Freudian id complex being sickly gratified by our innate thirst for vengeance.

Moving forward though, that was a surface level emotion and probably an unconscious reaction to the video. I think anyone who watched the video objectively can agree that the park skier was totally out of line by knocking the kid over. Its not even worth arguing whether the skier may/may not have had time to correct himself before hitting the jump, he clearly did. While it sucks to have your line ruined its never a good idea to risk your own safety or someone else's in the name of revenge.

The irony is that gapers who ski in the park are dangerous to themselves and other park skiers. Literally the last thing we want is to make contact with anyone in the park because even a small contact could end up being catastrophic for either or both parties.
This is beautifully ironic: the park skier went out of his way to physically contact that kid. He could have easily miscalculated his attack and seriously injured himself in the process of proving his point. In this case, Jann didnt hurt himself but, on a philosophical level, his attack on the kid is a complete paradox.

I also want to mention my thoughts on right-of-way. I saw other people mention that downhill skier has the right of way even in the terrain park, no exceptions. While the issue is not black and white in the park, i do disagree with that statement.

The uphill skier in a jump line DOES have the right of way, especially when the downhill skier is not using the feature as intended. The uphill skier in a jump line has to focus on navigating the inrun, the jump, trick, and landing. He/she shouldnt be burdened with monitoring extraneous factors and/or skiers in his peripheral. Its the duty of the other skiers in the park to obey these rules and pay attention to the surroundings of the jump. The underlying assumption should be obvious: jumping requires the most speed and concentration and also poses the highest risk factor. Therefore, if you are not the person jumping you should be out of the way and paying attention to the jump area and skiers speeding into the jump.

That being said, its obvious that the little kid clearly didnt know anything about park etiquette and certainly wasnt capable of understanding the complexities of a jump line or the dangers he may have posed to Jann. Its unfair to say that the little kid should have known, and its also unfair to say Jann was justified in shoving him.
Jann's first reaction should not have been to hit the kid. Scream at him, scream at his parents, give him and earful, scare him.... any of those would have been better options to vent your frustrations.

TLDR;

The video was satisfying.
The video was not satisfying.
Jann was wrong and could have hurt himself too.
Uphill skiers in a jumpline have right-of-way
Jann shouldnt have dun that

Maybe Jann has vision problems? The little kid is already on a straight-line trajectory across the park at the 0:01sec mark in the video. It's immediately obvious they are both heading towards a convergent point down the hill. Maybe we should be doing a fundraiser to get Jann some glasses.

Or maybe Jann has ADHD? Or a previous head injury that has destroyed his short-term memory? Given how obvious the little kid is in the first frame, maybe Jann forgot he was there in the 1sec he was skiing switch? Maybe we should be doing a fundraiser to get Jann an MRI.

Or maybe Jann is just a tiny little douchebag.

Y'all must not have snakes like we do at my small hill. It's rediculous how many guys I've seen bail or almost bail due to jerry snakes cutting across jumps/knuckles/landings.

And let's see you yell at the "little kid" and see how that goes. Most likely some drunk asshole dad coming to fight or scream back.

I wouldn't shove a kid like that but when you fear landings in EVERY lap due to jerrys cluelessness, it gets tempting.

OldSpiceWhen you use a hypothetical to make a point, you typically assume certain facts. In your second hypothetical you assume that switch dude does not shove the kid and then suggest that "some other dude could die" as a result. In doing so, you are implying that shoving the kid (or failing to do so) may have some impact on the outcome of the hypothetical you presented. I have not made a "non-existent statement of my imagination", it is implicit in your hypothetical. To conclude otherwise would render your hypothetical moot.

I chose to answer your hypothetical with a question and you took offense, preferring instead that I answer your question directly. I questioned your statement and whether shoving the kid would in fact play a role in the outcome. It is a legitimate question directly raised by your hypothetical and one that you have yet to address other than to suggest that I am making a straw man argument here. That is not what a straw man argument is and my question directly utilizes that facts that you present. It is not as you suggest, "a non-existent statement of my imagination". It is in fact, implicit in your hypothetical.

