If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TMZ)   Bam Margera to Roger Ebert in response to Ebert's Twitter comments regarding Ryan Dunn, "Millions of people are crying right now, shut your fat f**king mouth". Oh snap, the Jackass-Ebert Twitter war has begun   (tmz.com) divider line 701
    More: Followup, Bam Margera, Jackass-Ebert Twitter, Roger Ebert, ebert, Furious, TMZ, Twitter, Film criticism  
•       •       •

23595 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Jun 2011 at 9:15 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



701 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-21 03:50:34 PM
shiz
 
2011-06-21 03:51:23 PM

doubled99: The BAC limit is not subjective in any sense of the word.


Do some research before you make patently false statements.


No, he's right. It's a number, that's very objective. What that number means in the real world is another thing entirely.
 
2011-06-21 03:52:18 PM

Mishno: doubled99: The BAC limit is not subjective in any sense of the word.


Do some research before you make patently false statements.

No, he's right. It's a number, that's very objective. What that number means in the real world is another thing entirely.



I stated exactly that many, many posts ago.
 
2011-06-21 03:56:56 PM

browneye: Life's Lesson: When you live like a jackass and die like a jackass, most people will conclude that you were a jackass and they will not feel sorry for you.


Yep!
 
2011-06-21 04:00:09 PM
Mishno 2011-06-21 03:51:23 PM

doubled99: The BAC limit is not subjective in any sense of the word.


Do some research before you make patently false statements.

No, he's right. It's a number, that's very objective. What that number means in the real world is another thing entirely.




First sentence, dtkids endlessly repeated point, which no one has argued. Moot, if you will.
Second sentence, the point others are trying to make, to no avail.

Good summary.
 
2011-06-21 04:00:19 PM

doubled99: downtownkid



Jesus christ. So even when others point how that you're wrong, you just switch arguments and continue your idiotic rant. It is YOU who does not comprehend the points being made. No one is arguing a number is not a number. What the fark is your point?
Go back to school until you become educated enough to carry on a discussion above the 5th grade level, jackass.



Umm ,yes, I believe he is saying that the same blood alcohol level does not affect all people to the same degree.

Further, all people are not equally competent drivers to start with.

I'm sure at some lower level of BAC, say .08, a typical middle aged person can drive better than the typical 16 yo, or the typical 80 yo. Yet if they were in a crash with either of those two groups, I'm sure it would be my automatically the .08 drivers fault, even though it may not have actually been.

Car and Driver actually did a test, March, 1978 if you can find it, where they drove on a road course, got their best lap time, then repeated after 1 drink, 2 drinks, etc. Their BAC was real high before their lap times increased, or they couldn't stay on the track.

.08 was declared to be law after lobbying primarily by MADD, after they found that drunk driving deaths and or injuries were not improving after increased compliance to the .1 limit. Now they aren't improving with the .08 either, so they want to move the bar lower.

It is all a money making farce, as the the statistics won't improve is a segment of the population, problem drinkers/ alcoholics, continue to drive and F up an .16, .24 and up, with no regard for what the legal limit is. They will be drunk all the time, and drive.

How much money do you think the police make during those overtime party check points?

I'd rather see the police patrol, and look for the problem drinker that is actually really impaired weaving all over the road, and arrest them rather than somebody who happens to have miscalculated and is .08 or .09 and not causing any problems.

And no, I have not ever been pulled over for DUI. I have had my time wasted in many a DUI checkpoint though. It is beyond me how they do not violate the fourth amendment. Judging my the sheeple here, you all are just fine with that.. "Your papers please..."
 
2011-06-21 04:03:13 PM
Not going to read this entire thread but...

... we really don't know how much of a role alcohol played. I have no love for drunk driving (I have one friend who lost his wife and kids to a drunk driver) but in this case he may have been close to or even under the legal limit. Or maybe he was way over. Point is we don't really know.

But driving 100 mph in a 45 sounds like a recipe for disaster while stone sober, let alone even slightly buzzed. Idiot.

I just get frustrated with all the drunk driving hate. Why isn't it "stupid drivers" hate? People are willing to forgive all sorts of dangerous driving as long as the driver is sober. Compare that to rage that ensues if there is a genuine accident that could happen to anyone (i.e. hitting black ice) and *gasp* the driver blew 0.09.

How about we punish everyone who is driving like an idiot regardless of how much they have had to drink? Or is it just that people are too afraid they might be one of those people who fall into the "stupid driver" category? In that case it makes sense why they would want the cops to pull over random people at checkstops instead pulling over people who are actually driving erratically.

