PDA

View Full Version : Teen Driver Killed Trying to Save Petrol


zer0systm
08-25-2009, 04:21 AM
A P-plate driver was killed and a passenger "lost half her face" after a plan to save petrol backfired.

The 18-year-old Tasmanian driver — "worried" about fuel — turned his car's engine off and removed the keys from the ignition while coming around a bend on a highway, the Mercury newspaper reports.

But he was unable to steer the car out of the path of an oncoming truck after the steering wheel locked.

Three passengers in his car were severely injured, with one female losing half of her face.

The driver, whose name has been suppressed by the Tasmanian Coroners Court, had only been on his P plates for one month before his death.

Coroner Rod Chandler yesterday released his findings into the crash, which occurred in December 2008 during a drive to Hobart on the Channel Highway at Margate in the state's south east.

He described the driver's act as "ignorant", saying the teenager's death could have been avoided if he knew enough about the vehicle he was driving.

"This crash occurred as a consequence of the deceased deliberately removing the key from the ignition while his car was still in motion," Mr Chandler said.

"As a consequence, the engine disengaged and the steering wheel locked as soon as an attempt was made to steer the vehicle.

"I am satisfied that it occurred in this instance not because the deceased was being foolhardy or irresponsible but rather because of his ignorance of its effect upon his capacity to manage the vehicle."

Mr Chandler said the teenager was coming around a left-hand bend with the engine off when the car skidded across the road and into the path of a Volvo truck.

Mr Chandler said speed and the fact the driver of the truck had minor traces of marijuana in his system had nothing to do with the accident.

"Quite clearly it is an extremely dangerous act to remove a key from a vehicle's ignition whilst it is still in motion," he said.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/854023/teen-driver-killed-trying-to-save-petrol

I facepalmed at the fucking stupidity of the kid...

Azumi
08-25-2009, 04:33 AM
Aww.. It sure did hurt.

zer0systm
08-25-2009, 04:39 AM
yeah, especially for the chick with half a face =/

CamzyD
08-25-2009, 11:04 AM
wow. that was smart

kluang
08-25-2009, 11:12 AM
Just give her a coin and she become Australia's Two face

Kina
08-25-2009, 12:50 PM
Who in the Hell would think that was even a remotely good idea?

Miburo
08-25-2009, 01:46 PM
Mmmm, natural selection.

manta
08-25-2009, 04:40 PM
I love how the coroner says: "I am satisfied that it occurred in this instance not because the deceased was being foolhardy or irresponsible but rather because of his ignorance of its effect upon his capacity to manage the vehicle." Awesome.

LonelyNinja
08-25-2009, 06:23 PM
Mmmm, natural selection.
And so the gene pool becomes stronger.

Scientia
08-25-2009, 06:50 PM
Holy shit. Losing half of your fucking face? Sounds like something from Berserk.


Oh yeah, and that was definitely a stupid way to die. But the idea of it sounds fun. Stop your car in the middle of a highway, try to dodge other cars moving at 60-70 miles per hour.........etc.

Mal
08-25-2009, 08:31 PM
1) His car wasn't stopped.

2) Runways don't have cars on them.

Scientia
08-25-2009, 09:07 PM
1.) "Stopping" your car is the same as turning the engine off.

2.) I meant to say highway. So thanks for the correction.

Miburo
08-25-2009, 09:19 PM
You can't dodge anything if your steering wheel won't turn. Which is what happens when you turn your car off. Which is why this kid is was extra strength stupid.

Mal
08-25-2009, 09:19 PM
So I can cheat the Stop Sign System by simply turning my engine off and rolling on through? BADASS.

Scientia
08-25-2009, 09:31 PM
There's obviously more than one way to use the word stop in this situation.

I was using it in the sense that the car was turned off, it stopped running (not moving, running. As in when something is on, like a fucking engine). I obviously didn't mean putting the brake on your car and stopping it completely. Because right after, I stated "try to dodge cars moving at 60-70 miles per hour." You can't exactly do that if your car isn't moving in the first place.


You can't dodge anything if your steering wheel won't turn.

I know, which is why I only said the original idea of it is fun. But what you just wrote is the main factor as to why I wouldn't do it. Furthermore, with unwilling people in the car. But in the end, it was never his intention to have fun. The person now dead, I mean.

And he wasn't "extra strength stupid" just because he didn't know that the wheel wouldn't turn. It was a stupid decision, yeah. But it doesn't make him completely stupid unless he has been doing shit like that all his life.

"Wow, he didn't know one basic thing. He lacked some basic education on driving and cars. He's so fucking retarded now!"

Oh yeah, and I just have to say this again.

She got half of her face ripped off? God damn.

Miburo
08-25-2009, 10:45 PM
There's obviously more than one way to use the word stop in this situation.

I was using it in the sense that the car was turned off, it stopped running (not moving, running. As in when something is on, like a fucking engine). I obviously didn't mean putting the brake on your car and stopping it completely. Because right after, I stated "try to dodge cars moving at 60-70 miles per hour." You can't exactly do that if your car isn't moving in the first place.

You can't exactly do that if you turn the engine off either...

So no matter how you try to weasel out of it, the statement you made doesn't make sense. You can't stop you car/engine/whatever and dodge.


And he wasn't "extra strength stupid" just because he didn't know that the wheel wouldn't turn. It was a stupid decision, yeah. But it doesn't make him completely stupid unless he has been doing shit like that all his life.

"Wow, he didn't know one basic thing. He lacked some basic education on driving and cars. He's so fucking retarded now!"

Not knowing basic things about an 800lb machine that you travel around in at 60mph, things that could easily get you killed for not knowing, is pretty fucking stupid.

That's like saying someone who put on lead boots and decided to take stroll at the bottom of a lake without an oxygen tank isn't stupid. What? He didn't know he couldn't breathe underwater. No biggie, nothing to call a guy stupid for, amirite?

Also, I said he was stupid. You know, foolish, careless. He was stupid, foolish, careless. Was he not? Of course he was, so it's perfectly justifiable to say so. I didn't say anything about him being completely stupid in every aspect of his life, ever. Brush up on your reading comprehension before trying to call people on shit, slick.