As your hypothetical suggests shoving the kid or not doing so is an operative fact, please explain how so?

Steven

No. You're assuming a statement which you feel is implied when it is not, to subvert the actual point of the hypothetical.

The actual point is to imagine a situation which is the effective opposite of what happens in the video i.e. rather than gaper kid being switch dude's victim, roles are reversed.

The purpose of this is to show that gaper kid's act of side jumping created the conditions for what followed. Please don't head down that "Oh, so you believe he DESERVED to get shoved?!!" road.....doing so would prove your true intent. Regardless of what we believe is right or wrong in our armchair quarterback world, if there was no side jump then there would be no shove.

So look at the wording of the 2nd hypothetical, and we'll take it from there;

"what if he didn't shove the kid, and next lap the kid did it again and some other dude died?"

The first condition "shove the kid" has a negative value, in the context of the hypothetical it did not happen and as such the term is redundant. Given your walls of text, it's ironic that I only put it there to prevent arguments down the path you've chosen (maybe we can print them out and fence the jump line off with 'em, problem solved :)

Since that term is redundant, you can combine it with any number of similarly redundant terms or just get rid of it entirely. What if he didn't give the kid a pleasant informative explanation of park etiquette, what if he didn't give the kid an ice cream cone, what if he didn't give the kid AIDS.....all of these things DID NOT HAPPEN.

When you assumed a statement in which the opposite condition is true, you created a false dilemma by additionally assuming this would mean the opposite result is true. None of this was implied by me, YOU created it.

For the record, you still refuse to answer the question as it was supposed. Yes it is presented as an alternative to what plays out in the video.....is that not the reason for a hypothetical's existence? So drop the redundant expression of what did not happen, and ask yourself;

"what if next lap the kid did it again, and some other dude died?"

Before you accuse me of changing my position, remember I stated my position back there somewhere;

"The outcome don't change the morality of the situation. Kid is at fault, and it's the resort's job to solve the problem."

Battle that one if you still have a problem.....'cos that one I actually wrote.

OldSpiceWhen you use a hypothetical to make a point, you typically assume certain facts. In your second hypothetical you assume that switch dude does not shove the kid and then suggest that "some other dude could die" as a result. In doing so, you are implying that shoving the kid (or failing to do so) may have some impact on the outcome of the hypothetical you presented. I have not made a "non-existent statement of my imagination", it is implicit in your hypothetical. To conclude otherwise would render your hypothetical moot.

I chose to answer your hypothetical with a question and you took offense, preferring instead that I answer your question directly. I questioned your statement and whether shoving the kid would in fact play a role in the outcome. It is a legitimate question directly raised by your hypothetical and one that you have yet to address other than to suggest that I am making a straw man argument here. That is not what a straw man argument is and my question directly utilizes that facts that you present. It is not as you suggest, "a non-existent statement of my imagination". It is in fact, implicit in your hypothetical.

As your hypothetical suggests shoving the kid or not doing so is an operative fact, please explain how so?

Steven

No. You're assuming a statement which you feel is implied when it is not, to subvert the actual point of the hypothetical.

The actual point is to imagine a situation which is the effective opposite of what happens in the video i.e. rather than gaper kid being switch dude's victim, roles are reversed.

The purpose of this is to show that gaper kid's act of side jumping created the conditions for what followed. Please don't head down that "Oh, so you believe he DESERVED to get shoved?!!" road.....doing so would prove your true intent. Regardless of what we believe is right or wrong in our armchair quarterback world, if there was no side jump then there would be no shove.

So look at the wording of the 2nd hypothetical, and we'll take it from there;

"what if he didn't shove the kid, and next lap the kid did it again and some other dude died?"

The first condition "shove the kid" has a negative value, in the context of the hypothetical it did not happen and as such the term is redundant. Given your walls of text, it's ironic that I only put it there to prevent arguments down the path you've chosen (maybe we can print them out and fence the jump line off with 'em, problem solved :)

Since that term is redundant, you can combine it with any number of similarly redundant terms or just get rid of it entirely. What if he didn't give the kid a pleasant informative explanation of park etiquette, what if he didn't give the kid an ice cream cone, what if he didn't give the kid AIDS.....all of these things DID NOT HAPPEN.

