Neknomination MOD WARNING FIRST POST

papu · 04-02-2014 12:03AM

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Ok so lets see if you have the same attitude if your son or daughter is the next for a neck nomination and they decide to get one up on their pal and end up doing themselves harm who is to blame your child or the person who you said ah leave them at it it does me no harm thats ok for a good grounded individual like you but to a young impressionable person it could do a lot of harm. Im all for letting people set themselves on fire if they want just dont be incorraging others to join you. I dont drink often either i normally do all the driving i dont want to see drink being banned either but daring someone to do this is stupid. I bet the guy who nominated that man in carlow who died feels on top of the world, dont you.

I don't have any children so im not going to speak about that part. There are dangers all over the place , you can't wrap people up in cotton wool and shield them from all possible dangers and temptations . You give them a moral compass and teach them to be reasonable , sensible and respect themselves. Encouragement or not you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

nxbyveromdwjpg · 04-02-2014 12:03AM

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Ok so lets see if you have the same attitude if your son or daughter is the next for a neck nomination and they decide to get one up on their pal and end up doing themselves harm who is to blame your child or the person who you said ah leave them at it

The child, 100%

(But I don't know why you're using the word child either, they are not children)

SNAKEDOC · 04-02-2014 12:09AM

nm wrote: »

The child, 100%

(But I don't know why you're using the word child either, they are not children)

I didnt say the child i said your child because in the eyes of a parent no matter the age they are your child.

papu · 04-02-2014 12:12AM

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

I didnt say the child i said your child because in the eyes of a parent no matter the age they are your child.

Just because someone's your blood doesnt make them infallible , perfect and exempt from liability. Part of being decent human is to take responsibility for your concious actions. That should hold for any age.

SNAKEDOC · 04-02-2014 12:14AM

papu wrote: »

I don't have any children so im not going to speak about that part. There are dangers all over the place , you can't wrap people up in cotton wool and shield them from all possible dangers and temptations . You give them a moral compass and teach them to be reasonable , sensible and respect themselves. Encouragement or not you can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

Fair enough yea you cant shield people from the world but there are people out there that are causing this by posting the videos still and have no moral compass so to speak and as i said the less sensible youth of today will take the challenge. They are led to the water and they definatly drink. I still believe that if the people in charge of websites just removed those videos then there would be no teptation to tempt fait and be the next victim. At the end of the dY you have teens of all ages on facebook loking at these videos too thinking i can do that and theres no consequences.

papu · 04-02-2014 12:18AM

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Fair enough yea you cant shield people from the world but there are people out there that are causing this by posting the videos still and have no moral compass so to speak and as i said the less sensible youth of today will take the challenge. They are led to the water and they definatly drink. I still believe that if the people in charge of websites just removed those videos then there would be no teptation to tempt fait and be the next victim. At the end of the dY you have teens of all ages on facebook loking at these videos too thinking i can do that and theres no consequences.

Where , in any of the videos , do people mention that the next person do something life threatening , dangerous , or damaging?

cman24687 · 04-02-2014 12:22AM

what you wont hear on any mainstream media source: the neknomination craze was primarily fuelled by sexual competition between men. chicks dig risk takers, the more riskier the stuff you do the more females you attract...had evel kneivel any trouble getting laid by willing groupies for doing silly life risking things??

SNAKEDOC · 04-02-2014 12:47AM

papu wrote: »

Where , in any of the videos , do people mention that the next person do something life threatening , dangerous , or damaging?

The welsh guy eating a ðead chick necking a pint of vodka with a box of eggs in it and snorting creatine powder then saying the rest of you are crap try and do better than that. Yea cus doing that is great for you. Eh two guys are dead papu maybe drinking large amounts of beer in one go is a bit on the dangerous side.

papu · 04-02-2014 12:54AM

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

The welsh guy eating a ðead chick necking a pint of vodka with a box of eggs in it and snorting creatine powder then saying the rest of you are crap try and do better than that. Yea cus doing that is great for you. Eh two guys are dead papu maybe drinking large amounts of beer in one go is a bit on the dangerous side.

Seen that video , he doesn't say that , he doesnt even say anything close to that .
He does all the things you mentioned , nominates someone at the end and says Man the F** up.

I wouldn't be taking him as any kind of a role model anyway.

Smidge · 04-02-2014 01:21AM

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

The welsh guy eating a ðead chick necking a pint of vodka with a box of eggs in it and snorting creatine powder then saying the rest of you are crap try and do better than that. Yea cus doing that is great for you. Eh two guys are dead papu maybe drinking large amounts of beer in one go is a bit on the dangerous side.

