This man is about to launch himself in his homemade rocket to prove the Earth is flat

[U.P. Cinnabar]

I know but the flat earth guy is trying to make it sound like they just won't let him do it and are hiding something. I'm not even sure anymore that the rocket actually even works.

Supposedly, by steam pressure.

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Then he'd say the Russians were in on the conspiracy too.

[Korto]

The Earth doesn't look any more curved from 1800 feet than from the ground. I speak from experience.

Then, if you think about it, that height admirably fits his stated purpose.


You know, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may not be a kook. He may be a maniac, who's struck upon this group to fund his rocket, and he's just saying whatever it takes to get it in the air. I'm even willing to believe he may intend to go up, since he did it before.

And I love Captain Risky from the Budget Direct ads.

[Simon_Jester]

I mean, if he were just climbing to 1800 feet, he could go up a mountain. Less work.

Clearly in it for the rocket.

[LaCroix]

Update - he's trying to do it in February...

[U.P. Cinnabar]

Just in time for Valentine's Day.

From Cupid to Stupid in such a short month.

[LaCroix]

Aaand... he died...

Cue conspiracy theories in 3...2...

[houser2112]

I know, right? Idiot flat-earther (but I repeat myself) launches himself into the sky in a homemade steam-powered rocket and "mysteriously" dies. The headlines write themselves.

[Jub]

The sad reality is that a mentally ill man was goaded on by the internet and greedy TV executives and is dead because of it.

[Broomstick]

Nothing mysterious about his death by litho-braking.

Per the FAA regulations, it is perfectly legal to kill yourself via aviation in the US provided no other people or any property other than yours is put at risk.

[Isolder74]

That's not going to stop the flat earth morons from turning him into a martyr. But at least he actually did SOMETHING instead of waffle on about nothing like 99% of the other morons do.

[mr friendly guy]

The sad reality is that a mentally ill man was goaded on by the internet and greedy TV executives and is dead because of it.

Take this with a grain of salt, but I have heard it said on the David Pakman show, that they doubt he really was a flat earther, and more of a daredevil who used the flat earth angle to promote himself.

[Jub]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I have heard it said on the David Pakman show, that they doubt he really was a flat earther, and more of a daredevil who used the flat earth angle to promote himself.

I'd still argue that adrenaline junkies are mentally ill given the risks they take.

[loomer]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I have heard it said on the David Pakman show, that they doubt he really was a flat earther, and more of a daredevil who used the flat earth angle to promote himself.

I'd still argue that adrenaline junkies are mentally ill given the risks they take.

Please, explain your reasoning.

[Broomstick]

There are "adrenaline junkies" and risk-takers that are methodical about the whole thing, educate themselves, and make some effort to survive the experience. Those are folks who go to the Moon or are professional test-pilots or fight fires and so forth.

Then there are "adrenaline junkies" and risk-takers who are dumb-asses who just plow ahead without regard to safety, ignore (or are ignorant of) physics... and often meet their end doing stupid shit.

[Jub]

Please, explain your reasoning.

Anybody who risks life and limb for a cheap thrill, base jumping for example, is likely sick in the same way that somebody who gets their thrill by freebasing crack is sick. They just don't feel right unless they're engaging in a behaviour that the average person can look at and know is unhealthy.

I also agree with Broomstick and make an exception for those who work jobs that are inherently risky and who take all necessary precautions in the name of doing a damned difficult job. Working towards a goal like being the first person to do 'insert thing' or pushing through a wall of fire to save lives aren't things I hold comparable to free climbing a building or launching yourself in a steam-powered rocket after your last test flight wrecked your back.

[loomer]

Please, explain your reasoning.

Anybody who risks life and limb for a cheap thrill, base jumping for example, is likely sick in the same way that somebody who gets their thrill by freebasing crack is sick. They just don't feel right unless they're engaging in a behaviour that the average person can look at and know is unhealthy.

I also agree with Broomstick and make an exception for those who work jobs that are inherently risky and who take all necessary precautions in the name of doing a damned difficult job. Working towards a goal like being the first person to do 'insert thing' or pushing through a wall of fire to save lives aren't things I hold comparable to free climbing a building or launching yourself in a steam-powered rocket after your last test flight wrecked your back.