/no, I don't drive drunk
//just had a bad experience at a checkstop having to jump through hoops trying to prove I was stone sober - which I was
 
2011-06-21 04:04:28 PM

downtownkid: What circles? My point has remained completely consistent. Just because you don't like my argument doesn't make it incorrect, or circular, or changing. It has not changed in the slightest.


My apologies, got you confused with doubled99.
 
2011-06-21 04:05:06 PM

jfivealive: And of course it doesn't have to make you the greatest risk for it to be a terrible idea. I didn't say it was a bright idea. I was just saying that there can be far greater risks on the road than someone who has had a few beers. It seems to me the people who have a couple drinks get lumped in to same category as the dude who was driving with a bac of .2. Everyone seems to illogically jump on the persecution band wagon for everyone with a certain blood alcohol content. There are many variables in the way alcohol effects a person, which causes every person to act and react differently to the substance. To so simply state that everyone who drinks any amount of alcohol and then drives has now absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, decreased their ability to operate a motor vehicle enough to be a severe risk to anyone they come in contact with on the road, is illogical given all the scientific variables.


The reason driving after drinking is so frowned upon is that, despite the different ways alcohol effects different people, drinking clouds just about everybody's judgment as well as slows reaction time. And good judgment and quick reaction is something I prefer every motorist has--at least while I'm on the road. I don't care if you think alcohol makes you Superman. I don't care if you believe your big strong manly coolness makes you a better driver when under the influence. Sober people (and any bartender worth their job) knows that's just the alcohol talking.

"Bu-bu-but what about the folks who talk on their cell phones, huh?" They're assholes too. Happy? Can we stick with the drunk drivers now?

Nobody's saying you can't have a single drop. In fact, we've come together and established a line of "acceptable" intoxication past which you are deemed unfit to drive. And it's not a very low bar either. You might not agree with the line, but it's still very possible to have a good night out, drink a little bit and be able to drive home with nobody thinking twice about it. Just don't get too drunk that you think it's a good idea to fly 110 miles down a rural road--or any road for that matter.
 
2011-06-21 04:06:44 PM

Pwnzor: dinkalicious: Pwnzor: dinkalicious: oldebayer: I cry for no one killed in a car crash who was (a) driving drunk or (b) not wearing a seatbelt (unless they were hit by someone driving drunk.)

Seriously, what's the deal with not wearing a seatbelt?

So if a loved one was killed in an accident and they weren't wearing a seat belt, then fark 'em, right? They deserved it! Unless the other driver was drunk which somehow makes it okay.

Not really trying to antagonize, just don't understand how that works...

Family member or loved one? I'd be about 40% sad and 60% pissed off at the person for being an idiot. It's all about personal responsibility. If a person chooses to drink and drive knowing the risks involved (and EVERY drinker knows the risks), then it should be no big surprise when Darwin wins.

And if that person takes an innocent out because of drunk driving, it's more like 10% / 90%.


My question is about not wearing a seat belt only. The poster said he cries for no one killed when not wearing a seat belt unless that person was killed by a drunk driver. The math seems funny...

I have a very good friend who's still around only because he was wearing his seat belt. If he had died because he wasn't, I would have been as pissed off at him as if he drove drunk.

You can add motorcyclists who don't wear helmets to the list of fools as well. While drunk drivers have the inconvenience of either waiting out their inebriation or finding another sober driver, those who don't wear seat belts or helmets are not only stupid, but lazy. Even though the tools to increase safety are right there in front of them, they choose to gamble. It's like a blackjack player who tries to be cool by splitting tens instead of sticking with the 20.

To your point though, a guy being killed in a car accident because he chose not to wear his seat belt is an idiot, regardless of the circumstances of the crash, provided he would have survived if his seat belt were fastened. Now, if the survivable crash was caused by a drunk driver hitting an unbuckled driver, then they're both idiots. Lastly, there is a special place in hell for drunk drivers that kill buckled, safe drivers and walk away from the wreck relatively unscathed.


At the risk of coming off like a dick, that doesn't really speak to my point. I understand what a foolhardy behavior is, and that both drinking and driving AND driving without a seatbelt qualify. I was asking oldebayer specifically how a non-belted driver (or passenger) suddenly earns his tears by the magic virtue of being taken out by a drunk driver, when presumably that same driver isn't worth any feeling had they been t-boned by an old fark or a dumb teenager sending text messages.
 
2011-06-21 04:11:41 PM

MrSnrub: How likely? I'm going to say 00% since it didn't happen. That's my only point. Perhaps it was poorly articulated. I understand scorn for those who are driving drunk right now or who will drive drunk in the future, but in a situation like this, where we know the outcome and there is zero chance of anything other than what happened happening, why the extra scorn? Why say that he could have killed someone other than himself and his passenger? He didn't. We know that. I'm just interested in why many in this thread feel a need to lump on extra scorn. I personally don't understand it.