That always has and always will be dangerous.
I think this(neknomination)has now turned into some sort of moral/pc high ground.

If you are over 18 and are consuming alcohol, as is your right to do as you a legally an adult, you surely know that drinking neat spirits in large amounts or doing something incredibly stupid(this is not an Amish/Dry country so alcohol is not this "new" thing to them)to impress strangers on the internet then the problems lies not with neknomination, but with that persons thought process, judgement and reasoning. And if they didn't know the above, again not neknominations fault.

My friend works in A&E and can tell me the things that is seen there every single weekend from young people consuming alcohol and doing ridiculous crap that lands their broken bodies in A&E. Have been hearing this for years so nothing to do with neknomination.

Who or what do we blame that on?
Alcohol?
Not in my opinion.
Because for every stupid 18-20 odd year old who goes out, gets hammered and ends up in A&E(or worse)there are their counterparts who go out on Saturday night, get dressed up, have a few drinks, have a dance(maybe get lucky) and go home in one piece.

I'm no fuddy duddy tee totaler btw.
I've had my moments when younger

But on the scale of falling over a kerb, bumps and bruises and the occasional waking up of the next morning thinking "You looked way better when I was drunk"

Everyone, and I mean everyone does(or should by the time they get to drinking age)know what's right and what's wrong.

If they don't, don't blame that on a FB stupid drinking contest.

rubadub · 04-02-2014 09:18AM

foggy_lad wrote: »

This kind of rubbish all started with MTV and their Jackass shows. Entertainment for those with too much free time and not enough sense.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes because no one ever did anything stupid and dangerous for attention prior to the year 2000. :rolleyes:

+1
"truth or dare"

History

The game has existed for centuries, with at least one variant, Questions and Commands, being attested as early as 1712

hatrickpatrick · 04-02-2014 11:01AM

SNAKEDOC wrote: »

Fair enough yea you cant shield people from the world but there are people out there that are causing this by posting the videos still and have no moral compass so to speak and as i said the less sensible youth of today will take the challenge. They are led to the water and they definatly drink. I still believe that if the people in charge of websites just removed those videos then there would be no teptation to tempt fait and be the next victim. At the end of the dY you have teens of all ages on facebook loking at these videos too thinking i can do that and theres no consequences.

What you're arguing for is essentially to baby-proof the internet. That is simply not going to happen, and it would destroy the concept of the internet if it did.
If someone does a silly neknomination without being explicitly told to do something dangerous, the rest of the fad is not responsible for what happens. To use an earlier analogy, if the craze involved doing wheelies on a bike with helmets and someone decided to do one helmetless, does that implicate everyone else who's done it when that person gets hurt?

Nobody explicitly shared a post saying "Rules: Down a drink and then jump into an overflowing river at night." Nobody is directly responsible for what happened except the people who were actually there.

This concept of holding the whole internet responsible for the one time something goes wrong out of thousands where it doesn't is ridiculous. We had this last year with ask.fm - a tiny minority of users can't handle it so therefore everyone should be stopped from using it, even those who enjoy it and have fun on it? That there are tragic incidents associated with it doesn't change the fact that others use it, enjoy it, and don't harm themselves.
If one person gets injured on a roller coaster because they did something like trying to start a mexican wave while it was in motion, should all roller coasters be banned? That is essentially what you're advocating.
The world doesn't work like that.

Unoriginality · 04-02-2014 11:14AM

thecatspjs wrote: »

How are we supposed to expand our empire when all the soldiers are busy drinking their own poo?

With badass soldiers who don't need any rations.
He should get a promotion and a bag of **** to celebrate.

Specialun · 04-02-2014 11:15AM

Even though I think necknomination is completely stupid I dont believe it should be banned. People tend to lean towards mass hysteria when a tragedy happens and look towards blaming the vehicle instead of the driver.The death of those two men is tragic and I feel sorry for the families but lets not forget that these 2 men chose the action..Nobody forced them to go one better..

Unoriginality · 04-02-2014 11:19AM

This whole "Waaaah we must ban X from the internet because my kid died" is pathetic.

Sometimes mentally ill girls kill themselves, rather than looking at mental health we decide to blame "cyberbullying" and bring in bad laws censoring what people can say online.
Sometimes idiot men kill themselves doing some stunt, rather than accepting that some men are genetically disposed to taking stupid risks we decide to ban internet drinking games.