Freshgrease
08-25-2009, 10:57 PM
When in in Tasmania, watch out for Tasmanian devils.

Mal
08-26-2009, 02:28 PM
There's obviously more than one way to use the word stop in this situation.

I was using it in the sense that the car was turned off, it stopped running (not moving, running. As in when something is on, like a fucking engine). I obviously didn't mean putting the brake on your car and stopping it completely. Because right after, I stated "try to dodge cars moving at 60-70 miles per hour." You can't exactly do that if your car isn't moving in the first place.So then he stopped the engine, not the car.

Scientia
08-26-2009, 07:23 PM
You can't exactly do that if you turn the engine off either...

So no matter how you try to weasel out of it, the statement you made doesn't make sense. You can't stop your car/engine/whatever and dodge.
Which is the problem with the fucking plan in the first place. Holy shit. I only said try to dodge it. I never said actually dodge it. My main point was that I couldn't stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible. But while the car is fucking moving still (even with the engine off), I still have a chance to dodge it (it just depends on the direction my car is moving). I'm not trying to weasel out of shit. I know what the fuck I meant when I said something. And I know it made sense when regarding the original action of the kid. Fucking hell tarts.

Not knowing basic things about an 800lb machine that you travel around in at 60mph, things that could easily get you killed for not knowing, is pretty fucking stupid.
Correction. It was only ONE basic thing. Not "basic things."

That's like saying someone who put on lead boots and decided to take a stroll at the bottom of a lake without an oxygen tank isn't stupid. What? He didn't know he couldn't breathe underwater. No biggie, nothing to call a guy stupid for, amirite?
No you aren't. To not know that you cannot breath underwater must mean that person is retarded (or that person received no education in his enitre life). But to not know that the steering wheel locks up after taking the keys out of the ignition really isn't that bad in comparison to the first.

Also, I said he was stupid. You know, foolish, careless. He was stupid, foolish, careless. Was he not? Of course he was, so it's perfectly justifiable to say so. I didn't say anything about him being completely stupid in every aspect of his life, ever. Brush up on your reading comprehension before trying to call people on shit, slick.

.........wow.

In any case, there's a difference between someone doing a stupid act for one time and being stupid in the first place. If you call someone stupid, especially when you use the words "extra strength", that means you are saying he has low intelligence. Low cognition. He has a slow mind. And, maybe he actually does. But from one stupid decision you cannot decide that. Justifiably, at least.
So then he stopped the engine, not the car.

Holy shit. Seriously? This is just dumb ass semantics. Do I really even need to get specific? Do I?

It could mean the same thing both ways. When I say stop a car, it can rightfully mean stop the car from running. Such as the engine. YOU just got it confused. For some reason, you didn't consider the alternative meaning to my statement. Why you didn't, I have no idea. Did you think I didn't read the article? Of course I did. I knew exactly what I was typing. So of course my statement would be corresponding to exactly what the kid did. Since I'm saying the idea would be fun. And that's where I got it from, the article. You underestimated me, thinking I made some kind of mistake. But I didn't. My meaning is there. It's just not a specific one. The engine is part of the car. By stopping the car from running, I am stopping the engine. It can make sense. But you should know that based on logical reasoning. Why would I mean stopping the car from moving? 1.) That isn't what the kid did, and 2.) I would have no chance of dodging. Come on now, Mal.

Mal
08-26-2009, 07:49 PM
I have never heard anyone refer to shutting off/"cutting"/stopping the engine as "stopping the car", and suspect the only kind of people who would are the same people who assume Asians are all the same, and that there is no difference between a donkey and a mule.

Note how I used a donkey and a mule instead of a supercharger and turbocharger, despite the subject being cars. Why? Because I wouldn't expect people to know the difference unless they knew stuff about cars. I do expect people to know the difference between stopping a car and stopping the engine.

Miburo
08-26-2009, 08:37 PM
Which is the problem with the fucking plan in the first place. Holy shit. I only said try to dodge it. I never said actually dodge it. My main point was that I couldn't stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible. But while the car is fucking moving still (even with the engine off), I still have a chance to dodge it (it just depends on the direction my car is moving). I'm not trying to weasel out of shit. I know what the fuck I meant when I said something. And I know it made sense when regarding the original action of the kid. Fucking hell tarts.

Wait, wut? You just said you couldn't "stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible." (And you specifically specified to Mal that you meant stop the engine when you say 'stop the car') And then later in the same paragraph said that it would be possible.

Contradict yourself much? And you wonder why people don't get what the fuck you're talking about? Or why people say you're trying to weasel out of shit when you talk yourself in circles? Wow.

Correction. It was only ONE basic thing. Not "basic things."

Correction: You're wrong, again. Stopping your engine for a few seconds and then starting it again doesn't save gas, as starting your engine consumes about as much gas as idling for a minute. And you can't steer a car while the engine is off and the keys are out of the ignition. Even if he didn't know the latter, he would have been fine since he wouldn't have turned off the engine and taken out the keys in this particular scenario if he had known the former.

Way to try and nitpick, and still fail. Next time try using a bit of logical reasoning before trying to call people on stupid shit.

No you aren't. To not know that you cannot breath underwater must mean that person is retarded (or that person received no education in his enitre life). But to not know that the steering wheel locks up after taking the keys out of the ignition really isn't that bad in comparison to the first.


The analogy is perfectly fine. In both cases a person didn't know something VITAL TO THEM NOT DYING. Hell, I could probably argue that not knowing your car's steering wheel locks when you take the keys out is worse. It's easier to test on your own. I do it accidentally when reaching for something in the other seat sometimes. How would I figure out that I need to breathe to not die? Hold my breath? I'll just pass out and wake up. All I learn directly is that I need to breathe to not pass out. Tape a bag over my head or stay underwater? I'll die and won't learn anything.

Or I could look it up somewhere. Same thing I could do if I was trying to save on gas. If that kid typed "gas saving tips" in a google search he'd know turning his car off wouldn't save gas, since that's exactly what I just typed in to learn that myself (Though, not being an idiot, I already assumed as much.). And he wouldn't have died, just like my hypothetical lead boot guy wouldn't die if he did an ounce of research.

tl;dr=The analogy is fine. And you're stupid.

