Saturday, June 11, 2016

Adrenaline junkie in action

I haven't enough words to describe how pointless, foolish and stupid this seems to me . . . but clearly this guy doesn't feel that way.

I wonder how his parents would feel if he splattered himself all over that archway?  I don't care how amped the adrenaline rush makes him feel . . . it's not worth that cost, or that much pain, to them.



m4 said...

What's it matter? Would you renounce your faith just because your parents disapprove? It's his life, not anybody else's.

JohninMd.(HELP?!??) said...

My main problem is the mountain rescue folks who would have to risk their own lives to go and retrieve this guy's worthless carcass if he MISSED, M4. As some old-time aviators might say, "when they cleaned up the crash site, they found plenty of good, guts and feathers, but no BRAINS....

JohninMd.(HELP?!??) said...


Bibliotheca Servare said...

Seriously? I suspected you were a silly person, but that's just...special. Would I renounce my faith because my parents disapproved? No. Would I reconsider doing something insanely dangerous and pointless if I knew my death in such an endeavor would cause tremendous pain to those I left behind? Well, considering that the dangerous endeavor in question would benefit no one but myself (in the form of an adrenaline rush) I have to say...yeah, I probably would. Danger undertaken in the course of learning something is one thing. That actually serves a useful purpose. Danger undertaken in pursuit of an adrenaline rush is a different matter entirely. In either case, a comparison to religious faith is in no way appropriate or rational. It may cause my parents pain for me to hold a faith they disagree with, but it does not kill me, hyperbolic statements that "you're dead to me!" aside. You sounded less loony when you were indirectly advocating for violent enforcement of universal belief in 56 different sexes/"gender identities"...and that's saying something. Be well.

Old NFO said...

Sooner or later the last thing through his mind is going to be his asshole, and I too feel for the rescue folks that have to go scrape what's left of these idiots off mountains and other things. Hopefully, when he dies, he doesn't take any innocent people with him.

m4 said...

@Bib: Considering that's outright slander, I'm not inclined to enter any sort of reasonable discussion with you. If your argument requires a crude strawman/ad-hominem hybrid, I doubt there's anything in there that actually resembles sense or truth.

Unknown said...

On the bright side, he's biodegradable.
That'll save the rescue folks a lot of work.

Glen said...

Perhaps a new form of skeet shooting is in order.

0007 said...

A while back one of those suicidal idiots did splat in that slot. somewhere there's a utube video where he's yacking away as he starts to shoot-the-curl as it were, then suddenly the sound just stops.

Bibliotheca Servare said...

Rofl. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Have a nice day. By the by, my "argument" had nothing to do with my observation that you made more sense when you were accusing the commenters on this blog of "normalizing violence" and being murderers-in-waiting. That was just a "by the way" addition, free of charge. It's not my fault if you fail to recognize when your rhetoric is implying that the use of state-sanctioned violence to enforce your worldview would be just a *grand* idea. That's on you. But at least it offended you to have it pointed out...that's a good sign. Either way, you really should look up the definitions of "slander" "straw man" and "ad hominem". Here's a hint: If I say "You're a jerk, and you're wrong because A,B,C etc..." That's not an instance of the Aald Hominem fallacy. That's me pointing out you're a jerk, in my opinion, and proceeding to counter your argument. An Ad Hominem fallacy is when my observation of your character *is* my argument against your stance. There's a difference. And it's not slander (or libel, which is what you meant to say) to summarize my interpretation of your statements on an issue. By definition, a statement of opinion *cannot* be libel. But feel free to go on thinking you're absolutely right and I'm a raving (maybe), libelous (definitely not) loon (again, that might be depends on the day...), if it makes you feel better. No skin off my nose. God bless.

Bibliotheca Servare said...

"Aald hominem"? What the...I meant "Ad Hominem". Darn thumbs. Also, go to "" and search for "libel" if you need a confirmation that statements of opinion cannot be considered libelous. Of course that doesn't mean you couldn't *try* to sue over that statement. It just means the caselaw pretty definitively indicates you'll lose, if the court even accepts the suit in the first place.