How about the fact that it's been reported Dunn already had a previous DUI?
 
2011-06-21 04:11:46 PM

phedex: trappedspirit: phed

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the completely charred remains is what made me think there might not be any you know, actual flesh left to examine?


They may have to use a turkey baster, but I doubt there was enough heat/time for a complete cremation. I guess that would be a reverse turkey baster.
 
2011-06-21 04:16:17 PM

jst3p: downtownkid: What circles? My point has remained completely consistent. Just because you don't like my argument doesn't make it incorrect, or circular, or changing. It has not changed in the slightest.

My apologies, got you confused with doubled99.


Cheers.
 
2011-06-21 04:20:57 PM

The Great EZE: The reason driving after drinking is so frowned upon is that, despite the different ways alcohol effects different people, drinking clouds just about everybody's judgment as well as slows reaction time. And good judgment and quick reaction is something I prefer every motorist has--at least while I'm on the road. I don't care if you think alcohol makes you Superman. I don't care if you believe your big strong manly coolness makes you a better driver when under the influence. Sober people (and any bartender worth their job) knows that's just the alcohol talking.

"Bu-bu-but what about the folks who talk on their cell phones, huh?" They're assholes too. Happy? Can we stick with the drunk drivers now?

Nobody's saying you can't have a single drop. In fact, we've come together and established a line of "acceptable" intoxication past which you are deemed unfit to drive. And it's not a very low bar either. You might not agree with the line, but it's still very possible to have a good night out, drink a little bit and be able to drive home with nobody thinking twice about it. Just don't get too drunk that you think it's a good idea to fly 110 miles down a rural road--or any road for that matter.


Ok, i understand where you're coming from. For arguments sake, lets agree that alcohol does in fact impair, everyone's judgment who consumes it. So I hope you agree that everyone does not have equal judgment. Now lets assign mathematical values to measure someone's judgment. Lets say Michael, who has superb judgment at a value of 98, has 6 drinks over a 3 hour period. Michael decides to drive to the store to pick up a pack of smokes. Having a bac of .08 impairs his judgment by 20%. Now Michael has a judgment value of closer to 80. John is also driving to the store, he makes very poor judgments. He has a judgment value of 75. Even under the influence of 6 drinks over 3 hours, Michael makes better judgments than John.

These numbers are obviously just random and pulled out to explain and express a point. But I think you can see how people have varying degrees of abilities, and just because someone consumes alcohol and decides to drive, does not necessarily make them more of a risk than others.
 
2011-06-21 04:24:07 PM
Not to change the subject,

www.traileraddict.com

but this was a pretty good film.

/If only I could somehow tie it in to the death of Ryan Dunn. But I can't think how.

blogs.suntimes.com
 
2011-06-21 04:33:51 PM

jfivealive: These numbers are obviously just random and pulled out to explain and express a point. But I think you can see how people have varying degrees of abilities, and just because someone consumes alcohol and decides to drive, does not necessarily make them more of a risk than others.


Well heck, there's a point after work when my thoughts are still tied up in problems and what I need to take care of after work that a couple of beers get me chilled enough to be able to focus my full attention on the road. How I always end up downing 4 before I get home is beyond justification.
 
2011-06-21 04:36:43 PM

jfivealive: The Great EZE: The reason driving after drinking is so frowned upon is that, despite the different ways alcohol effects different people, drinking clouds just about everybody's judgment as well as slows reaction time. And good judgment and quick reaction is something I prefer every motorist has--at least while I'm on the road. I don't care if you think alcohol makes you Superman. I don't care if you believe your big strong manly coolness makes you a better driver when under the influence. Sober people (and any bartender worth their job) knows that's just the alcohol talking.

"Bu-bu-but what about the folks who talk on their cell phones, huh?" They're assholes too. Happy? Can we stick with the drunk drivers now?

Nobody's saying you can't have a single drop. In fact, we've come together and established a line of "acceptable" intoxication past which you are deemed unfit to drive. And it's not a very low bar either. You might not agree with the line, but it's still very possible to have a good night out, drink a little bit and be able to drive home with nobody thinking twice about it. Just don't get too drunk that you think it's a good idea to fly 110 miles down a rural road--or any road for that matter.