.........wow.

In any case, there's a difference between someone doing a stupid act for one time and being stupid in the first place. If you call someone stupid, especially when you use the words "extra strength", that means you are saying he has low intelligence. Low cognition. He has a slow mind. And, maybe he actually does. But from one stupid decision you cannot decide that. Justifiably, at least.

Oh, so you're telling me what I meant now? I had to have meant that the person has low intelligence overall? I couldn't have possible been using the definition that I provided which makes a fuckload more sense given the context? No way he was "extra strength" careless, foolish when he did something that got himself killed and seriously injured other people? Saying that doesn't make any sense at all? Completely ridiculous and totally unjustifiable, right?

Get real. You're so bad at the whole logic and reasoning thing. Pathetic wouldn't even be close to describing how horrible you are. It would be absolutely laughable if you really thought you didn't suck at this. Your location is exactly right. You're fucking submerged in the vast, manly seas of reasoning that Mal and I are dumping all over you. Too bad none of it is rubbing off.

If you meant that you engage the study of reasoning whole-heartedly, however, LOLOLOLOLOL. Wow, indeed.

Kina
08-26-2009, 08:45 PM
Just so that other dude knows, your steering locking up is really, really basic car knowledge. Sort of like knowing that if your battery goes dead, you're going to need a jump. I mean, I'm a woman and I know that shit.

Scientia
08-26-2009, 09:35 PM
I have never heard anyone refer to shutting off/"cutting"/stopping the engine as "stopping the car", and suspect the only kind of people who would are the same people who assume Asians are all the same, and that there is no difference between a donkey and a mule.Well I did. And I don't assume Asians are all the same. And I know the difference between a donkey and a mule. Because I learn stuff. What's your point? It doesn't mean what I said was wrong. It still makes sense. And my meaning is still there. If it was said in any other context then I can understand how it was an unclear satement (but that doesn't exclude it from one that makes sense) however, I said it when directly referencing how I thought HIS original action would be fun. So you should have known what I was talking about. Since HIS original action was to take the keys out the ignition. Not to stop the car via brake. And once again, just because it is an uncommon statement, does not mean it doesn't make sense. Making your whole:

"1.) His car wasn't stopped."

wrong. Because it did stop......running, that is. It was turned off while still in motion. I obviously didn't mean that it the car stopped moving. So the only other conclusion would be that the car stopped running. I just left out the whole "running" part. But I didn't say "moving" either. I just said "stop the car." Which can mean any of the two. In normal context it would obviously mean to stop the car from moving. But I already told you why you should assume "running" instead of "moving." Big deal. Let's move on with our lives now.


Wait, wut? You just said you couldn't "stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible." (And you specifically specified to Mal that you meant stop the engine when you say 'stop the car') And then later in the same paragraph said that it would be possible.
Looks like you misunderstand. Or you are just trolling. I really don't give a fuck. I'll explain my logic anyway:

I was explaining to Mal that it would be impossible to dodge a car if I literally stopped the car I was in from moving. Therefore, I wouldn't want to do that as my goal is to dodge it. So, I couldn't possibly have meant that I wanted it to literally stop its motion completely. Instead, I would stop the car, by turning it off (taking the keys out and stopping it from running) yet it still being in motion. Giving me a bit of a chance for the dodge. Get it now? Jesus crap.


Contradict yourself much?
Yes. It's probably my favorite word. But you can almost always find a way to contradict human's actions. That's just how humans are. It's like wanting to die, yet not wanting to. You want to die because you feel pain in this world. Yet at the same time you have physical attachments to it. So you don't want to die. Isn't that a contradiction? Yet, isn't it an okay one? A reasonable one?

Correction: You're wrong, again. Stopping your engine for a few seconds and then starting it again doesn't save gas, as starting your engine consumes about as much gas as idling for a minute. And you can't steer a car while the engine is off and the keys are out of the ignition. Even if he didn't know the latter, he would have been fine since he wouldn't have turned off the engine and taken out the keys in this particular scenario if he had known the former.Okay, then, I was wrong. So two things he didn't know.

Way to try and nitpick, and still fail.I was simply helping to prove my point.

The analogy is perfectly fine. In both cases a person didn't know something VITAL TO THEM NOT DYING.
It isn't the fucking same. Holy shit. You are just sugar coating it to make it sound the same. Observe:

Hell, I could probably argue that not knowing your car's steering wheel locks when you take the keys out is worse. It's easier to test on your own. I do it accidentally when reaching for something in the other seat sometimes. How would I figure out that I need to breathe to not die? Hold my breath? I'll just pass out and wake up.Majority of the time you would let go of your breath before even getting that far. Why is that? Even a retard would do it as well. Why? Well, it's simple. Instinct. You start to feel this incredible pain in your chest, you start to panick. Even without any kind of knowledge you know your body needs the air. You breath air instinctively. Without even thinking about it.

So judging from that, you would know not to go into that situation again (even animals would). Unless you were a psychopath or retarded on high levels (or couldn't feel pain). What probably killed the idiot that walked into the lake was the lead boots. Because I'm sure he would have tried to gone up otherwise, even without the knowledge of needing air to live.

The key/wheel thing however, is not something you can assume upon instinct. All it takes is just one moment where he was not paying attention (basically whenever he learned or came across the info that the steering wheel locks before) and he could have missed that VITAL INFO TO THEM NOT DYING that you so graciously talked about. Does that really make him super strength stupid? Nah. Not on my account. Definitely not a way to accurately judge such a thing.

Oh, so you're telling me what I meant now? I had to have meant that the person has low intelligence overall? I couldn't have possible been using the definition that I provided which makes a fuckload more sense given the context? No way he was "extra strength" careless, foolish when he did something that got himself killed and seriously injured other people? Saying that doesn't make any sense at all? Completely ridiculous and totally unjustifiable, right?
Oh, well sorry for assuming you would use the actual definition for stupid. And FYI: Foolish is too light a word to be interchangable with stupid. Stupid means lacking intelligence. Slow of mind. It can also mean unintelligent or careless decisions. But that simply means the decisions were stupid. That is how you use it in that context. It's not for the person himself. Know the difference. Because, there is one.

lulz.

