Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
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.
RICK_ROSSthis kid needs to be shamed, his sponsors should drop him. no excuses for this kind of behavior, ever.
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.
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.
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
jjdsteezeLOL that must be you in the video
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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...
jakeordieNo. You're assuming a statement which you feel is implied when it is not, to subvert the actual point of the hypothetical.
bighomieflock*Gets cancer from a post on NS*
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.
-DanI like you. Keep it up.
bighomieflock*Gets cancer from a post on NS*
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
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
TRVP_ANGEL*Attends one first year psychology lecture*
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.
NoImNotaBoarderaww what the hell the picture didn't attach.