Unknown said...

I vote to keep the splat there as an ongoing warning to others.

Peter said...

Folks, polite disagreement is fine. Slanging, slandering and name-calling are not - at least, not on this blog. Please keep it civil.

m4 said...

Oh is that so?

Well then.

Your statement that I " advocat[ed] for violent enforcement of universal belief in 56 different sexes/"gender identities" " is your strawman, since that's not what I argued for and you know it; using it to discredit me is your ad hominem, and the claim that I ever said such a thing is libel as per the very link you provided. Namely:

"The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as

a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff."

You wanna try that again?

C. G. R. said...

@m4 & Bibliotheca Servare:
Guys, Petr is right: if you can't keep the discussion at a factual level maybe you should consider some other avenue for solving your disagreement.
As for the wingsuit guy, although I don't think much of his adrenaline addiction I can at least understand him at some level. I'm relatively sure he's going to grow up someday (if he doesn't splat himself over some rock wall first). I remember I've done some stupid (parachute-based) things when I was young (but nothing at this level), but I finally came to my senses before I broke myself to pieces. Things like three bad landings, each followed by moderately long hospital visits tend to adjust your perspective. I hope the guy wakes up without the need for visiting a hospital ward.

Bibliotheca Servare said...

No, I really don't. I've already managed to offend our host, and I'd rather not further test his patience. I will, however, refer you again to popehat. I'm also too fatigued to allow myself to continue feeding the flames of this conversation...there are better, healthier things for me to spend my limited supply of energy on. I did not intend offense, (although I obviously intended to poke at you, I did not intend to produce the reaction my words obviously did produce) I was sincere in my opinion and interpretation of your beliefs and what the ideology fuelling your statements must (in my opinion) have been, but I should not have engaged you in the first place, given my preformed bias against you. I apologize sincerely for my condescending rudeness and patronizing tone, it was entirely inappropriate and unnecessarily inflammatory. I can't really think of anything more to say, except "pax". Peace. God bless you.

Bibliotheca Servare said...

I cannot apologize enough, Mr. Grant. I didn't intend to turn your comment section into a battleground and I let my temper and passionate nature get the best of me. I have written a response to m4 in an attempt to ease the tension...I tried to make it polite and inoffensive. I hope I may continue commenting here in the future, and I will endeavor to get a better grasp on my tongue, or at least a better bridle. Also avoid commenting in the early early morning when I'm half asleep. Yes, that might help, too. *shamefacedly hangs head* Again, mea culpa, and my most heartfelt apologies. God bless you. :-)

Will said...

Considering that our elite forces are seeing some utility with wingsuits, I don't think this sort of action should be considered loony. The only way the utility of these suits improves is with people using them, and working to improve their capabilities.

You could think of them as the equivalent of early motorcycles, or even cars. Pushing the limits is really the only way to attain improvements.

Of course, this is coming from someone who roadraced motorcycles, with my last race in my late 40's. I would still be doing it, if not for the effects of a stroke a few months after that race, and I'm now in my 60's. I really miss racing.

m4 said...

@Bibliotheca: I honestly can't decide if you're mocking me or not, because on the internet it's impossible to tell the difference between high-grade sarcasm and high-grade sincerity (and I am no stranger to the former). In the interests of civility, per my own values and the established values of our host, I'll assume sincerity.

My offence stems from the fact that there are extremist moonbats on my side of the fence and I don't want to be associated with them any more than you want to be associated with the WBC. I did not appreciate your jest as such as we lack a certain familiarity that is required for open insults to not be taken as such (and the venue is inappropriate for such), and because I've recently had a run in with some unpleasant feminist types which has distinctly soured my world view (Peter should know what I mean, though he's not responded in blog or in mail). In turn I apologise for the extremely confrontational response.