Get real. You're so bad at the whole logic and reasoning thing. Pathetic wouldn't even be close to describing how horrible you are. It would be absolutely laughable if you really thought you didn't suck at this. Your location is exactly right. You're fucking submerged in the vast, manly seas of reasoning that Mal and I are dumping all over you. Too bad none of it is rubbing off.

If you meant that you engage the study of reasoning whole-heartedly, however, LOLOLOLOLOL. Wow, indeed.

This supposed to make me feel bad or something? Is it supposed to discourage me to keep responding? lol. And I keep telling you I'm crazy, but you just don't want to listen. And this "manly" shit makes me want to puke. It sounds so homoerotic. Not to mention sexist. "Gentlemen," now that's a word I can can understand. The type that love the ladies. And don't treat them like a douche would. Yet still have class and style.

@Kina, it is basic, you are right. He was either very stupid or he just missed the info somehow (aside from stupid being the reason he missed it).

Miburo
08-26-2009, 10:55 PM
Looks like you misunderstand. Or you are just trolling. I really don't give a fuck. I'll explain my logic anyway:

I was explaining to Mal that it would be impossible to dodge a car if I literally stopped the car I was in from moving. Therefore, I wouldn't want to do that as my goal is to dodge it. So, I couldn't possibly have meant that I wanted it to literally stop its motion completely. Instead, I would stop the car, by turning it off (taking the keys out and stopping it from running) yet it still being in motion. Giving me a bit of a chance for the dodge. Get it now? Jesus crap.

I misunderstood nothing. I said you contradicted yourself. You did. No misunderstanding on my part.


Yes. It's probably my favorite word. But you can almost always find a way to contradict human's actions. That's just how humans are. It's like wanting to die, yet not wanting to. You want to die because you feel pain in this world. Yet at the same time you have physical attachments to it. So you don't want to die. Isn't that a contradiction? Yet, isn't it an okay one? A reasonable one?
Okay, then, I was wrong. So two things he didn't know.

I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about your argument. Contradictions in an argument make for a poor argument.

Okay, then, I was wrong.

Apology accepted.

It isn't the fucking same. Holy shit. You are just sugar coating it to make it sound the same. Observe:
Majority of the time you would let go of your breath before even getting that far. Why is that? Even a retard would do it as well. Why? Well, it's simple. Instinct. You start to feel this incredible pain in your chest, you start to panick. Even without any kind of knowledge you know your body needs the air. You breath air instinctively. Without even thinking about it.

So judging from that, you would know not to go into that situation again (even animals would). Unless you were a psychopath or retarded on high levels (or couldn't feel pain). What probably killed the idiot that walked into the lake was the lead boots. Because I'm sure he would have tried to gone up otherwise, even without the knowledge of needing air to live.

The key/wheel thing however, is not something you can assume upon instinct. All it takes is just one moment where he was not paying attention (basically whenever he learned or came across the info that the steering wheel locks before) and he could have missed that VITAL INFO TO THEM NOT DYING that you so graciously talked about. Does that really make him super strength stupid? Nah. Not on my account. Definitely not a way to accurately judge such a thing.


Are you aware of what an analogy even is? Of course they're not exactly the same in every aspect. If they were, they'd be the same damn thing. There would be no analogy.

In both cases, the person is lacking vital basic knowledge that is key to him not dying in a particular scenario. You cannot argue against that fact. They are comparable in that respect, and that the only thing I'm using to compare the two. Making it a perfectly accurate analogy.

Also, what you said is pretty dumb. Breathing is an automated process of the body similar to how your body pumps blood throughout itself. You can manually breathe, but you can't hold your breath and die. You'll pass out and your body will start breathing automatically again. And holding your breath, feeling pain, and then not doing that again is the exact opposite of instinct. It's a learned behavior. No matter what, you cannot logically come to the conclusion that you need to breathe to live based on those factors alone.

Pain =/= death. I could lightly bite down on my thumb until I felt pain all I want and I won't die. Your body craving air doesn't prove that you need to breathe to live either. Withdraw symptoms from various drugs can be extremely violent and painful. If someone quits smoking after doing it for 25 years he's going to be hurting a fuckload, and his body is going to be craving nicotine. Yet he doesn't need to smoke to live. Again, you cannot make a logical argument that you need to breathe to live based on the things you listed alone. Not that any of that even matters in relation to how my analogy is perfectly fine, of course. I just like pointing out how stupid you are.


Oh, well sorry for assuming you would use the actual definition for stupid. And FYI: Foolish is too light a word to be interchangable with stupid. Stupid means lacking intelligence. Slow of mind. It can also mean unintelligent or careless decisions. But that simply means the decisions were stupid. That is how you use it in that context. It's not for the person himself. Know the difference. Because, there is one.

lulz.

I did use the actual definition: acting in an unintelligent or careless mannerhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid

It's an adjective. I used it to describe a noun. So I'm good there. I used the term to describe a person who acted in an unintelligent and careless manner. So at least one definition of the word applies within the context used. I'm good there too. So looks fine to me. Then again, I'm not an idiot. I don't need grammatical lessons from you, of all people, that's for sure. Isn't this like the third time I've had to bust out the online dictionary for you? lulz indeed.


This supposed to make me feel bad or something? Is it supposed to discourage me to keep responding? lol. And I keep telling you I'm crazy, but you just don't want to listen. And this "manly" shit makes me want to puke. It sounds so homoerotic. Not to mention sexist. "Gentlemen," now that's a word I can can understand. The type that love the ladies. And don't treat them like a douche would. Yet still have class and style.

Don't flatter yourself. I don't give a shit about how you feel or what you do. I just call things as they are.

And of course you hate our manliness. You're a pussy. And if I would limit myself to just words you can understand then I wouldn't be able to say much, for obvious reasons to those who aren't stupid.

