'Jackass' Star Ryan Dunn Dies In Car Crash

[Teljkon]

On 30/06/2011 at 9:27 PM, FancyPants said:

You called people - including myself - "douchebags", "idiots", and "fucking murderers".

Yeah no you didn't say anything for anyone here to get defensive about, not at all

Does your average drunk driver play a role in risk-taking film productions? Have your imperfect actions been the results of being in risk-taking film productions? Or did you just make an horrible mistake with LUCKILY few in any repercussions?

sdfsdf

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[Sheather]

No mine were not a result of a film but his were and most drunks dont have high powered sports cars too zip around in. Once again ill agree to disagree.

Don't you think drunk people can speed and crash just fine in most cars? What's the average max speed on most of them? 200?

[sapito]

I havent looked into it but is it certain that Ryan as the driver was at fault? Who knows if the passenger was drunk as shit and did something stupid that led to the crash? Lots of things may have happened that could have led to a crash drunk or sober.

I think whats more disappointing about some of the posts here is that this thread is in a sense a memorial with the OP implying that some level of sadness exists and yet people still feel the need to bad mouth and puff their chest out.

[Teljkon]

On 01/07/2011 at 1:00 AM, Sheather said:

Don't you think drunk people can speed and crash just fine in most cars? What's the average max speed on most of them? 200?

dfsd

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[Sheather]

HAH, yeah a hundred miles perhaps. In most of the cars I've been in I've seen the speedometer push past 150km/h

I would think that some have limiters that keep it down below 120 or so, but even then the cars can go faster with a tiny tiny workaround.

[FancyPants]

No mine were not a result of a film but his were and most drunks dont have high powered sports cars too zip around in. Once again ill agree to disagree.

As far as the things i said they are my opinion I own it but I wasnt directing it at any one in particular. It is and was ment to be a braod statment imboding alot of people. If you think you fall in that group hope what I said made you think about the consequences of being part of that group.

 

I take no responsibility or liability in any decisions made by another person, so no, nothing you said made me think of the consequences of being a part of "that group."

If he were indeed the driver, was drunk, and the whole shebang isn't a set-up, I think he was a bloody idiot to drink and drive. However he and his passenger were still humans and I stand by my R.I.P comment. I'm still fucking glad he didn't take any more innocent people out with him.

[synchromesh]

If fame and fortune caused this accident to happen, then why didn't it happen sooner?

[incognito]

i renig.im sorry that he is dead, i am more sorry for the guy in the drivers seat, and very glad no one else is killed. a timely reminder of what can happen when u r driving under the influenceof subtances. its stupid, and dangerous.ive read and heard too may stories of where the drunk (or otherwise at fault) diver has survived when others involved i.e passengers and the like where killed. Life for these people would be a pained one. i couldnt do it.

Edited July 1, 2011 by incognito

[synchromesh]

Needless to say, governments adverts are horseshit. That being said though, I think that this one is an exception:

 

 

Edited July 1, 2011 by synchromesh

[rivada]

I got defensive because his fans were clearly present in the thread and it didn't stop any hot air balloons from calling them killers. They even suggested guilt with their tone.

What sort of people make a generalization that "drinking AND driving" goes hand in hand with being one of the Jackass crew? Drinking, yes. Driving, speeding, even - yes. But both? Maybe in a golf cart, in a controlled environment.

There's a difference between a MTV Jackass and a dumbass. Unfortunately, it's a thin line. Maybe your way of life has a nice, thick line. No offense, but maybe they'd rather die than be you. I'm sure the disapproval is mutual.

[Teljkon]

On 01/07/2011 at 8:08 AM, rivada said:

I got defensive because his fans were clearly present in the thread and it didn't stop any hot air balloons from calling them killers. They even suggested guilt with their tone.

 

Quote

What sort of people make a generalization that "drinking AND driving" goes hand in hand with being one of the Jackass crew? Drinking, yes. Driving, speeding, even - yes. But both? Maybe in a golf cart, in a controlled environment.

 

Quote

There's a difference between a MTV Jackass and a dumbass. Unfortunately, it's a thin line. Maybe your way of life has a nice, thick line. No offense, but maybe they'd rather die than be you. I'm sure the disapproval is mutual.

sdfsdfsd

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[Sheather]

Teljkon, if you'd look into it, Jackass is actually much safer than it is percieved to be. Sure people get hurt and crazy stuff is done, but I'm going to agree with rivada here, they aren't that stupid, perhaps a bit reckless and thrill seeking, but they aren't stupid.

[Teljkon]

sdfsdfsf

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[Sheather]

we all know the only controlled stunts they ever did wer well after they were raking in the dough.

So if they became more controlled after they started "raking in the dough", how could the money and fame have anything to do with it? And oh noes! Someone telling people that what they're doing is more dangerous than it is? To get money? Well that's NEVER happened before! They made it appear more dangerous than it was. I never said that their stunts were completely controlled, nor that they were entirely safe (hence "reckless"), but I did say that it was safer than it appeared.

I guess you'll studiously ignore the other post I made?

Also if you're never going to see eye to eye, why are you even responding to her? And me for that matter? Funny that you state the stupidity of the continuation of the debate while continuing said debate.