Ok, i understand where you're coming from. For arguments sake, lets agree that alcohol does in fact impair, everyone's judgment who consumes it. So I hope you agree that everyone does not have equal judgment. Now lets assign mathematical values to measure someone's judgment. Lets say Michael, who has superb judgment at a value of 98, has 6 drinks over a 3 hour period. Michael decides to drive to the store to pick up a pack of smokes. Having a bac of .08 impairs his judgment by 20%. Now Michael has a judgment value of closer to 80. John is also driving to the store, he makes very poor judgments. He has a judgment value of 75. Even under the influence of 6 drinks over 3 hours, Michael makes better judgments than John.

These numbers are obviously just random and pulled out to explain and express a point. But I think you can see how people have varying degrees of abilities, and just because someone consumes alcohol and decides to drive, does not necessarily make them more of a risk than others.


I understand, but I would like if we (not necessarily the legal system, but we as a society) minimize whatever factors impair judgment on the road. I'm not calling for straight prohibition, but some understanding that Mike, even with 85 judgment at, like, .06 BAC, is preferable to a Mike with 80 judgment at .08. Of course, a designated driver with an average judgment of 90 is most preferable.

BTW, as rare as your poor driver with 75 judgment sober is, a driver who can blow .08 and still be five points better is just as rare. We're all hovering around the same range, with about the same diminishing effects by about the same amount of alcohol. It's when the average drinker starts thinking he's "special" that he starts making poor decisions and hurting people.
 
2011-06-21 04:39:22 PM
fark drunk drivers and fark drunk driver apologists.


Besides, it doesn't matter if he was legally or physically drunk or not....its all about the optics.
 
2011-06-21 04:50:23 PM

The Great EZE: BTW, as rare as your poor driver with 75 judgment sober is, a driver who can blow .08 and still be five points better is just as rare. We're all hovering around the same range, with about the same diminishing effects by about the same amount of alcohol. It's when the average drinker starts thinking he's "special" that he starts making poor decisions and hurting people.


I'm not sure I'd agree 100% with this. I know from observation that we are not all hovering around the same range as far as ability to use a cell phone and drive at the same time. I'm talking about just talking. I have seen people sitting at red lights on the phone and something in their line of sight triggers a response they thought they had on auto pilot and they start pulling out into the intersection. Only to slam on the breaks and actually wait for a green next time. I've seen vacant stares that looked like a brain fog bank. And I consistently see people that slow down around 5 mph when they are on the phone for no good conscious reason. I once drove a 3 hour interstate trip and was passed by the same woman no less than 5 times. These were the 5 breaks between phone calls as I would pass her when she was taking one. I was using cruise control. I could continue but I don't think we are all wired to give the same level of attention to driving.

I realize I am implying that these two aspects somehow map. And I am without any clinical trials to back it up. I do agree that nearly everyone starts thinking they are the "special one" that can handle themselves and this causes trouble. But I have not seen a level playing field for any skill in the general populace. And if you want to beat me at pool your best chances are when I am sober or any time after that 8th beer. Not in between.
 
2011-06-21 04:56:26 PM
"I don't know who this Bam is... but I wish he died in a fiery ball of pain too."

"I've never watched Jackass, because I'm too busy watching Mastepiece Theater, and wine-tasting at the exclusive gouda cheese event."

"I haven't seen actual reports on his level of intoxication, but fark him in both ears, his passenger is also a guilty sinner, and drunk drivers like Ryan Dunn should be drug into the streets, and drown in urine."


This is what I'm hearing. I'm no drunk driving apologist, and I'm not white knight of the show / celebrities. I also grew up watching Ebert's movie review show with my family. But this is utter madness.

Nothing's obscure on Fark, yet a lot of you are too high brow to know who Bam is, and make more childish comments, and act douchier than he does all the time.

Every other thread is about how "I got my 79 Camaro up to 112mph... this", and "I wouldn't touch that watery beer / scotch.. that". Come to think of it, almost all Fark parties are at a bar... We're 98% drinkers. No one condones drunk driving. No one. Not the trolls in here, and not the Gym in 26 minutes types either. But to castrate a H-List celebrity on a speculation at best, is just bugging the shiat out of me right now. It's too farking easy to sit behind a keyboard semi-anon'ing about how he should be farked in the ass by Hitler in hell, and his friends should all have died too... is too 4chan for me.

If he really was DUI or DWI... Then ok, this is what you basement-dwelling mama's boys/girls come here for; to get your opinion out, loud, and in abundance... but to get your blood-pressure boiling over a speculation / assumption is just a waste. Isn't it?
 
2011-06-21 04:59:57 PM
He was drinking and driving?

Was he driving a shopping cart because I saw that video already.
 
2011-06-21 05:03:18 PM

trappedspirit: The Great EZE: BTW, as rare as your poor driver with 75 judgment sober is, a driver who can blow .08 and still be five points better is just as rare. We're all hovering around the same range, with about the same diminishing effects by about the same amount of alcohol. It's when the average drinker starts thinking he's "special" that he starts making poor decisions and hurting people.