Really though, internet drinking game does not sound like a fun way to spend a night. Kings or battleshots seems like more fun than uploading **** to facebook.

Wossack · 04-02-2014 11:45AM

ban scapegoats

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 04-02-2014 12:19PM

Unoriginality wrote: »

This whole "Waaaah we must ban X from the internet because my kid died" is pathetic.

Sometimes mentally ill girls kill themselves, rather than looking at mental health we decide to blame "cyberbullying" and bring in bad laws censoring what people can say online.
Sometimes idiot men kill themselves doing some stunt, rather than accepting that some men are genetically disposed to taking stupid risks we decide to ban internet drinking games.

Really though, internet drinking game does not sound like a fun way to spend a night. Kings or battleshots seems like more fun than uploading **** to facebook.

some times girls are cyberbullied and the problem is actually genuine, though.

People want to solve these problems? Try and work out the psychology behind it and understand the behaviour from the point of view of the people behaving that way. But that's too much work for most people and bannign it much easier. **** it, they might even get lucky and it might work, but I seriously doubt it.

People aren't stupid or self-righteous - poeple are just plain ****ing lazy.

WellThen? · 04-02-2014 12:23PM

How do you ban somebody drinking 1 pint on camera? I can't deal with how stupid our media and government is. I'm actually embarrassed.

Bob the Builder · 04-02-2014 12:36PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

So much jumping on bandwagons.
On one hand a 19 year old jumping in a car with drink on him and mowing someone down is a wreckless fecker and should be banged up.
On the otherhand the same 19 year jumping in a river/canal/ocean/pit of lava and killing himself is a poor victim of Facebook.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
How come da medja are presenting him as a poor kid who was tempted by the evils of social networking, rather than a legal adult who made a really really stupid and final choice?

Oooh, controversial.

hatrickpatrick · 04-02-2014 12:41PM

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

some times girls are cyberbullied and the problem is actually genuine, though.

No one's denying that, the point is that the Irish solution "Ban the website where the bullying happened!!!!" is absolute bullsh!t and not only fails to address the actual problem, but deprives other users of the same service even though they experienced no problems using it.

It's the same thing with nek nominations - If there are 8,000 of those videos on the internet and only one of them resulted in a horrific tragedy, then people are basically talking about banning something with a harm rate of 0.01%. In other words, 99.99% of nek nominations have not resulted in any tragedies - to talk of actually banning or censoring something based on that is absolutely ludicrous. By that rationale, almost anything could be banned - If we can find neknominations to be the cause of this person's death, is it not analogous to suggest that cars, rather than drivers, are responsible for all car accidents and therefore should also be banned, even for those who can drive them without any problems? I'm sure you'd find the percentage of car crash deaths to total number of cars is far higher than the percentage of deaths to nek nominations!

Defiler Of The Coffin · 04-02-2014 01:08PM

Girl receives death threats after downing a goldfish http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/neknomination-girl-who-swallowed-goldfish-in-video-receives-death-threats-29978666.html

No links to the video yet, sorry

Tasden · 04-02-2014 01:14PM

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Girl receives death threats after downing a goldfish http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/neknomination-girl-who-swallowed-goldfish-in-video-receives-death-threats-29978666.html

No links to the video yet, sorry

"As part of a deadly online drinking craze" :pac:

shruikan2553 · 04-02-2014 01:18PM

Tasden wrote: »

"As part of a deadly online drinking craze" :pac:

If 0.01% makes something deadly then everything is. "After going for a deadly jog in the park with their deadly dog..."

Is it really too much to ask that people over the age of 18 take responsibility for their actions?

Defiler Of The Coffin · 04-02-2014 01:30PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If 0.01% makes something deadly then everything is. "After going for a deadly jog in the park with their deadly dog..."

Is it really too much to ask that people over the age of 18 take responsibility for their actions?

I think it's time MEAS started a new campaign - 'Neck your pint of beer or spirits *RESPONSIBLY*'

rubadub · 04-02-2014 01:34PM

The biggest concern over this whole episode is not the app, but that the fact that we have serving judges who come out with comments like

“If the current internet drinking contest takes hold, it is going to result in a tsunami of homicide and rape prosecutions coming before this court.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/neknomination-risks-tsunami-of-homicide-and-rape-prosecutions-1.1678322

Now THAT is worrying...

CiDeRmAn · 04-02-2014 01:34PM

"shruikan2553 wrote: »

Is it really too much to ask that people over the age of 18 take responsibility for their actions?

Boys and girls over the age of 18 are considered adults and are culpable for any actions they take.
They can drive, go to war, pay tax, have sex, have kids, buy a home and vote, all because we have judged 18 to be a fair age for someone to be capable of taking responsibility for his/her actions.
Yet....
If someone does something really dumb, something that hurts others, maybe a criminal act, they can be tried in an adult court.
But the it seems when the person was "a stand up guy" or "a girl the neighbours knew to be a lovely person" then they seek a scapegoat because people like to think that the kind of sh1t like that, it happens in poor communities, if it happens to us we are, in some way, victims.
Otherwise they'd have to face the truth that morons and scumbags exist at every level.of society and, even if you are kind, suggesting that a death or act was a tragic mistake, it isn't enough, because that means you or yours could do it too.
Reminds me of those scumbags who shook a convicted rapist, convinced it wasn't his fault and that he was maligned in court, that his conviction was false, that it was the girls fault, because the alternative was to acknowledge that idiots and monsters live all around us and they look just like us too.
We have FB to blame now but we've always seen some group as the one corrupting the "impressionable", once it was Fenians, poor people, protestants, unmarried mothers, Jews, strangers, but rarely Uncle Steve or Fr John or even themselves and guess who it typically turned out to be?

CiDeRmAn · 04-02-2014 01:35PM

Sorry, I tend to ramble.....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 04-02-2014 02:10PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No one's denying that, the point is that the Irish solution "Ban the website where the bullying happened!!!!" is absolute bullsh!t and not only fails to address the actual problem, but deprives other users of the same service even though they experienced no problems using it.

It's the same thing with nek nominations - If there are 8,000 of those videos on the internet and only one of them resulted in a horrific tragedy, then people are basically talking about banning something with a harm rate of 0.01%. In other words, 99.99% of nek nominations have not resulted in any tragedies - to talk of actually banning or censoring something based on that is absolutely ludicrous. By that rationale, almost anything could be banned - If we can find neknominations to be the cause of this person's death, is it not analogous to suggest that cars, rather than drivers, are responsible for all car accidents and therefore should also be banned, even for those who can drive them without any problems? I'm sure you'd find the percentage of car crash deaths to total number of cars is far higher than the percentage of deaths to nek nominations!

Sounded a bit like the guy I was replyint to was saying that.

In any case the call to ban the media networks seems to have been labeled the rabble-rouse that it is both here and elsewhere.

04-02-2014 02:27PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What you're arguing for is essentially to baby-proof the internet. That is simply not going to happen, and it would destroy the concept of the internet if it did.
If someone does a silly neknomination without being explicitly told to do something dangerous, the rest of the fad is not responsible for what happens. To use an earlier analogy, if the craze involved doing wheelies on a bike with helmets and someone decided to do one helmetless, does that implicate everyone else who's done it when that person gets hurt?

Nobody explicitly shared a post saying "Rules: Down a drink and then jump into an overflowing river at night." Nobody is directly responsible for what happened except the people who were actually there.

This concept of holding the whole internet responsible for the one time something goes wrong out of thousands where it doesn't is ridiculous. We had this last year with ask.fm - a tiny minority of users can't handle it so therefore everyone should be stopped from using it, even those who enjoy it and have fun on it? That there are tragic incidents associated with it doesn't change the fact that others use it, enjoy it, and don't harm themselves.
If one person gets injured on a roller coaster because they did something like trying to start a mexican wave while it was in motion, should all roller coasters be banned? That is essentially what you're advocating.
The world doesn't work like that.

The internet is pretty much done as far as I'm concerned. The UK government for one could block all mention of the game for vast swathes of internet users at a few minutes' notice. We had a beautiful opportunity but we let it slip through our grasp.

hatrickpatrick · 04-02-2014 03:21PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The internet is pretty much done as far as I'm concerned. The UK government for one could block all mention of the game for vast swathes of internet users at a few minutes' notice. We had a beautiful opportunity but we let it slip through our grasp.

I'd refine that - the UK is pretty much done as far as Internet freedom goes. You can use Tor and i2p bu that still leaves the principle that one can't express certain things under one's own name - that's just the UK. We don't have to allow Ireland to go the same way and I for one am determined to do whatever I can to make sure we don't.

Neknomination ***MOD WARNING FIRST POST***

Comments

Neknomination MOD WARNING FIRST POST