Mal
08-27-2009, 09:40 AM
Well I did. And I don't assume Asians are all the same. And I know the difference between a donkey and a mule. Because I learn stuff. What's your point? It doesn't mean what I said was wrong. It still makes sense. And my meaning is still there. If it was said in any other context then I can understand how it was an unclear satement (but that doesn't exclude it from one that makes sense) however, I said it when directly referencing how I thought HIS original action would be fun. So you should have known what I was talking about. Since HIS original action was to take the keys out the ignition. Not to stop the car via brake. And once again, just because it is an uncommon statement, does not mean it doesn't make sense. Making your whole:

"1.) His car wasn't stopped."

wrong. Because it did stop......running, that is. It was turned off while still in motion. I obviously didn't mean that it the car stopped moving. So the only other conclusion would be that the car stopped running. I just left out the whole "running" part. But I didn't say "moving" either. I just said "stop the car." Which can mean any of the two. In normal context it would obviously mean to stop the car from moving. But I already told you why you should assume "running" instead of "moving." Big deal. Let's move on with our lives now.If I have to assume anything about your statement, it is plagued by ambiguity that should have been fixed.

This supposed to make me feel bad or something? Is it supposed to discourage me to keep responding? lol. And I keep telling you I'm crazy, but you just don't want to listen. And this "manly" shit makes me want to puke. It sounds so homoerotic. Not to mention sexist. "Gentlemen," now that's a word I can can understand. The type that love the ladies. And don't treat them like a douche would. Yet still have class and style.Why do you assume "manly" and "gentlemanly" are antonymous or mutually exclusive? You can certainly be a faerie "gentleman" without being manly, but it is impossible to be manly without being a chivalric gentleman. Ignorant feminists may try to tell you it's sexist, but chivalry is the peak of manliness. And knife fighting with grizzly bears.

Kina
08-27-2009, 10:22 AM
If I have to assume anything about your statement, it is plagued by ambiguity that should have been fixed.

Why do you assume "manly" and "gentlemanly" are antonymous or mutually exclusive? You can certainly be a faerie "gentleman" without being manly, but it is impossible to be manly without being a chivalric gentleman. Ignorant feminists may try to tell you it's sexist, but chivalry is the peak of manliness. And knife fighting with grizzly bears.
I consider myself an independent, modern woman, but I still think it's so damn nice when a guy opens the door for you. Or feels the need to protect you.

Jaxon
08-28-2009, 02:53 PM
I have never heard anyone refer to shutting off/"cutting"/stopping the engine as "stopping the car", and suspect the only kind of people who would are the same people who assume Asians are all the same, and that there is no difference between a donkey and a mule.

Note how I used a donkey and a mule instead of a supercharger and turbocharger, despite the subject being cars. Why? Because I wouldn't expect people to know the difference unless they knew stuff about cars. I do expect people to know the difference between stopping a car and stopping the engine.

the same people who assume Asians are all the same

Asians are all the same

:cool: Surf's up.

Scientia
09-11-2009, 08:53 PM
I misunderstood nothing. I said you contradicted yourself. You did. No misunderstanding on my part.
I already explained how I didn't.

If you won't understand that then cool for you.

If you can't understand that then still cool for you. You probably have something "wrong" with your ever-so-cognitive brain.

I'm not talking about people. I'm talking about your argument. Contradictions in an argument make for a poor argument.
And I'm talking about how people make contradictions all the time. lol. It wasn't exactly part of the argument. It branched from "contradiction" being my favorite word. But you could always answer the question: "Is it a reasonable one?"

Apology accepted.
I wasn't apologizing.

Are you aware of what an analogy even is? Of course they're not exactly the same in every aspect. If they were, they'd be the same damn thing. There would be no analogy.

In both cases, the person is lacking vital basic knowledge that is key to him not dying in a particular scenario. You cannot argue against that fact. They are comparable in that respect, and that the only thing I'm using to compare the two. Making it a perfectly accurate analogy. I wasn't saying it was not an anology. Yes there is a similarity between the two. But it doesn't prove anything.

What were you trying to prove from the statement? That not calling someone who didn't know about the steering wheel thing stupid is like not calling someone who doesn't know you need to breath air stupid. Yet, when I question this flawed statement, you counteract with saying: "In both cases they didn't know something vital to their survival." And that, proves the similarity.....which proves that it is an analogy. But it was still a simple minded, logically flawed statement. As there is a considerable difference between not knowing that you need air to live and not knowing that a steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that only when using certain breaks? Making it even more plausible that this info could have passed by him without him knowing. Unlike the breathing air thing. What I'm saying is, if you see a teenager who doesn't know that humans need to breath air to live, you have much more of a right to call him stupid than someone who didn't know some basic info on a car. Why is that? Because it is a commonly known fact that you need air to breath. You'd have to really be stupid not to know. And while this lock up thing might be common, it isn't nearly as common as the breathing thing. Not NEARLY. Therefore, Not knowing you need to breath air = More stupid than not knowing that the steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. Definitely wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more stupid. And remember, I was going under the assumption that you were using that definition of stupid. The more harsher one.

pointing out how stupid you are.
Oh, how wrong you are. I simply got sidetracked, that's all.

I did use the actual definition: acting in an unintelligent or careless mannerhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid

It's an adjective. I used it to describe a noun. So I'm good there. I used the term to describe a person who acted in an unintelligent and careless manner. So at least one definition of the word applies within the context used. I'm good there too. So looks fine to me. Then again, I'm not an idiot. I don't need grammatical lessons from you, of all people, that's for sure. Isn't this like the third time I've had to bust out the online dictionary for you? lulz indeed.
Yeah but didn't you use extra strength stupid? Isn't that supposed to apply to the other definition: people with low cognitive processess, and a slow mind? The more harsher one, I would presume.

And yeah, funny how almost all our "arguments" end with a definition.

Don't flatter yourself.
Never have.

And of course you hate our manliness.
I never actually cared. And just because something makes me puke (which I lied about), doesn't mean I psychologically hate it. Though that is the more common case.