When you assumed a statement in which the opposite condition is true, you created a false dilemma by additionally assuming this would mean the opposite result is true. None of this was implied by me, YOU created it.

For the record, you still refuse to answer the question as it was supposed. Yes it is presented as an alternative to what plays out in the video.....is that not the reason for a hypothetical's existence? So drop the redundant expression of what did not happen, and ask yourself;

"what if next lap the kid did it again, and some other dude died?"

Before you accuse me of changing my position, remember I stated my position back there somewhere;

"The outcome don't change the morality of the situation. Kid is at fault, and it's the resort's job to solve the problem."

Battle that one if you still have a problem.....'cos that one I actually wrote.

OldSpiceWhen you use a hypothetical to make a point, you typically assume certain facts. In your second hypothetical you assume that switch dude does not shove the kid and then suggest that "some other dude could die" as a result. In doing so, you are implying that shoving the kid (or failing to do so) may have some impact on the outcome of the hypothetical you presented. I have not made a "non-existent statement of my imagination", it is implicit in your hypothetical. To conclude otherwise would render your hypothetical moot.

I chose to answer your hypothetical with a question and you took offense, preferring instead that I answer your question directly. I questioned your statement and whether shoving the kid would in fact play a role in the outcome. It is a legitimate question directly raised by your hypothetical and one that you have yet to address other than to suggest that I am making a straw man argument here. That is not what a straw man argument is and my question directly utilizes that facts that you present. It is not as you suggest, "a non-existent statement of my imagination". It is in fact, implicit in your hypothetical.

As your hypothetical suggests shoving the kid or not doing so is an operative fact, please explain how so?

Steven

No. You're assuming a statement which you feel is implied when it is not, to subvert the actual point of the hypothetical.

The actual point is to imagine a situation which is the effective opposite of what happens in the video i.e. rather than gaper kid being switch dude's victim, roles are reversed.

The purpose of this is to show that gaper kid's act of side jumping created the conditions for what followed. Please don't head down that "Oh, so you believe he DESERVED to get shoved?!!" road.....doing so would prove your true intent. Regardless of what we believe is right or wrong in our armchair quarterback world, if there was no side jump then there would be no shove.

So look at the wording of the 2nd hypothetical, and we'll take it from there;

"what if he didn't shove the kid, and next lap the kid did it again and some other dude died?"

The first condition "shove the kid" has a negative value, in the context of the hypothetical it did not happen and as such the term is redundant. Given your walls of text, it's ironic that I only put it there to prevent arguments down the path you've chosen (maybe we can print them out and fence the jump line off with 'em, problem solved :)

Since that term is redundant, you can combine it with any number of similarly redundant terms or just get rid of it entirely. What if he didn't give the kid a pleasant informative explanation of park etiquette, what if he didn't give the kid an ice cream cone, what if he didn't give the kid AIDS.....all of these things DID NOT HAPPEN.

When you assumed a statement in which the opposite condition is true, you created a false dilemma by additionally assuming this would mean the opposite result is true. None of this was implied by me, YOU created it.

For the record, you still refuse to answer the question as it was supposed. Yes it is presented as an alternative to what plays out in the video.....is that not the reason for a hypothetical's existence? So drop the redundant expression of what did not happen, and ask yourself;

"what if next lap the kid did it again, and some other dude died?"

Before you accuse me of changing my position, remember I stated my position back there somewhere;

"The outcome don't change the morality of the situation. Kid is at fault, and it's the resort's job to solve the problem."

Battle that one if you still have a problem.....'cos that one I actually wrote.

OldSpiceWhen you use a hypothetical to make a point, you typically assume certain facts. In your second hypothetical you assume that switch dude does not shove the kid and then suggest that "some other dude could die" as a result. In doing so, you are implying that shoving the kid (or failing to do so) may have some impact on the outcome of the hypothetical you presented. I have not made a "non-existent statement of my imagination", it is implicit in your hypothetical. To conclude otherwise would render your hypothetical moot.