I'm not sure I'd agree 100% with this. I know from observation that we are not all hovering around the same range as far as ability to use a cell phone and drive at the same time. I'm talking about just talking. I have seen people sitting at red lights on the phone and something in their line of sight triggers a response they thought they had on auto pilot and they start pulling out into the intersection. Only to slam on the breaks and actually wait for a green next time. I've seen vacant stares that looked like a brain fog bank. And I consistently see people that slow down around 5 mph when they are on the phone for no good conscious reason. I once drove a 3 hour interstate trip and was passed by the same woman no less than 5 times. These were the 5 breaks between phone calls as I would pass her when she was taking one. I was using cruise control. I could continue but I don't think we are all wired to give the same level of attention to driving.

I realize I am implying that these two aspects somehow map. And I am without any clinical trials to back it up. I do agree that nearly everyone starts thinking they are the "special one" that can handle themselves and this causes trouble. But I have not seen a level playing field for any skill in the general populace. And if you want to beat me at pool your best chances are when I am sober or any time after that 8th beer. Not in between.


We remember the particularly poor drivers because they're so rare. If you think about all the cars you see in your daily goings on, they're driving about a well as you, probably thinking the same things you are. And even the poor drivers you see might just be having a bad day as I'm sure you yourself have had a bad driving day.

We're more or less agreeing at this point and this is just nitpicking. But thinking there are more bad sober drivers than there really are is the first step in overestimating your own driving skills, which is a short trip away from believing you're the "special" drunk driver.

BTW, nobody wants to take away anybody's "between first and eighth beer" range of (roughly) sub-.08 BAC. However, if you're on your 6th, 7th. or 8th beer and your billiards game is "prematurely" off that night, people usually don't die from it. They might get a ball-sized welt on the head, but they won't die.
 
2011-06-21 05:08:27 PM

rukusrazor: Every other thread is about how "I got my 79 Camaro up to 112mph... this", and "I wouldn't touch that watery beer / scotch.. that". Come to think of it, almost all Fark parties are at a bar... We're 98% drinkers. No one condones drunk driving. No one. Not the trolls in here, and not the Gym in 26 minutes types either.


Are you suuuuure? Because there are several people in this thread who are condoning drunk driving--or at least their own, which is worse if you think about it.
 
2011-06-21 05:13:47 PM
Unbelievable. Dunn kills his friend. A guy who had done 4 tours of Iraq and was a war veteran. And people are defending Dunn? Sorry, but no sympathy here.

It's NOT a dick move by Roger Ebert. He is completely right. FRIENDS (you know, the real kind of friends) do NOT let jackasses drive drunk. Not only did Dunn kill his buddy, he could have taken out a few more people with him.

So, please, spare me the farking bullshiat. While it's sad that Ryan Dunn killed himself, it's criminal that he killed his friend. He would have been charged with vehicular homicide had he lived.
 
2011-06-21 05:15:47 PM
 
2011-06-21 05:15:48 PM

trappedspirit: Well heck, there's a point after work when my thoughts are still tied up in problems and what I need to take care of after work that a couple of beers get me chilled enough to be able to focus my full attention on the road. How I always end up downing 4 before I get home is beyond justification.


This is one of the variables I'm talking about. Someone who is highly stressed or anxious can be preoccupied within their own brain so much that a depressant can actually assist in increased attention span and focus thus having a direct positive effect on judgment. People are so different, that lumping everyone into static variable that defines impaired judgment from alcohol can not yield accurate results.

The Great EZE: I understand, but I would like if we (not necessarily the legal system, but we as a society) minimize whatever factors impair judgment on the road. I'm not calling for straight prohibition, but some understanding that Mike, even with 85 judgment at, like, .06 BAC, is preferable to a Mike with 80 judgment at .08. Of course, a designated driver with an average judgment of 90 is most preferable.


I agree. It's defining that standard as generalized measurement across the board for all people is what I do not agree with. That is simply because the body chemistry of humans do have extremely varied ranges. The makeup of the human body is so complex that it can produce a seemingly infinite number of possibilities. This is where it becomes conflicting with law since law is supposed to be black and white. Since the law defines a measurement of a .08 bac level to be considered driving under the influence, then technically if an officer gives you a breathalyzer and you hit that mark, you have to be charged. i would opt more for a range in which someone could be charged and the judgment of the officer decide whether that person is an increased risk or not. However that brings up the problem of police officer judgment, and even though i do believe that police officers often have a little too much power and some abuse that, I think it seems a little bit more logical to approach possible DUIs in that manner.