You're a pussy. Hmmm. Can't say that I am.
If I have to assume anything about your statement, it is plagued by ambiguity that should have been fixed.
I don't see ambiguity as a plauge. And I already proved why it was more logical to assume my choice of the two right off the bat. As far as I'm concerned ambiguity is like diversity. A sentence that can have different meanings.
Why do you assume "manly" and "gentlemanly" are antonymous or mutually exclusive?
I don't, I'm sure that there are manly men who are also gentlemen. But 9 times out of 10, or maybe 8 times, gentlemen don't fight with grizzly bears. And 9 times out of 10, or maybe 7 times, a manly man, would rather fight, than hang out and please a girl. And from what I've seen from you "manly" trolls, you aren't gentlemen at all. At least not by my standards. Hardy harr harr.
You can certainly be a faerie "gentleman" without being manly, but it is impossible to be manly without being a chivalric gentleman.
That's definitely not true. You can be manly without being a gentleman. I would go further in-depth but we would just be arguing semantics.
I consider myself an independent, modern woman, but I still think it's so damn nice when a guy opens the door for you. Or feels the need to protect you.And I know, then, that there are some girls who would completely hate it.

Miburo
09-11-2009, 11:11 PM
I already explained how I didn't.

If you won't understand that then cool for you.

If you can't understand that then still cool for you. You probably have something "wrong" with your ever-so-cognitive brain.

And I already explained how you did. It here, I'll show you again:

But the idea of it sounds fun. Stop your car in the middle of a highway, try to dodge other cars moving at 60-70 miles per hour.........etc.

1.) "Stopping" your car is the same as turning the engine off.

My main point was that I couldn't stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible. But while the car is fucking moving still (even with the engine off), I still have a chance to dodge it (it just depends on the direction my car is moving). I'm not trying to weasel out of shit. I know what the fuck I meant when I said something. And I know it made sense when regarding the original action of the kid. Fucking hell tarts.

Wait, wut? You just said you couldn't "stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible." (And you specifically specified to Mal that you meant stop the engine when you say 'stop the car') And then later in the same paragraph said that it would be possible.

Contradict yourself much? And you wonder why people don't get what the fuck you're talking about? Or why people say you're trying to weasel out of shit when you talk yourself in circles? Wow.

See that last paragraph in the last quote there? That's what I was talking about. I was perfectly correct. It's not us being incapable of understanding something. It's you sucking at communicating. You go and tell us "Stopping the car = turning the engine off" then in that last quoted post of yours you say "I couldn't STOP THE CAR (Which you, as you can see, stated to mean turning the engine off) and try to dodge as that would be impossible." And in that same paragraph talk about how it is possible to do exactly what you just stated to be impossible.

Now, if you meant "stopping the car" the way Mal was using stop the car as, which is actually stopping the car, then you were using the same phrase to mean two totally different scenarios. Of course we'll get confused, and at no fault of our own. That doesn't mean you didn't contradict yourself though. Because you did no matter what. You can't explain how you didn't, because you did. Only thing you can do is explain that you didn't intentionally do so, or why you mistakenly did, etc. You can't take back the contradiction from happening though. So I was right. You contradicted yourself. Game over.

And I'm talking about how people make contradictions all the time. lol. It wasn't exactly part of the argument. It branched from "contradiction" being my favorite word. But you could always answer the question: "Is it a reasonable one?"

Doesn't matter. All irrelevant. I was right. End.

I wasn't apologizing.

You should. You're unjustifiably calling us tarts and overall being a douche, when we're right. So unless you want to be a little immature baby about it, along with being wrong, you definitely should apologize.


I wasn't saying it was not an anology. Yes there is a similarity between the two. But it doesn't prove anything.

What were you trying to prove from the statement? That not calling someone who didn't know about the steering wheel thing stupid is like not calling someone who doesn't know you need to breath air stupid. Yet, when I question this flawed statement, you counteract with saying: "In both cases they didn't know something vital to their survival." And that, proves the similarity.....which proves that it is an analogy. But it was still a simple minded, logically flawed statement. As there is a considerable difference between not knowing that you need air to live and not knowing that a steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that only when using certain breaks? Making it even more plausible that this info could have passed by him without him knowing. Unlike the breathing air thing. What I'm saying is, if you see a teenager who doesn't know that humans need to breath air to live, you have much more of a right to call him stupid than someone who didn't know some basic info on a car. Why is that? Because it is a commonly known fact that you need air to breath. You'd have to really be stupid not to know. And while this lock up thing might be common, it isn't nearly as common as the breathing thing. Not NEARLY. Therefore, Not knowing you need to breath air = More stupid than not knowing that the steering wheel will lock up after taking out the keys. Definitely wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more stupid. And remember, I was going under the assumption that you were using that definition of stupid. The more harsher one.

This doesn't prove anything. Even if what you're saying is true (Protip: It's not, but it doesn't matter so I won't waste time on it), and one is more stupid than the other, they're both still stupid. To what degree they're stupid would be irrelevant. If you can call one stupid, then you can call the other stupid. Just like if I put my hand in a 200 degree oven I can say it's hot, even though a 1000 degree oven is hotter. And the purpose of my analogy was to show both are stupid, making it an adequate analogy.

And you're even admitting to judging my statement based on a definition I wasn't even using to begin with.

Yeah but didn't you use extra strength stupid? Isn't that supposed to apply to the other definition: people with low cognitive processess, and a slow mind? The more harsher one, I would presume.

Why? One can't be really fucking careless or really fucking unintelligent? You assumed wrong. Again.

You made a poor assumption and tried calling me on shit based off your shit assumption. Even going so far to insult my intelligence and whatnot. You're not only completely wrong, but you were being a douchebag about it as well. You blathered on about gentlemen. How about actually demonstrating some gentlemanly behavior by admitting you were in the wrong and apologizing?

Scientia
09-12-2009, 03:09 PM
And I already explained how you did. Here, I'll show you again: And I already explained how I didn't. Here, I'll do it again:


First of all, before I even get started, there are two ways to interpret "stop your car."


Stop your car in the middle of a highway, try to dodge other cars moving at 60-70 miles per hour.........etc.

In this sentence, of course, I meant:

1.) "Stopping" your car is the same as turning the engine off.