I chose to answer your hypothetical with a question and you took offense, preferring instead that I answer your question directly. I questioned your statement and whether shoving the kid would in fact play a role in the outcome. It is a legitimate question directly raised by your hypothetical and one that you have yet to address other than to suggest that I am making a straw man argument here. That is not what a straw man argument is and my question directly utilizes that facts that you present. It is not as you suggest, "a non-existent statement of my imagination". It is in fact, implicit in your hypothetical.

As your hypothetical suggests shoving the kid or not doing so is an operative fact, please explain how so?

Steven

No. You're assuming a statement which you feel is implied when it is not, to subvert the actual point of the hypothetical.

The actual point is to imagine a situation which is the effective opposite of what happens in the video i.e. rather than gaper kid being switch dude's victim, roles are reversed.

The purpose of this is to show that gaper kid's act of side jumping created the conditions for what followed. Please don't head down that "Oh, so you believe he DESERVED to get shoved?!!" road.....doing so would prove your true intent. Regardless of what we believe is right or wrong in our armchair quarterback world, if there was no side jump then there would be no shove.

So look at the wording of the 2nd hypothetical, and we'll take it from there;

"what if he didn't shove the kid, and next lap the kid did it again and some other dude died?"

The first condition "shove the kid" has a negative value, in the context of the hypothetical it did not happen and as such the term is redundant. Given your walls of text, it's ironic that I only put it there to prevent arguments down the path you've chosen (maybe we can print them out and fence the jump line off with 'em, problem solved :)

Since that term is redundant, you can combine it with any number of similarly redundant terms or just get rid of it entirely. What if he didn't give the kid a pleasant informative explanation of park etiquette, what if he didn't give the kid an ice cream cone, what if he didn't give the kid AIDS.....all of these things DID NOT HAPPEN.

When you assumed a statement in which the opposite condition is true, you created a false dilemma by additionally assuming this would mean the opposite result is true. None of this was implied by me, YOU created it.

For the record, you still refuse to answer the question as it was supposed. Yes it is presented as an alternative to what plays out in the video.....is that not the reason for a hypothetical's existence? So drop the redundant expression of what did not happen, and ask yourself;

"what if next lap the kid did it again, and some other dude died?"

Before you accuse me of changing my position, remember I stated my position back there somewhere;

"The outcome don't change the morality of the situation. Kid is at fault, and it's the resort's job to solve the problem."

Battle that one if you still have a problem.....'cos that one I actually wrote.

OldSpiceWhen you use a hypothetical to make a point, you typically assume certain facts. In your second hypothetical you assume that switch dude does not shove the kid and then suggest that "some other dude could die" as a result. In doing so, you are implying that shoving the kid (or failing to do so) may have some impact on the outcome of the hypothetical you presented. I have not made a "non-existent statement of my imagination", it is implicit in your hypothetical. To conclude otherwise would render your hypothetical moot.

I chose to answer your hypothetical with a question and you took offense, preferring instead that I answer your question directly. I questioned your statement and whether shoving the kid would in fact play a role in the outcome. It is a legitimate question directly raised by your hypothetical and one that you have yet to address other than to suggest that I am making a straw man argument here. That is not what a straw man argument is and my question directly utilizes that facts that you present. It is not as you suggest, "a non-existent statement of my imagination". It is in fact, implicit in your hypothetical.

As your hypothetical suggests shoving the kid or not doing so is an operative fact, please explain how so?

Steven

No. You're assuming a statement which you feel is implied when it is not, to subvert the actual point of the hypothetical.

The actual point is to imagine a situation which is the effective opposite of what happens in the video i.e. rather than gaper kid being switch dude's victim, roles are reversed.

The purpose of this is to show that gaper kid's act of side jumping created the conditions for what followed. Please don't head down that "Oh, so you believe he DESERVED to get shoved?!!" road.....doing so would prove your true intent. Regardless of what we believe is right or wrong in our armchair quarterback world, if there was no side jump then there would be no shove.

