Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: sniperruff
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: sniperruff
darwinism at its finest.
nonsense.
quite the opposite if you READ the story
:roll:
Right, it would have been darwinism if the car went off the road and it hit the father killing the driver.
Unless you're talking about not wearing your seatbelt. Then I guess they all should have died.
correct . . . only the [poor] idiot not wearing the seatbelt actually suffered direct "consequences" from his INaction . . . a good lawyer should insulate both the father and son from anything "major"

:roll:
definitely NOT "survival of the 'fittest'".
:thumbsdown:
the passenger was too dumb to not wear a seatbelt so he died
the kid was too stupid to ask for a dodge viper so he lost his friend and will have to live with the guilt
the father was too moronic to buy a deathbed on wheels for his kid, so he lost $70k or so
yup they are all stupid. i only feel sorry for the brand new SRT-10.
we agreed on the passenger "paying" full consequences.
maybe it was not his friend - just a 'ride'; the 'kid' may have no conscience regrets since his passenger died directly from his own inaction.

the dad didn't "lose" anything - just the deductable.
why "feel sorry" for a car? they mostly all end in the junkyard
:roll:
sure, they were all "stupid" . . . but we all make stupid maistakes driving.

Only ONE had any "real" consequences . . . so 1 outta 3 does not support darwinism.
:roll:
:thumbsdown: