[Scirra_Tom]

I assume you think it'd be awful if it happened to a child because even if they knew they were not meant to, they won't be fully understanding of the potential tragedy & suffering it would cause.

Why can't we extend that sympathy to adults who also might not been fully aware of the consequences as well?

[mikestew]

Adults that are capable of rudimentary reading are made aware of the consequences. There are signs all over that list the consequences of pissing in the town well, a list which ends in "...or death". We collectively told you to not do $STUPID_THING_THAT_COULD_END_IN_DEATH, and you did it anyway because you think you have a special exemption, and don't give a second thought to trashing the commons. I'm not saying that the punishment should be death, but it doesn't sadden me if that's how it turns out. If they weren't killed by the sulphuric pools, a bison, or a bear, it would have been something else that involves someone holding their beer.

[omginternets]

The phrase "they ought to have known better" comes to mind.

... as does "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

[Scirra_Tom]

Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.

Death for someone attempting to seek escape and joy in their life seems like an excessive punishment - mockery isn't necessary.

I feel terrible for what happened in this instance, but there have been a handful of moments in my life where looking back I suppose they could of also ended similarly. Don't regret them in the slightest though - they enriched my entire life.

It was only a few weeks ago people were celebrating Amazon's philosophy of if a mistake is made, it's never the individuals fault it's the systems fault. Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?

[khedoros1]

> Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.

Sure. But part of the reason for that is that those actions are risks.

> seems like an excessive punishment

I didn't see any kind of punishment in the story. I saw a consequence for an action. He didn't die because he broke the rules. He died because he made a fatal mistake by slipping into a hot, acidic pool.

> I feel terrible for what happened in this instance

I feel sorry for the people that he hurt as an indirect result of his actions, but not for the guy himself.

> it's never the individuals fault it's the systems fault. Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?

I strongly disagree with Amazon's philosophy, in that case. From what I've heard, there are many, many posted warnings, marked trails, and rangers patrolling to educate people. The park's almost 9,000 km^2. At some point, you've got to consider that a best effort was made to provide guidance for safety, and anything that happens as a result of going against that guidance is on whoever did it. He died because he did something stupid, not because the signs/rangers/trails/his 2nd grade teacher didn't stop him.

[lazyasciiart]

> It was only a few weeks ago people were celebrating Amazon's philosophy of if a mistake is made, it's never the individuals fault it's the systems fault. Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?

It has been established in court that the National Parks System is not required to make National Parks safe (families of dead tourists suing for more fences and safety rails and so on) because an intrinsic part of the value of the parks is exposure to nature without a glass wall in front of it. A few people dying horribly is a price the rest of us are willing to pay for that value.

[0xfeba]

> Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.

I agree. But some people lack the ability to judge the risk/reward ratio. For those people, we have signs--which unfortunately treats all risky behaviour the same.

> Could we not also perhaps apply this philosophy to safety notices/warnings/education in this tragedy?

There's a whole industry for that. For example, GM/Ford have dashboard cutouts they use for trials against them. They are example dashboards with warnings for every single thing their lawyers could think of. At some point, users just ignore the warnings. Some users never look at any. You can't get everyone to cooperate, accidents are going to happen. The point at which users ignore warnings, or how they respond to them in general are being actively studied.

[omginternets]

>Breaking the rules/doing something a little risky can lead to some of the most magical moments in your life.

Wholeheartedly agreed, but getting close to an acidic geyser is way beyond "a little risky".

[anigbrowl]

That's why I made the distinction from people who take calculated risks. Death in this case is not a punishment, it's just a consequence. When someone is surrounded by warnings saying 'don't get killed in this very obvious and irreversible way' and still goes ahead I feel fine about mocking such poor choices, for the same reason I laugh every time Wile E. Coyote runs out of cliff.

[prawn]

I think though if you're going to break rules in a national park, you're best off considering your impact on the environment left behind and the others experiencing it with you.

[vacri]

At some point, you have to expect personal responsibility. If there weren't any safety signage at all, then there'd be more sympathy. But when you actively reject safety signage that is there to help you, then you're the one who is rejecting the care of others. In that case, why waste sympathy on those people who took those risks and rejected the a priori help?

This isn't a complex sociopolitical scene like an underclass of drug-users trying to escape from their hellish reality, where cause and effect are hard to disentangle. It's people on holiday assuming that they're special and the safety signage doesn't apply to them. It's pretty straight-forward.

[Baeocystin]

I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that part of the problem is over-encompassing safety rules in general, to the point that so many can be safely ignored (hello, Prop 65 in California) that it leaves people numb to the fact that some are real.

I am not sure how far I would take that line of thought, but I do think there's something to it.

[anigbrowl]

I agree that wrapping everything in safety warnings is no more effective than doing without them and expecting everyone to rely on some unspecified common sense.