So look at the wording of the 2nd hypothetical, and we'll take it from there;

"what if he didn't shove the kid, and next lap the kid did it again and some other dude died?"

The first condition "shove the kid" has a negative value, in the context of the hypothetical it did not happen and as such the term is redundant. Given your walls of text, it's ironic that I only put it there to prevent arguments down the path you've chosen (maybe we can print them out and fence the jump line off with 'em, problem solved :)

Since that term is redundant, you can combine it with any number of similarly redundant terms or just get rid of it entirely. What if he didn't give the kid a pleasant informative explanation of park etiquette, what if he didn't give the kid an ice cream cone, what if he didn't give the kid AIDS.....all of these things DID NOT HAPPEN.

When you assumed a statement in which the opposite condition is true, you created a false dilemma by additionally assuming this would mean the opposite result is true. None of this was implied by me, YOU created it.

For the record, you still refuse to answer the question as it was supposed. Yes it is presented as an alternative to what plays out in the video.....is that not the reason for a hypothetical's existence? So drop the redundant expression of what did not happen, and ask yourself;

"what if next lap the kid did it again, and some other dude died?"

Before you accuse me of changing my position, remember I stated my position back there somewhere;

"The outcome don't change the morality of the situation. Kid is at fault, and it's the resort's job to solve the problem."

Battle that one if you still have a problem.....'cos that one I actually wrote.

OldSpiceWhen you use a hypothetical to make a point, you typically assume certain facts. In your second hypothetical you assume that switch dude does not shove the kid and then suggest that "some other dude could die" as a result. In doing so, you are implying that shoving the kid (or failing to do so) may have some impact on the outcome of the hypothetical you presented. I have not made a "non-existent statement of my imagination", it is implicit in your hypothetical. To conclude otherwise would render your hypothetical moot.

I chose to answer your hypothetical with a question and you took offense, preferring instead that I answer your question directly. I questioned your statement and whether shoving the kid would in fact play a role in the outcome. It is a legitimate question directly raised by your hypothetical and one that you have yet to address other than to suggest that I am making a straw man argument here. That is not what a straw man argument is and my question directly utilizes that facts that you present. It is not as you suggest, "a non-existent statement of my imagination". It is in fact, implicit in your hypothetical.

As your hypothetical suggests shoving the kid or not doing so is an operative fact, please explain how so?

Steven

No. You're assuming a statement which you feel is implied when it is not, to subvert the actual point of the hypothetical.

The actual point is to imagine a situation which is the effective opposite of what happens in the video i.e. rather than gaper kid being switch dude's victim, roles are reversed.

The purpose of this is to show that gaper kid's act of side jumping created the conditions for what followed. Please don't head down that "Oh, so you believe he DESERVED to get shoved?!!" road.....doing so would prove your true intent. Regardless of what we believe is right or wrong in our armchair quarterback world, if there was no side jump then there would be no shove.

So look at the wording of the 2nd hypothetical, and we'll take it from there;

"what if he didn't shove the kid, and next lap the kid did it again and some other dude died?"

The first condition "shove the kid" has a negative value, in the context of the hypothetical it did not happen and as such the term is redundant. Given your walls of text, it's ironic that I only put it there to prevent arguments down the path you've chosen (maybe we can print them out and fence the jump line off with 'em, problem solved :)

Since that term is redundant, you can combine it with any number of similarly redundant terms or just get rid of it entirely. What if he didn't give the kid a pleasant informative explanation of park etiquette, what if he didn't give the kid an ice cream cone, what if he didn't give the kid AIDS.....all of these things DID NOT HAPPEN.

When you assumed a statement in which the opposite condition is true, you created a false dilemma by additionally assuming this would mean the opposite result is true. None of this was implied by me, YOU created it.

For the record, you still refuse to answer the question as it was supposed. Yes it is presented as an alternative to what plays out in the video.....is that not the reason for a hypothetical's existence? So drop the redundant expression of what did not happen, and ask yourself;

"what if next lap the kid did it again, and some other dude died?"

Before you accuse me of changing my position, remember I stated my position back there somewhere;

"The outcome don't change the morality of the situation. Kid is at fault, and it's the resort's job to solve the problem."