The main problem I see in this thread is so many people just condemning anyone who drinks and drives without knowing or fully understanding the effects of alcohol on individuals and just spouting off MADD rhetoric and what ifs.

/Quite surprised to actually have a real discussion with differing opinions on Fark and it not be a pissing match of insults and witty memes
//Penis
 
2011-06-21 05:21:01 PM

downtownkid: Ken Tankerus: downtownkid: The process by which the number is decided is subjective. The number is not.

Mmkay...

Here it comes...Here it comes...(whoosh)...Didja miss it?

So your points are that the process of choosing a number is subjective, and the application of the number is subjective. Your logic somehow makes ".08% BAC" itself objective? For that matter, "47.40% BAC" and ".00002% BAC" are pretty objective numbers too, aren't they?

My point is that ".08% BAC" is a number that can't be applied as a threshold of drunkenness across every member of the population. That number was chosen for you by your legislators, signed into law by your governor, and enforced by the courts and the police force. Might as well just say "potato% BAC" for all the good it does removing actually impaired drivers off the roads.

But keep arguing "subjective" versus "objective", though. That's what really matters in this discussion.


No, it's not what ultimately matters. It is, however, the subject we are discussing. I was pointing out how poorly OP makes his argument. Your choice to argue a larger point does not make me wrong.

Tell me, yes or no: is BAC subjective? The scientific measurement of amount of alcohol in someone's blood, is that subjective?



Apparently that "whoosh" was the sound of you running away like a little beyotch.

Protip: don't condescend when the potential exists that YOU are the asshole who is wrong. But you already learned that lesson, didn't you?
 
2011-06-21 05:22:08 PM

BunkyBrewman: Unbelievable. Dunn kills his friend. A guy who had done 4 tours of Iraq and was a war veteran. And people are defending Dunn? Sorry, but no sympathy here.

It's NOT a dick move by Roger Ebert. He is completely right. FRIENDS (you know, the real kind of friends) do NOT let jackasses drive drunk. Not only did Dunn kill his buddy, he could have taken out a few more people with him.

So, please, spare me the farking bullshiat. While it's sad that Ryan Dunn killed himself, it's criminal that he killed his friend. He would have been charged with vehicular homicide had he lived.


I've yet to see anyone defend Dunn's action. His "friend" chose to sit in the car with him, instead of stopping him. War veteran or not, bad move. Bam has nothing to do with Dunn's actions. Both were retarded. Both died. The end.
 
2011-06-21 05:27:41 PM

spacemanjones: This death is almost as shocking as when Jerry Garcia died. Who saw that one coming? A health nut like Jerry and a clean living guy like Dunn gone way before their times.


.....So you are comparing someone who was in a treatment facility trying to get clean and had a heart attack at age 53 to someone at 34 got behind the wheel after drinking and drove his car at over 100mph

Even Anne Frank can see that's farked up logic
 
2011-06-21 05:35:24 PM

theguyinthe$4000suit: Satanicpuppy: crazyeddie: Avon_Barksdale: "In 2005, Dunn was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and entered a first offender's program that allowed him to clear his record after a certain period of good behaviour," said Patrick Carmody, Assistant District Attorney in Chester County.

This is why I fully support very lenient drunk driving laws...

Because 6 years later they might die in a car crash? The level of sanctimonious smugness in this thread is off the charts.

Its easy to spot the drunk drivers in this thread. How long has it been since your conviction?


Hah. Because that's the only reason anyone would ever disagree with you, right? If they were a drunk driver? Because you are perfect, and never make mistakes of any kind, and that's why you think that a first time drunk driving offense that didn't hurt anyone should be punished with...What exactly? Should you kill them? I mean, they're obviously unfit to live, right? And you're fit to judge everyone because you're perfect! Way to go man! Not everyone can be as perfect as you.

/Been driving for 21 years now.
//I've had 1 ticket, and one accident, in which I was rear-ended by a teenager who wasn't paying attention. Ticket was for being in a town where the "yellow" light lasted for approximately .0001 seconds.
///Stereotype much?
 
2011-06-21 05:44:37 PM
Millions of people aren't crying. Bam is FoS.

But let's be honest...show me a person who wouldn't have preferred Bam be in that car instead of the driver.
 
2011-06-21 05:59:55 PM

doubled99: Mishno 2011-06-21 03:51:23 PM

doubled99: The BAC limit is not subjective in any sense of the word.


Do some research before you make patently false statements.

No, he's right. It's a number, that's very objective. What that number means in the real world is another thing entirely.



First sentence, dtkids endlessly repeated point, which no one has argued. Moot, if you will.
Second sentence, the point others are trying to make, to no avail.