My main point was that I couldn't stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible.
Wow, just wow. Lmao. In that statement, I was referring to why it would be more logical for Mal to assume that stopping your car meant "turning the engine off" in my original sentence. So, let me show you that sentence again:

My main point was that I couldn't stop the car (using Mal's assumption of what I meant) and try to dodge as that would be impossible. Therefore, I wouldn't and couldn't have meant that I was literally stopping the car, by putting "stopping the car in the middle of the road." But I definitely could (and it is more logical to assume thus) have meant that I turned the engine off in the middle of the road (by saying stopping the car in the middle of the road) as the car would still be moving (just losing speed), and I would have a chance of dodging.

Do you understand how I did NOT contradict myself? I was explaining to Mal why I wouldn't have meant that. Becuase using his assumption, stopping the car and dodging would be impossible. But using my "meaning", it IS possible to stop the car and dodge (because stopping the car doesn't mean to literally stop the breaks from moving, it means to stop the car from running, as in turning it off.) Do you see now? I love contradictions period, but because of that most of my contradictions are on purpose. I rarely contradict myself by accident. I know what I was saying. And it made sense.

See that last paragraph in the last quote there? That's what I was talking about. I was perfectly correct. It's not us being incapable of understanding something. It's you sucking at communicating. You go and tell us "Stopping the car = turning the engine off" then in that last quoted post of yours you say "I couldn't STOP THE CAR (Which you, as you can see, stated to mean turning the engine off) and try to dodge as that would be impossible." And in that same paragraph talk about how it is possible to do exactly what you just stated to be impossible. I already explained above.

You should. You're unjustifiably calling us tarts and overall being a douche, when we're right. So unless you want to be a little immature baby about it, along with being wrong, you definitely should apologize.
Even if I did misunderstand you, I don't deem it that much of a misunderstanding enough that I should apologize. And I was just saying "fucking hell tarts." Not calling you all hell tarts. Like when you say, "fucking hell!" when you are mad. I was simple saying a statement because I was "mad." Not calling you tarts. And wasn't I the one defending someone who died? And I'm the douche? Not in my book. And my book is the only one I read.

This doesn't prove anything. Even if what you're saying is true (Protip: It's not, but it doesn't matter so I won't waste time on it), and one is more stupid than the other,
Ridiculous. There's no way that you can argue that now-a-days if someone (mainly a teen) were not to know they need to breath air to live it would be less stupid than someone (mainly a teen) who didn't know about the steering wheel thing. No way in hell. The info would just be too easily accessed. Like I said, that air thing is just a more common fact. To not know it would be way more stupid than to not know the steering wheel locks up. You are more likely to learn it by your parents telling you as you are growing up. Come on, now.

they're both still stupid. To what degree they're stupid would be irrelevant. If you can call one stupid, then you can call the other stupid. Just like if I put my hand in a 200 degree oven I can say it's hot, even though a 1000 degree oven is hotter. And the purpose of my analogy was to show both are stupid, making it an adequate analogy.
I knew you were going to say that, but I thought it would just be : "Both are stupid, and that is the similarity." Anyway, my response would be this:

I thought you meant the other definition, so it is only natural for me to assume the statement was flawed. Because when regarding the other def. the difference between how stupid they are does matter. lol. But it doesn't matter because:

And you're even admitting to judging my statement based on a definition I wasn't even using to begin with.
Yes. Which is why there is not much more for us to argue about.

Why? One can't be really fucking careless or really fucking unintelligent? You assumed wrong. Again.
If he was really fucking unintelligent then most likely he has very low cognitive processes. = The more harsher one. Most likely the same with the really fucking carelessness too (though it could just be that he doesn't care and there isn't anything slow about his cognitive processess).

You made a poor assumption and tried calling me on shit based off your shit assumption.
I was trying to defend the death of this teen. I could care less about "winning" against you.

Even going so far to insult my intelligence and whatnot.
What, because I said there is probably something wrong with you ever-so-cognitive brain? You can still be intelligent and have something wrong with your brain. Look at the Joker. Oh, wait, he isn't real. lol. I'm sure that you can be crazy and intelligent, though.

You're not only completely wrong, but you were being a douchebag about it as well. You blathered on about gentlemen. How about actually demonstrating some gentlemanly behavior by admitting you were in the wrong and apologizing?
There's a problem with that, however. Number one, you supposedly aren't a girl. And two, even if you were, I'm not a gentlemen. I'll admit I made a wrong assumption. But that's all. I'm really not that bad of a guy, like I told sugoi. But that is left up to the individual person to decide (therfore, it'll change per person). So there's no point in arguing about that either. You'll always have your opinion about my personality, and there's no point in me trying to change that. Or rather, I don't think I should be trying to change it.

Miburo
09-12-2009, 04:35 PM
First of all, before I even get started, there are two ways to interpret "stop your car."

No shit (Actually, not really. But you're using two different meanings for the phrase. So for argument's sake, no shit). Thing is, you specified exactly which one you were using. To turn around and use it differently in the same discussion is poor communication skills on your part. I don't see how you're not getting this.


Wow, just wow. Lmao. In that statement, I was referring to why it would be more logical for Mal to assume that stopping your car meant "turning the engine off" in my original sentence. So, let me show you that sentence again:



Do you understand how I did NOT contradict myself? I was explaining to Mal why I wouldn't have meant that. Becuase using his assumption, stopping the car and dodging would be impossible. But using my "meaning", it IS possible to stop the car and dodge (because stopping the car doesn't mean to literally stop the breaks from moving, it means to stop the car from running, as in turning it off.) Do you see now? I love contradictions period, but because of that most of my contradictions are on purpose. I rarely contradict myself by accident. I know what I was saying. And it made sense.
I already explained above.

First off, that quote was a response to me, not Mal. I said:"You can't exactly do that if you turn the engine off either...So no matter how you try to weasel out of it, the statement you made doesn't make sense. You can't stop your car/engine/whatever and dodge."

"That" referring dodging cars with the engine off. The entire quote of yours reads:

Which is the problem with the fucking plan in the first place. Holy shit. I only said try to dodge it. I never said actually dodge it. My main point was that I couldn't stop the car and try to dodge as that would be impossible. But while the car is fucking moving still (even with the engine off), I still have a chance to dodge it (it just depends on the direction my car is moving). I'm not trying to weasel out of shit. I know what the fuck I meant when I said something. And I know it made sense when regarding the original action of the kid. Fucking hell tarts.