Battle that one if you still have a problem.....'cos that one I actually wrote.

LOL @ the discussion above. haven't even read one sentence of it but still LOL

Too far down the rabbit hole for me, I give.

Mountain Creek up in northern New Jersey used to require a park pass. You have to take a basic quiz before getting a pass that allows you into the park. I haven't been there in a few years but it definitely helped keep people like that out. Definitely not condoning this child abuse just to be clear

SkierGuyNickY'all must not have snakes like we do at my small hill. It's rediculous how many guys I've seen bail or almost bail due to jerry snakes cutting across jumps/knuckles/landings.

And let's see you yell at the "little kid" and see how that goes. Most likely some drunk asshole dad coming to fight or scream back.

I wouldn't shove a kid like that but when you fear landings in EVERY lap due to jerrys cluelessness, it gets tempting.

I know what you mean. My mountain has the same issues. Riding thru my park is like a minefield of jerrys, just fucking everywhere. I've been mid spin only to come around and see some little fucker cutting right across the landing, I've had good lines ruined, and when I first saw the video I thought "fuck yeah fuck that kid." But after reading other thoughts on it, it's just unnecessary. The guy misses the jump regardless. No need to be a dick. And as for the asshole dad issue, he's really gonna be screaming back if you shove his kid. If you do pull the kid aside to yell at him, or talk to him, you can also explain to the dad how his kid is in the way and endangering people. Assuming the kids okay, yeah the video is funny, and Im sure a lot of us, like Steve Stepp said, felt a certain vengeful gratification at first (just look at my first post, the first reply on this thread lol), but it doesn't take much to get injured, and no need to send some kid to an emergency room cause you got snaked.

Two season ago I was skiing the park with my son who was 12 at the time. I was waiting to drop the jump line and watched as the guy in front of me gets snaked by a little kid coming in from the side of the landing. Guy tries to avoid the kid mid flight only to wreck himself and still hit the kid. Seconds later the little kid's dad enters the picture and commences screaming at the guy for hitting his kid and said he was going to beat the shit out of him. Seconds later my 12yo confronts dad and explains that his kid was at fault and wasn't even hurt while the guy hitting the jump was still laying on the snow in obvious pain. Little kid's dad next proceeds to challenge my son to a fight and says he will beat the shit out of him as well. I skied up and suggested dad fight me instead since we were closer in age and both adults ( I was probably 10-15 years older). I also told dad that his kid was at fault and he really shouldn't be in the park if he didn't understand the flow. Dad made a good decision and told his kid to stay out of the park as there were to many assholes there :)

Doesn't always end like this but attacking a child is never the right answer.

Callout post was axed ? Too much drama? Or was it considered doxxing? Either way that dude deleted his instagram and the schnuzler or whatever company that sponsors him is furiously deleting angry comments about this on their insta. So many lulz.

For those of you looking to get a little justice out of this, the video was originally posted by the company https://m.facebook.com/schnuezler/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=1 after doing some digging on their Facebook you can easily see a video with their web designer wearing similar clothing https://m.facebook.com/christian.schmid.9275?lst=100003683444953%3A837943113%3A1487962391&pn_ref=about_tab not saying it's him but...

holdenmonkeyCallout post was axed ? Too much drama? Or was it considered doxxing? Either way that dude deleted his instagram and the schnuzler or whatever company that sponsors him is furiously deleting angry comments about this on their insta. So many lulz.

Giving out personal information is frowned upon / against the rules iirc.

TroulisonFor those of you looking to get a little justice out of this, the video was originally posted by the company https://m.facebook.com/schnuezler/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=1 after doing some digging on their Facebook you can easily see a video with their web designer wearing similar clothing https://m.facebook.com/christian.schmid.9275?lst=100003683444953%3A837943113%3A1487962391&pn_ref=about_tab not saying it's him but...

cmon guys please stop this is just unnecessary...

jakeordieNo. You're assuming a statement which you feel is implied when it is not, to subvert the actual point of the hypothetical.