Good summary.



doubled99: Even the supposed BAC "limit" is subjective depending on the officer and whether an accident is involved.


I believe that is where YOU argued the point, and were demonstrably wrong. Christ are you an imbecile.
 
2011-06-21 06:07:59 PM
130 miles per hour

That's the speed reported by the local Fox news here in Philly. (and if Fox says it, must be true)

But.. FARK, 130 in a 45mph speed zone? Wow
 
2011-06-21 06:09:54 PM

MikeyistheDevil: The true tragedy is that his car wasn't loaded up with Bam, Knoxville, Steve-O, and any other dickwad that was associated with that ignorance.


What's more ignorant: A group of young men who play pranks and jokes on each other as a means to make millions of dollars -

Or the internet poster who wishes them all dead for doing it?

You actually wish that more of them were dead right now? More grieving families and fatherless kids?

You truly must be a miserable human being.
 
2011-06-21 06:21:55 PM
I suspect, but have no proof, that perhaps Mr. Margera's anger at Ebert might stem from the fact that his friend died so close to the bar that Mr. Margera owns.

www.dailyhaiku.com
 
2011-06-21 06:22:58 PM

BunkyBrewman: Unbelievable. Dunn kills his friend. A guy who had done 4 tours of Iraq and was a war veteran. And people are defending Dunn? Sorry, but no sympathy here.

It's NOT a dick move by Roger Ebert. He is completely right. FRIENDS (you know, the real kind of friends) do NOT let jackasses drive drunk. Not only did Dunn kill his buddy, he could have taken out a few more people with him.

So, please, spare me the farking bullshiat. While it's sad that Ryan Dunn killed himself, it's criminal that he killed his friend. He would have been charged with vehicular homicide had he lived.


Either his friend was too drunk to think getting in a car with a drunk driver was a good idea or he was sober and an idiot to get in the car with a drunk. If you can't show sympathy for Dunn, you shouldn't make exceptions for his buddy.
 
2011-06-21 06:28:15 PM

MagSeven: BunkyBrewman: Unbelievable. Dunn kills his friend. A guy who had done 4 tours of Iraq and was a war veteran. And people are defending Dunn? Sorry, but no sympathy here.

It's NOT a dick move by Roger Ebert. He is completely right. FRIENDS (you know, the real kind of friends) do NOT let jackasses drive drunk. Not only did Dunn kill his buddy, he could have taken out a few more people with him.

So, please, spare me the farking bullshiat. While it's sad that Ryan Dunn killed himself, it's criminal that he killed his friend. He would have been charged with vehicular homicide had he lived.

Either his friend was too drunk to think getting in a car with a drunk driver was a good idea or he was sober and an idiot to get in the car with a drunk. If you can't show sympathy for Dunn, you shouldn't make exceptions for his buddy.


THIS
 
2011-06-21 06:47:40 PM

BunkyBrewman: It's NOT a dick move by Roger Ebert.


like farking hell. After the whole "video games aren't art" shiat you'd think that prick would have learned to keep what's left of his farking mouth shut.

fark Ebert.
 
2011-06-21 06:57:44 PM

srhp29: Millions of people aren't crying. Bam is FoS.i>

I don't know about crying, but almost 2 million people have now liked his memorial page on facebook. Link (new window)

 
2011-06-21 07:17:47 PM
static.onlinesocialmedia.net
Well Dunn. I think that is a 911.
 
2011-06-21 07:45:09 PM

BunkyBrewman: It's NOT a dick move by Roger Ebert. He is completely right.


He can be both right and a sanctimonious dick at the same time. That's pretty much how Roger always rolls.
 
2011-06-21 07:56:30 PM

Vantango84: I guess everyone in this thread thinks Billy Joel deserves to die?


Well, I can't speak for everyone, but, 'Piano Man' is super-annoying...

/and also that song where he sings 'working too long'll get you a HEART A-TACK-ACK-ACK-ACK-ACK'...
 
2011-06-21 08:09:38 PM

wolvernova: MrEricSir: Dunn killed himself and two other people with his reckless actions.

So we should blame this on Roger Ebert.

Right?

No, but Ebert's remark is very crass (though on par for a sanctimonious prick like him). It would be like if Ebert had dropped dead of a heart attack and Joel Siegel would have tweeted "that's what you get for being a fat f*ck and not losing weight". Except Joel Siegel has more class than Ebert does.


Don't think weight is an issue for Ebert anymore, since he's skinny now. That's kind of a byproduct of not being able to chew.
 
2011-06-21 08:10:25 PM
Truth is not exclusive of dickishness. Ebert knows it was a dick move, but he also knows it's true. Margera probably also feels a lot of guilt and is obviously emotionally raw and not really thinking logically. It's not really a stellar day for any of those people involved.