[Teljkon]

sdfsdsf

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[Moses]

There's a difference between a MTV Jackass and a dumbass.

 

it's called editing, i'm sure there are many hours of footage made by this "crew" that is deemed un-acceptable by the legal departments of MTV and if released their "stars" would not have been so shiny.

[Evil Genius]

Hey Guys, if the systematical post negatizing in this thread continues, we will look at it a little bit more closely and punish whoever is responsible for it. I dont care if someone negatizes one or two posts that he really dislikes but i just spent five minutes evening out negative rep points that werent really justified. The rep system is not for punishing people who have diffrent opinions. So, what we have here are two camps with totally diffrent opinions and i dont think that you´ll be able to reach a consensus. I think it would be best if you´d agree to disagree right away and leave it like that. bye Eg

Edited July 2, 2011 by Evil Genius

[WoodDragon]

There's a difference between a [sic] MTV Jackass and a dumbass.

And this is the thing...

The current assessment of the circumstances of Ryan Dunn's death indicates that he had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.196%, which is more than double the legal limit in Pennsylvania, and just four one-thousands under four times the Australian legal limit. For those who can't put it into context, this is the same as drinking 12 standard drinks in one hour.

If this is correct, then Dunn is a "dumbass", as well as being a Jackass.

In addition, Dunn car was reported to be traveling between 132 and 140 miles/hour (212 and 230 km/h) in a 55 miles/hour (90 km/h) zone.

If this is correct, then Dunn is a double "dumbass", as well as being a Jackass.

I know a lot of people here liked Dunn's TV persona, but let's be a bit real about acknowledging how he died. I personally know two families whose teenage daughters were killed by a drunk driver - I doubt that I have to describe the consequences of this to people reading this thread...

Yes, it's sad that Dunn trashed himself and his mate, and it's OK to say so, but I think that it's important not to forget how he did it. A lot of people looked up to him, and tried to emulate his antics, and trying to pretty up his death serves no-one well. There is no other way of looking at it other than to say that the guy was stupid to write-off himself and his mate in the way that he did, and it's just damned lucky that he didn't take out innocent people in the process.

There is no excuse for abhorrent behaviour, and speeding whilst under the influence is very abhorrent behaviour indeed.

If anyone disagrees, please explain how I have it wrong.

[sapito]

Hey Guys, if the systematical post negatizing in this thread continues, we will look at it a little bit more closely and punish whoever is responsible for it.

 

Why is it ok to positize a post just because someone agrees with the opinion expressed? That happens all the time here and its not seen as a problem? A rules a rule right?

I personally know two families whose teenage daughters were killed by a drunk driver - I doubt that I have to describe the consequences of this to people reading this thread...

I personally know how various people have died in various ways but dont see the value in going around and badmouthing people that died in similar ways. It sucks that you have some emotional attachment to this but maybe you need to deal with that instead of bad mouthing others? People do all sorts of evil shit as a result of their emotional attachments, doesnt mean its beneficial. There are stories of certain judges giving harder sentences for drug offenses just because they saw little Sandy next door die of a drug overdose. Does it make it ok for them to act this way just because they have an emotional connection to the situation? People mis-use all sorts of things but they are still people and deserve some level of respect.

If anyone disagrees, please explain how I have it wrong.

I dont think people are disagreeing with the facts you are putting forward, and it was never really about if the facts were correct or not, its more that you take the time to disrespect others that are saddened by his death. Maybe you just enjoy arguing and belittling people, its not just this tread but others too but you arguments are slowing increasing in personal attacks and blatant disrespect to others and their views.

[Evil Genius]

Why is it ok to positize a post just because someone agrees with the opinion expressed?

Sapito, i understand this may seem paradox but that rule is not negotiable. I dont accept mob mentality here and thats what happens when two groups of people negatize each other. If you should ever become the target of someone who negatizes every post you make, we talk again.

Btw, it just a question of good manners to know that its not ok to negatize every post someone makes. Its about respect and everyone who wants to treat others without respect needs to go somewhere else to do that.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Evil Genius

[WoodDragon]

Sapito.

I personally know how various people have died in various ways but dont see the value in going around and badmouthing people that died in similar ways. It sucks that you have some emotional attachment to this but maybe you need to deal with that instead of bad mouthing others?

Ryan Dunn did not die in the same way as the girls that I spoke about. He chose of his own volition to drink and speed, and as a consequence killed himself and his mate. Those girls were abiding by the laws, doing nothing wrong, and yet were still killed when a drunk ran into their car with his own.

This has nothing to do with emotional attachment, and a lot to do with what is acceptable behaviour. Ryan Dunn died because he was, to use rivada's own description, a dumbass - he drank to great excess for someone who intended to drive a motor vehicle, and he sped at two and a half times the legal limit.

Reread my post. I acknowledged that it is sad that he died. It is. But it's also stupid that he died, and that he died by his own stupidity. I don't disrespect others who are saddened by his death, but I do struggle to find respect for people who can't find it in themselves to also acknowledge and carefully consider Dunn's idiocy in causing his own death and that of one of his friends. The two facts are inseparable, and to try to do so obscures the whole context of the event and is a form of moral censorship.