"Which was the problem with the fucking plan in the first place." Referring to your original statement of trying to dodge cars after stopping your car. Which you specified to Mal that you mean "stopping the engine" when you said that. So what you're saying in this quote, right here, is that "That's the problem with my original plan. I said TRY to dodge, not actually dodge cars. AS THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. However, it would be POSSIBLE because blah blah." That is how a person with good reading comprehension would read that. Because that is exactly what it says.

If you didn't mean it that way, then okay. Your bad. I understand. But that is what it SAYS. Hence, the contradiction. I'm not saying it was intentional. I'm not saying you're necessarily a fucking moron for that alone. You might have walked away from your keyboard for a bit, came back, and continued typing without realizing exactly what you wrote. I do it sometimes myself. Could all be a simple mistake. All I'm saying there is a contradiction in what you wrote. And there is. Is it really that big of a deal to admit that you slipped up? It doesn't mean anything besides the fact that I was right when I said there's a contradiction. But I'm right about a lot of things. So that isn't a big deal either.

Even if I did misunderstand you, I don't deem it that much of a misunderstanding enough that I should apologize. And I was just saying "fucking hell tarts." Not calling you all hell tarts. Like when you say, "fucking hell!" when you are mad. I was simple saying a statement because I was "mad." Not calling you tarts. And wasn't I the one defending someone who died? And I'm the douche? Not in my book. And my book is the only one I read.

I'd say the constant mocking, lulz........wow type bullshit, questioning my ability to use a word correctly, etc. is apology worthy considering the fact that I wasn't being stupid at all during the entire discussion. You, on the other hand, made poor assumptions and were wrong on at least more than one occasion. If a misunderstanding on my part caused me to act like a dick to someone, I'd definitely apologize considering I'd have no good reason for being a dick at all. But I actually have some moral integrity. So whatever.

Ridiculous. There's no way that you can argue that now-a-days if someone (mainly a teen) were not to know they need to breath air to live it would be less stupid than someone (mainly a teen) who didn't know about the steering wheel thing. No way in hell. The info would just be too easily accessed. Like I said, that air thing is just a more common fact. To not know it would be way more stupid than to not know the steering wheel locks up. You are more likely to learn it by your parents telling you as you are growing up. Come on, now.

I could argue it easily. I don't know why you keep underestimating me. I've proven time and time again that I can back up my arguments quite well against you. If you'll man up and admit I'm right about the other silly things you're trying to argue about already, like the contradiction thing above, then I'll be happy to indulge you further. Until then, I'm not going to waste my time, since it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I knew you were going to say that, but I thought it would just be : "Both are stupid, and that is the similarity." Anyway, my response would be this:

I thought you meant the other definition, so it is only natural for me to assume the statement was flawed. Because when regarding the other def. the difference between how stupid they are does matter. lol. But it doesn't matter because:

Yes. Which is why there is not much more for us to argue about.

A simple "My bad, sorry" would suffice. At least you finally seem to get the purpose of my analogy, anyway. I guess that's a plus.

If he was really fucking unintelligent then most likely he has very low cognitive processes. = The more harsher one. Most likely the same with the really fucking carelessness too (though it could just be that he doesn't care and there isn't anything slow about his cognitive processess).

No. Again, just a very poor assumption on your part. The phrase I used fits perfectly with the definition I supplied. There was no error on my part regarding any word usage.

I was trying to defend the death of this teen. I could care less about "winning" against you.

I didn't say anything about winning, but regardless, you failed on both of those fronts.

What, because I said there is probably something wrong with you ever-so-cognitive brain? You can still be intelligent and have something wrong with your brain. Look at the Joker. Oh, wait, he isn't real. lol. I'm sure that you can be crazy and intelligent, though.

Except there isn't any indication that there is anything wrong with my brain either. As there was nothing presented I couldn't understand, nor was there anything I failed to understand.

There's a problem with that, however. Number one, you supposedly aren't a girl. And two, even if you were, I'm not a gentlemen. I'll admit I made a wrong assumption. But that's all. I'm really not that bad of a guy, like I told sugoi. But that is left up to the individual person to decide (therfore, it'll change per person). So there's no point in arguing about that either. You'll always have your opinion about my personality, and there's no point in me trying to change that. Or rather, I don't think I should be trying to change it.

I don't see how what gender I am has anything to do with being a decent person. If you go so far as to imply another person is wrong, when he made no error and it was you that was mistaken all along, then the courteous thing to do would be to apologize to him. Even though I'm quite the asshole, I'd apologize if I was wrongly accusing someone of being mistaken. Which is exactly what you did here. It has nothing to do with changing someone's opinion. You should want to do it because it's the right thing to do. Is apologizing for being wrong really that big of a deal anyway? I never have a problem with apologizing to someone when I was in the wrong during a discussion. And I'm a pretty prideful dude. What's the big deal? Afraid that I'll gloat about it or something? You've already admitted that you were wrong about multiple things. If I wanted to rub my superior debating skills in your face then I could already do it. Why not just man up already? There's nothing to lose in doing so. You'd only be showing you have some integrity about you.

Scientia
09-14-2009, 07:05 PM
Alrighty then, you win (no need to argue about the water thing).

And sorry.

One more thing though:


"You should want to do it because it is the right thing to do."


I'm not completely oblivious. I'll decide for myself what is morally right and what is morally wrong. lol. Or rather, that there is no such thing. That's what I've decided. Thank you, and have a nice interwebz day, Miburo.

Miburo
09-15-2009, 06:01 AM
Alrighty then, you win (no need to argue about the water thing).

And sorry.

Apology accepted. = )

One more thing though:


"You should want to do it because it is the right thing to do."


I'm not completely oblivious. I'll decide for myself what is morally right and what is morally wrong. lol. Or rather, that there is no such thing. That's what I've decided. Thank you, and have a nice interwebz day, Miburo.

Shut up. Like it matters what you think. Oh, and same to you. /tip hat