OK..this will be my last post here (in this thread)...let me preface it by saying that nothing below here is intended as a last-second sucker punch. I'm just hoping to clarify my stance so I can leave here feeling like I gave it one last shot to explain my position relative to your guys'...and as always, my sentiments here are a matter of personal opinion, not universal truth, so feel free to discard it all as rubbish at your leisure...
As everybody else is saying, the only conclusive thing that can bring any kind of final say to this whole issue of discussion is an autopsy that lists a cause of death. Until then, all our arguments here (for those of us who aren't fence-sitters) are, admittedly, speculation at best.
Why did I argue as I did? How many of you here commenting that I'm wrong are parents and have kids that are four years old? I myself have never been a parent, so again...I can only speculate based on what I've personally seen. What I've seen is that kids four years old have an overly simplistic view of the world, don't know what they want, and still aren't sure how to explain what they want. So the whole argument about the four year old wanting to go on the ride just doesn't hold any water in my opinion. My guess (yes, guess) is that the mother wanted to go and dragged the 4-year-old along. My whole argument is based on this "assumption," which seems the more probable scenario in my opinion and consideration.
Now as some have mentioned, the kid's death could have been some freakish thing similar to the heart failure we've seen joggers and others experience. Unfortunately, if this turns out to be the case, this may not be something that would be easily discernable from an autopsy. So if the cause of death is indeterminate, we're all just left to our imagination or speculation at best...
Now then...others here have commented that 2G's is "nothing." Would you feel similar if you were 4 years old, when your body is still developing including your organs and skeletal structure, and your body hasn't yet been subjected to the wears and tears on it that the rest of us older bodies have gleaned from years of wear and tear? Can you honestly say that G-forces are as harmless to very young people or very old people as they are to those of us somewhere in-between? Isn't that a little presumptuous?
To LeHah:
In my arguments, I try to draw on what others before me have said. If you're saying that I shouldn't have referenced what others have said in my lengthy discertations, then it would seem pointless to have a discussion because peoples' arguments would be completely independent of one another, much like having a forum full of flapping heads and closed ears (or eyes), which seems pointless to me.
As for the "obvious" sarcasm I stated...it's not obvious in that any normal person could clearly see it (though I had hoped such was the case). When I said "obvious," I meant after following my line of logic in the explanation leading up to the point where I said it was "obvious." Hopefully that makes some kind of sense...if not, just shrug, consider me an idiot, and move on. I won't fault you for it, k?
Yes, people don't generally die from motion sickness, though I'm sure there are some examples of that causing an acid build-up in their stomach forcing them to hurl, and then they choke on it. I don't know...if you're really all that curious, you could probably look it up on the internet - there's all kinds of freakish things that happen to people, so I wouldn't be surprised if there's something out there. Honestly, I was referring more to the people with "chest pains," though...which have inevitably led to the untimely demise of others who have not gone onto this ride, which should be considered and examined more closely for safety reasons in some people, I think.
You may be right about people online being "armchair philanthropists"...what's the alternative? None of you are convinced my ideas are even all that worthwhile...why should I commit my life to trying to make them a reality with the kind of opposition I've already faced here? As for the well-being of mankind, you can keep it. I just feel bad when ignorance costs any creature it's life, whether it's a four year old on a ride or a fawn on a major highway. If you can't understand or appreciate that, that's fine. But it's just something quirky about the way I am, so don't fault it or confuse my sensitivity for some fool's crusade I'm launching to save mankind while I'm tucked away in the safety and serenity of my computer chair. While yes, I have tried that...I soon after gave it up when I realized how pointless the endeavor was and when I realized that I'm not a god (in other words, what right do I have to launch said crusade?).
Does it mean I care less about all those lives that are lost that we don't hear about? No. Everytime I hear about something terrible happening, my heart aches even if I'm not close to any of the people affected. It's a sympathetic sadness for what was lost. If the rest of you don't even bat an eye, that's fine. But again - this is just a quirk of the way I am. I care. But again, it doesn't mean I'm launching any crusades over anything. If someone wants or needs my help, they can ask...otherwise, I generally don't dispense any energies for anyone else's betterment - mostly because I'm lazy, but also philosophically because it's not my place to try and be a hero without an invitation to (just because I think something needs to change doesn't give me the right to try and change it, ya know?).