/I've driven buzzed/drunk a few times before (always at low speeds and short distances, as if that really makes it better) and I would not expect anyone to give me any sympathy if something bad happened because of it. My parents and friends would mourn me, but also curse me for doing something so stupid.
 
2011-06-21 08:35:51 PM
"MILLIONS of people are crying right now"? WTF?

The majority of those people are probably crying about something a bit more serious than that one guy's best friend, who drove drunk, by his own choice.
What a horrible, myopic, hyperbolic statement!
 
2011-06-21 09:06:56 PM

coeyagi: Roxy Monoxide: The irony is Ebert was a jackass for tweeting that.

For speaking the truth? Makes him a farking hero in my book when all the tw@s are posting "RIP Ryan Dunn" on their FB page, Ebert actually has the temerity to call it like it is.


jso2897: Roxy Monoxide: The irony is Ebert was a jackass for tweeting that.

For performing a public service?
The best thing that can be salvaged from this pointless mess is that it can be used to instruct the young, and to inform them that there really isn't anything cool about being an irresponsible asshole.
This man's death should be ridiculed, and his family and friends should be publicly humiliated for having associated with him.
There should be no glory, no respect, and no honor in his death.
Consider it a lesson learned - karma comes around sooner or later.


Well, Ebert very much has a point but his timing was extremely shiatty. His family, friends and co-stars are hurting tremendously. By choosing to do some wordplay, the same day did him in. Sensitivity is key.

/never watched
 
2011-06-21 09:14:29 PM

jso2897: Roxy Monoxide: The irony is Ebert was a jackass for tweeting that.

For performing a public service?
The best thing that can be salvaged from this pointless mess is that it can be used to instruct the young, and to inform them that there really isn't anything cool about being an irresponsible asshole.
This man's death should be ridiculed, and his family and friends should be publicly humiliated for having associated with him.
There should be no glory, no respect, and no honor in his death.
Consider it a lesson learned - karma comes around sooner or later.


Gonna be a biatch when it comes for you.
 
2011-06-21 09:51:22 PM
Bam is such an entitled asshat this underlines exactly why I hate him with the power of a million burning suns. He literally feels that he and his crew of morons are entitled to do things like drive drunk and potentially kill other people because they are just THAT AWESOME and better than other people. Other people and what happens to them should never have to figure int heir decision to do anything.

fark him, fark Ryan Dunn. I'm just glad he only killed himself and the person who willingly got in his car rather than some innocent driver or pedestrian as well. I don't care if he's dead, we should NEVER have sympathy for drunk drivers. I have more sympathy for Jared Loughner because at least he was mentally ill. Even if hypothetically Ryan was alcoholic and unable to stop drinking he was completely able not to get in a car drive. To me that's no different than loading up a gun and firing randomly into a crowd. If you drive that drunk you should be considered an attempted murderer, because it's only luck if it doesn't happen.

So in conclusion, fark Ryan Dunn. He got what he deserved. Bam should be apologizing to every single person that was out driving that night that his friend endangered instead of whining that other people aren't kissing his ass enough, so fark him too, with a giant cactus.

/only slightly bitter
//had a young neighbor who was hit by a drunk driver and killed
 
2011-06-21 09:55:35 PM
Sooo.... is the tree okay?
 
2011-06-21 10:16:37 PM

ambercat: Bam is such an entitled asshat this underlines exactly why I hate him with the power of a million burning suns. He literally feels that he and his crew of morons are entitled to do things like drive drunk and potentially kill other people because they are just THAT AWESOME and better than other people. Other people and what happens to them should never have to figure int heir decision to do anything.

fark him, fark Ryan Dunn. I'm just glad he only killed himself and the person who willingly got in his car rather than some innocent driver or pedestrian as well. I don't care if he's dead, we should NEVER have sympathy for drunk drivers. I have more sympathy for Jared Loughner because at least he was mentally ill. Even if hypothetically Ryan was alcoholic and unable to stop drinking he was completely able not to get in a car drive. To me that's no different than loading up a gun and firing randomly into a crowd. If you drive that drunk you should be considered an attempted murderer, because it's only luck if it doesn't happen.

So in conclusion, fark Ryan Dunn. He got what he deserved. Bam should be apologizing to every single person that was out driving that night that his friend endangered instead of whining that other people aren't kissing his ass enough, so fark him too, with a giant cactus.

/only slightly bitter
//had a young neighbor who was hit by a drunk driver and killed


Explain that bit further. Or was the word "that" a typo?
 
Displayed 50 of 701 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report