*Gets cancer from a post on NS*

bighomieflock*Gets cancer from a post on NS*

Dude, that just made me spit out my beer! Sorry for my part in taking that whole discussion down the rabbit hole :/

survival of the fittest

OldSpiceYour statement - "What if he didn't shove the kid... and some other dude died"? Implicit in your statement is that "shoving the kid" would make it less likely that "some other dude would die", otherwise, shoving the kid serves no purpose but to be a bully.
Since I fail to see how shoving the kid conveys any message that make it less likely to lead to "some other dude" dying, I see it as nothing more than being a bully. As such, I suggest that talking to the kid made more sense. You obviously disagree but have yet to explain how shoving the kid results in it being less likely that "some other dude dies".

As to your suggestion that "accidents happen" is a weak answer, I think of it more like gravity, you can ignore it but it's still there. If there is little you can do about something you either accept the possibilities or avoid those situations all together. Many years ago, I raced F2000 and Formula Atlantic cars. Sometimes there were accidents. sometimes people got hurt, sometimes people got killed. I have no reason to believe these racing incidents happened on purpose, they were always a tragic accident. Some drivers were better than others. I felt comfortable being wheel to wheel with certain drivers, others, not so much. The only way I knew to avoid the possible consequences was not to race. You pay your money and make your choices.

You accept the fact that the incident portrayed above could happen when you ski the mountain. Look at the terms and conditions of the resort you ski at. There is no "wall" separating the park/jump line and even if there was, a park skier could still inadvertently ski across the line for whatever reason. I never expected a car on a race track to be traveling in the opposite direction but it did happen on occasion when a driver had a big off and his momentum carried him across the track and on to another section. Sometime parts of a car would come off and become projectiles that no helmet could ever protect you from. It happens and you accept that possibility when the flag drops. When I fist started racing I was cautioned by another driver to maintain the racing line even if my car was having problems (it was) or move off the course all together. I guess he could have just run me off the track but for whatever reason, he decided to talk to me instead. Weird I know, but I appreciated it.

I'm not being "holier than thou" or "self righteous" as you suggest. Further, I didn't "build a straw man" and assign your name to it. You will probably want to become more familiar with the concept before you next use the term. What I did do was state what I thought was obvious and what you still fail to grasp. Knocking the kid down does nothing to change the possible outcomes and talking to him is far more likely to be effective. It called common sense.

Feel free to respond but I'm done here.

I like you. Keep it up.

-DanI like you. Keep it up.

Hugs :)

still funny tho

http://schnuezler.ch/kontakt/

Let his sponsor know what you think

I've been that pissed, and I've yelled at people; but it's totally unacceptable to lay your hands on someone like that. That skier is the Donald Trump of his terrain park and deserves to have his ass kicked.

Ahhhh so thats why people ski without poles.

I've never seen a video get blown so far out of proportion

bighomieflock*Gets cancer from a post on NS*

Hahahaha

They are both wrong. The kid could have got hurt quite badly if somebody had skied into him. You cant justify this nesseserraly on young people in the park becaus a lot of gapers are not interested in skiing park they just see it as a other hill to ski on. I have crashed into a kid once and it was in no way my fault but all the blame was set on me ans they almost took my pass away for that. Kids should learn how to behave in the park and not go around and do what they want. Im not saying its good to push a kid over like that but its annoying when kids get in the way and atleast for me this happens all the time. So mabey it might be also a good lesson for this kid. Also does anyone actually know what happened before this video just saying mabey the same kid has been doing that the whole day? Anyway try not to push gapers

nelesonThey are both wrong. The kid could have got hurt quite badly if somebody had skied into him. You cant justify this nesseserraly on young people in the park becaus a lot of gapers are not interested in skiing park they just see it as a other hill to ski on. I have crashed into a kid once and it was in no way my fault but all the blame was set on me ans they almost took my pass away for that. Kids should learn how to behave in the park and not go around and do what they want. Im not saying its good to push a kid over like that but its annoying when kids get in the way and atleast for me this happens all the time. So mabey it might be also a good lesson for this kid. Also does anyone actually know what happened before this video just saying mabey the same kid has been doing that the whole day? Anyway try not to push gapers

Just gonna add this guy was stupid and i dont support that kind of stuff in anyway

SteveSteppFor me and like many of you I'm sure, this video is years worth of dormant anger from so many infractions at the hands of gapers manifesting itself in primal and satisfying justice. Admittedly, I did enjoy seeing the kid get shoved, however, I'm sure that feeling emerged as some sort of deep Freudian id complex being sickly gratified by our innate thirst for vengeance.