Besides, everyone has their own hardships to endure...making them reliant on someone else's help does a disservice to the existence of the person to conquer their own hardships and build their own character in the process. In essence, we humans are remarkably talented at creating our own hell, and it's up to us to get ourselves out of it on our own. Going the extra mile for the other person is truly a noble act, but it also opens one up to naivety which is then exploited by those looking for continuous free handouts rather than fending for themselves. Granted, some unfortunate souls are truly benign beings who could use a helping hand from time-to-time, but how do you distinguish between the two? Is it so wrong to expect other people to rise to challenges themselves, or should we make the weaker forever dependent on the stronger?
To Quarto:
I am one of these ones who believes parenthood should require a license, yes (that wasn't a joke). In my mind, it's the best way to ensure those brought into this world have the best opportunities to thrive, that they will be looked after, and that they're not used and discarded for the sake of milking the welfare system or some other selfish act. Government intervention should disappear from there, and people should be allowed to raise their children as they see fit provided they have a license. Does this seem radical? Yep...but it will nonetheless become inevitable at some finite point in the future should Earth's population continue to grow world-wide unchecked.
You called me dangerous...I found that a bit laughable, no offense to you or your words (it just made me laugh at what you said and myself a bit). You - and many of the others here - would probably feel better demonizing the things I'm suggesting, considering them to be the words of a completely radical mind, and you're welcome to think that (I'm not here to argue differently). But should the world continue on its present course, I would be curious to see your thoughts on the matter in the years to come.
Why am I not dangerous? First, because I have no power...all I have is the few insane posts I give on these forums (and one other on the Internet which I don't really post in anymore anyway). Second, because people like me are not in the majority. Even if my ideas were truly radical, this world has nothing to fear from me. I'm a peace-loving sort who isn't looking to force my ways on others, and who isn't condemning anyone for not going along with him. Yet, strangely, it is quite the opposite in this conversation which I find interesting...what strange sequence of events landed me in the position of the condemned, I wonder...?
Regarding the issue of warning signs:
These exist ONLY because of legal matters...it's businesses' way of covering their own butts. As such, they are ignored by most people until it comes time for them to try and sue. Common sense dictates that a cup of coffee is hot or that a ride is more violent. The signs are there for anti-litigation purposes. None of my commentary or anyone else's changes such a thing. The point here is that the signs did warn that pregnant women should not ride it...how much of a stretch is it to assume that a four-year old would probably also be wise to avoid it? Four-year-olds should be on merry-go-rounds, slower monorails, etc....not on rides well known for giving people motion sickness (if it's to the point where they have "motion sickness bags," they know there's enough of an issue there with making people ill). That's why it's an issue of parenting here...I can't see it as anything but that transparently the more I think about it. She shouldn't have taken her kid on that ride; common sense would tell a person that it's unsuitable for a 4-year-old. That's why I'm in agreement with "Jesus'" initial sentiments on this topic. If you're not, fine...but I hope you either change your tune when you have kids of your own someday or simply don't have kids for fear of the same thing happening down the pike to you and your progeny.
At any rate...everyone here is entitled to their opinion as they are everywhere else. To me, the whole reason "Jesus" brought this topic up for discussion was to spark a philosophical discussion (call it a "debate" if you want, but I'd rather like to refer to it as a "discussion" which I find to be a bit more intellectually stimulating and enlightening). He gave a link to the article for us all to read through, then had the balls to share his initial opinion. I commend it and value it because I believed it brought up an intriguing discussion, not because I sought a forum to lambast you all with my crazy ideas and antics, or because I saw a bandwagon to jump on.
The strange thing is, there are responses here telling me more or less to shut up, and that I shouldn't post how I feel and what I have to say, or that they're wrong, all the while I'm trying to respect everyone else's ground and am trying to add something to the discussion while others seem instead intent on taking verbal potshots until I grow weary and leave.
And so for the benefit of you and I myself, I have instead chosen to do just that. I've again chosen to take my leave of yet another thread, giving some the satisfaction of having won a forum war I myself have been ignorant of to the very end. I can only apologize to those I've offended or spooked with my commentary. Having felt ousted from two threads now, I think I will instead invest my future energies simply on all those things Wing Commander that are tailored more to personal opinions and experiences than necessarily to philosophical dialogue. Meanwhile, I will do my best to bite my tongue on all things philosophical in the future as I can see the very concept of philosophy tends to rub so many the wrong way.
My last words on this topic will simply echo the sentiment many of you have voiced...I hope you guys are indeed right and I am indeed wrong as that would profoundly simplify matters. As always, only the passage of time will tell for sure.
Alright...I'm leaving. Again, sorry, guys...I meant no offense, nor to stir up any hostilities. I fear I may have come up short on both accounts, and such was never my intention.
Take care...
Respectfully,
FireFalcon ~};^