You refer me to popehat and I refer you straight back. The quote I posted comes from their listed resources. If there's something more specific you'd like to point me to I'll take a look at it. Otherwise the resources I found there support my standpoint, though I did not specifically go look for conflicting evidence after that.

I reciprocate your offer of truce.

Around the time of my previous response I was still willing to discuss the original point ("Does it matter what x thinks?") but I too am weary. At least it's not some vital issue that shall go forever unresolved.


Bibliotheca Servare said...

For what it's worth, yes, I was, and am, sincere. As for popehat, I can't recommend enough his, and Mr. Randazza's, articles regarding libel suits and so on enough. They're fascinating and entertaining at the same time. As a specific example, the portion you quoted here "...b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff."..." Is an essential element of any libel suit and is extremely difficult to prove, especially with regards to Internet comments and forums etc. I wish I could be more helpful but right now, on my phone, it's kind of difficult to link all the different articles I'm talking about...when I have access to a PC I'll post some links, if Mr. Grant doesn't mind. Peace. :-)

Bibliotheca Servare said...

Sorry, I just remembered! Oh, and the "false statement of fact" thing is very dependent on the context of the disputed statement...unnecessarily inflammatory, flippant, rude summaries of a person's(me) opinion regarding the intent and motives behind the previous statements and actions of the person (you) being addressed are generally not considered statements of fact so much as rude, even assholish, (It's a word...) expressions of opinion regarding that persons (your) character. Now I have a headache. To summarize, I said "...You sounded less loony when you were indirectly advocating for violent enforcement of universal belief in 56 different sexes/"gender identities"..."
As asinine a statement as that was(on my part), it was expressly a statement of opinion. You (universal you) can't divorce the "advocating for violent blah blah blah..." from the "You sounded less loony..." and the "...indirectly..." parts, and those are what make it a statement of opinion, rather than fact. In example, "m4 advocates for *something horrible*" is a statement of fact, though whether it would be actionable libel is dependent on a number of factors including context, the originator of the statement, the medium in/on which the statement was published, whether the judge is feeling grumpy that day, and whether the state in which the suit would be filed has an anti-SLAPP statute that's worth the paper it's written on. Among other factors.
On the other hand "you sounded less loony when you were indirectly advocating for the slaughter of all left-handed guitarists!" is a statement directed at you (which raises the bar for establishing libel. The presence of an audience to witness an argument does not mean that the unpleasant things that were said in the course of the argument are actionable slander) and it is a statement of head is throbbing like a bass drum.
I'll shut up now.
Again, peace. :-)

m4 said...

Thanks, now I have a headache. Damn legal system is, to borrow a phrase from Yahtzee, as twisted and impenetrable as a granite octopus.

Let's see. Tending to harm reputation could probably be argued easily enough just by taking existing comments to show the sort of reputation of the moonbats being associated with and then trying to prove that my reputation isn't quite that bad (heh).

While the "you sounded less loony when _" is opinion through and through, it's only really safe in the form of "You sounded less loony the last time" as then neither part of the statement are "verifiable fact", ie both parts are an arbitrary value that is entirely subjective. However if you say "You sounded less loony when you said X", you then claim me saying X as fact. Even though you're still comparing my being loony now to my being loony another time, you're using me saying X as a reference point, and ... Ugh, law. Basically you're saying I said X. The difference is that calling me loony isn't libel, claiming that I said X (for values of X where X is untrue, and X is damaging to reputation, and X is in a public forum) is.

See also this note from (the resource linked by popehat that I've been using, as I'm not trawling through a blog when than blog provides references):

"A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database")."

And fairly importantly:

"If the meaning conveyed cannot by its nature be proved false, it cannot support a libel claim."

This right here is the nail in the coffin I think, as saying that I said X can be disproved, while me being loony cannot. Making "said X" a verifiable fact (or in his case, a falsehood).

Bleh. You owe me 27p; 1p per brain cell. You break 'em you buy 'em.

Feather Blade said...

Boy has been playing too many video games.

If he hits the wall he'll lose more than a heart and his progress to that point...