Moving forward though, that was a surface level emotion and probably an unconscious reaction to the video. I think anyone who watched the video objectively can agree that the park skier was totally out of line by knocking the kid over. Its not even worth arguing whether the skier may/may not have had time to correct himself before hitting the jump, he clearly did. While it sucks to have your line ruined its never a good idea to risk your own safety or someone else's in the name of revenge.

The irony is that gapers who ski in the park are dangerous to themselves and other park skiers. Literally the last thing we want is to make contact with anyone in the park because even a small contact could end up being catastrophic for either or both parties.
This is beautifully ironic: the park skier went out of his way to physically contact that kid. He could have easily miscalculated his attack and seriously injured himself in the process of proving his point. In this case, Jann didnt hurt himself but, on a philosophical level, his attack on the kid is a complete paradox.

I also want to mention my thoughts on right-of-way. I saw other people mention that downhill skier has the right of way even in the terrain park, no exceptions. While the issue is not black and white in the park, i do disagree with that statement.

The uphill skier in a jump line DOES have the right of way, especially when the downhill skier is not using the feature as intended. The uphill skier in a jump line has to focus on navigating the inrun, the jump, trick, and landing. He/she shouldnt be burdened with monitoring extraneous factors and/or skiers in his peripheral. Its the duty of the other skiers in the park to obey these rules and pay attention to the surroundings of the jump. The underlying assumption should be obvious: jumping requires the most speed and concentration and also poses the highest risk factor. Therefore, if you are not the person jumping you should be out of the way and paying attention to the jump area and skiers speeding into the jump.

That being said, its obvious that the little kid clearly didnt know anything about park etiquette and certainly wasnt capable of understanding the complexities of a jump line or the dangers he may have posed to Jann. Its unfair to say that the little kid should have known, and its also unfair to say Jann was justified in shoving him.
Jann's first reaction should not have been to hit the kid. Scream at him, scream at his parents, give him and earful, scare him.... any of those would have been better options to vent your frustrations.

TLDR;

The video was satisfying.
The video was not satisfying.
Jann was wrong and could have hurt himself too.
Uphill skiers in a jumpline have right-of-way
Jann shouldnt have dun that

*Attends one first year psychology lecture*

TRVP_ANGEL*Attends one first year psychology lecture*

** Minored in psychology
Because i needed some easy and light classes to relax the tension while i got my IT computer security degree

SteveStepp** Minored in psychology
Because i needed some easy and light classes to relax the tension while i got my IT computer security degree

.

NoImNotaBoarder.

aww what the hell the picture didn't attach.

NoImNotaBoarderaww what the hell the picture didn't attach.

Didn't work that time either. Sorry for the triple post. I'll show myself the door.

Jesus. I've do this like 3 times a season. You guys have gone soft. Nut up pussies. Life's hard. Big deal.

He was in the right for sure, if he hadn't seen him he wouldve ran right into him

Seriously... 2 issues here.

1. Pushing the kid. So unjustifiable. Disrespectful and could cause injury, but if you've ever fallen on snow watching someone fall down a gentle slope like that, highly unlikely to a bruise. I'm not trying to belittle the incident, but to the other comments here, dont blow things out of proportion. In no way is this assault in the terms of felony or misdemeanor violence. Yes, it is a form of physical and, for you snowflakes out there, emotional agression that should be punished or repremended by the resort.

2. Every terrain park in the U.S has strict rules at the top of the roped off park. You agree by entering to respect the feature and it's difficulty. If you aren't going to complete it the way it is design, stay away from the feature completely. If you disagree with any part of this maybe it is time you read about terrain park safety. Google it!