If there's any emotional attachment here, it with those who never met the bloke, but who are saddened by his death to the extent that they can't admit that he was a first class numpty for trashing himself and a mate, and potentially endangering other innocent people. His fame and popularity are no excuse for skirting around the cold hard fact of his grossly irresponsible behaviour, and as much as it might upset his fans to be told so, it upsets more the relatives and friends of innocent victims of drunk/speeding drivers that having a bit of notoriety for being a goose is somehow a passport for not talking about the elephant in the room. If Dunn was an anonymous nobody I doubt that anyone would be focussing on how sad the crash was for his family and friends - they'd all be talking about who foolish he was to kill his mate and risk the lives of others.

If you really want to know, I do not enjoy arguing about stuff like this, and I get no pleasure from "belittling" people. But I hate, even more, seeing foolishness and irresponsibility being left unchallenged, and especially when it puts innocent people in danger. If you have a problem with any of my posts, consider them in this light and you might see where I'm coming from.

[Psylo]

Where's the moderation on stupidity ? The guy is dead, killed by his own actions. Drunk. In his expensive car. Responsible for the death of another. He wasn't a poet, a peacemaker, a philantropist or a saviouor. He was some dickhead on TV, part of a crew that create visual jokes involving feses, poorly-executed stunts, and midget bar-brawls (yes, I loved Jackass 3). Get over it, for fuck's sake. Ryan Dunn was not Mahatma Gandhi.

[Evil Genius]

Where's the moderation on stupidity ?

Sometimes we could really need a rule against that too. But then again: If somebody absolutely wants to make a fool out of himself with his crackbrained view of the world, he has my blessing.

[sapito]

Sapito, i understand this may seem paradox but that rule is not negotiable.

 

I wasnt attempting to negotiate the rules, I was simply asking for an explanation of why there is a difference in the rules of negatizing and positizing posts, which you did not provide. I also dont see the mob mentality you are referring too but it is hard to tell when ratings are constantly 'balanced'. I havent seen people getting all their posts negatized since the early days of when the ratings system was implemented?

Ryan Dunn did not die in the same way as the girls that I spoke about.

I often word things poorly and this was the case. I meant that I dont see the value in bad mouthing people that died in similar fashions to people I have known that have died or been killed 'prematurely'. I did not mean that Ryan and these girls you talk about died in a similar fashion.

His fame and popularity are no excuse for skirting around the cold hard fact of his grossly irresponsible behaviour, and as much as it might upset his fans to be told so, it upsets more the relatives and friends of innocent victims of drunk/speeding drivers that having a bit of notoriety for being a goose is somehow a passport for not talking about the elephant in the room.

Who are the innocent victims in this case?

I dont think anyone has skirted around the facts of his death, people have merely stated their sadness in hearing the news of his death.

If Dunn was an anonymous nobody I doubt that anyone would be focussing on how sad the crash was for his family and friends - they'd all be talking about who foolish he was to kill his mate and risk the lives of others.

Thats a pretty big call to make and im doubtful of its truthfulness But it may be similar in the sense that if a close friend of yours fucked up and died/killed others you wouldnt make it your mission to bad mouth them.

But I hate, even more, seeing foolishness and irresponsibility being left unchallenged, and especially when it puts innocent people in danger.

 

Im sure everyones lives involve something that puts others in danger whether it be from driving a car (sober), consuming goods that are produced from high risk environments, adding to global pollution levels, or many other reasons. Its very easy to pick apart and judge others lives but often quite hard to turn that same analytical process on yourself, though much more rewarding to use it on yourself.

I think the fact that every post of yours in this thread has been derogatory, really shows what I mean in regards to disrespect.

[Evil Genius]

I wasnt attempting to negotiate the rules, I was simply asking for an explanation of why there is a difference in the rules of negatizing and positizing posts,

I did but you werent listening. The system is build to like and dislike posts. Not to group together and negatize every post the other party makes. Positive reps dont hurt nobody. Negative ones need to be justified. People can make their own opinion and if someone is talking shit, no green rep sign on the post will save him from looking like a dork. But negative reps can really make people feel bullied and i dont accept that.

I also dont see the mob mentality you are referring too but it is hard to tell when ratings are constantly 'balanced'.

Oh i do. A few hours ago, the whole thread was glowing in red because of all the negative reps a few guys handed out for pretty much reasonable posts. Even from my neutral point of view, these posts didnt deserve to be negged. Im also sure that the negative rep points werent given by one person only. And thats not what the system was intended for. If you have such a bad memory, go back and check the thread where we discussed that whole issue already. I think we even discussed it twice. I feel like talking to a doorknob and i dont care if your happy with it or not. To be honest, i even feel trolled because i have to discuss this again and next time i get the feeling that someone abuses the rep system, i will take actions. Simple as that.

And just to make things clear! You CAN and SHOULD use the rep system to like a great post or dislike a moronic post on the other hand. I dont even care if a post gets something like 10 negative points...as long as its justified, all is good. But there wont be any systematic negging of a particular persons posts. Its actually not that hard...just be fair and use common sense.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Evil Genius