And people who skydive or enjoy, say, erotic asphyxiation?

[Jub]

And people who skydive or enjoy, say, erotic asphyxiation?

I'd also argue that they're making poor choices (especially with untrained asphyxiation play), though, depending on how they go about getting their thrills, it's more like a weekend bender than smoking rock in terms of harm caused. If you do something moderately risky once in a while it likely won't cause you harm, if you're jumping out of planes every weekend...

[loomer]

And people who skydive or enjoy, say, erotic asphyxiation?

I'd also argue that they're making poor choices (especially with untrained asphyxiation play), though, depending on how they go about getting their thrills, it's more like a weekend bender than smoking rock in terms of harm caused. If you do something moderately risky once in a while it likely won't cause you harm, if you're jumping out of planes every weekend...

If you're jumping out of planes every weekend with a rigorous safety routine, you remain an adrenaline junkie but the risk is minimal compared to ordinary, day-to-day activities. My point in this is that your position - 'adrenaline junkies are mentally ill because they take significant risks' - is fundamentally flawed because adrenaline can be, and is, obtained in relatively safe ways even by adrenaline junkies. Adrenaline is widely sought in a number of ways of varying risk, whether it be professionally supervised skydiving with meticulous safetychecks, high diving, martial arts, horror films, kinky sex, stuntflying, or any other form. The desire for a thrill is not abnormal, let alone a sign of an impairment in the faculties of reason, which is the core of your position.

[Jub]

If you're jumping out of planes every weekend with a rigorous safety routine, you remain an adrenaline junkie but the risk is minimal compared to ordinary, day-to-day activities. My point in this is that your position - 'adrenaline junkies are mentally ill because they take significant risks' - is fundamentally flawed because adrenaline can be, and is, obtained in relatively safe ways even by adrenaline junkies. Adrenaline is widely sought in a number of ways of varying risk, whether it be professionally supervised skydiving with meticulous safetychecks, high diving, martial arts, horror films, kinky sex, stuntflying, or any other form. The desire for a thrill is not abnormal, let alone a sign of an impairment in the faculties of reason, which is the core of your position.

There's a difference between an activity like sky-diving which is low risk and being hit by a car, that being that one risk is avoidable and the other isn't. Nobody needs to throw themselves out of an aeroplane, choke themselves, or perform any other activity that risks death in the name of an easily achieved adrenaline rush. Those who can't get an adrenaline rush easily aren't neurotypical and are thus at the least mental abnormal if not actually mentally ill.

[loomer]

If you're jumping out of planes every weekend with a rigorous safety routine, you remain an adrenaline junkie but the risk is minimal compared to ordinary, day-to-day activities. My point in this is that your position - 'adrenaline junkies are mentally ill because they take significant risks' - is fundamentally flawed because adrenaline can be, and is, obtained in relatively safe ways even by adrenaline junkies. Adrenaline is widely sought in a number of ways of varying risk, whether it be professionally supervised skydiving with meticulous safetychecks, high diving, martial arts, horror films, kinky sex, stuntflying, or any other form. The desire for a thrill is not abnormal, let alone a sign of an impairment in the faculties of reason, which is the core of your position.

There's a difference between an activity like sky-diving which is low risk and being hit by a car, that being that one risk is avoidable and the other isn't. Nobody needs to throw themselves out of an aeroplane, choke themselves, or perform any other activity that risks death in the name of an easily achieved adrenaline rush. Those who can't get an adrenaline rush easily aren't neurotypical and are thus at the least mental abnormal if not actually mentally ill.

Actually, I referred to ordinary, every day risks taken for convenience or enjoyment that are avoidable - choosing to drive for pleasure, taking non-prescription medications, yoga, scuba diving, drinking coffee while driving, being beaten with a whip, engaging in martial arts or other contact sports, and so on. All of these activities carry significant thresholds of risk of fatality or serious injuries, on par with or exceeding that of skydiving. That was my point - if your threshold is based on risk-taking behaviour as the criterion for mental illness, it makes no sense to apply it only to those who engage in relatively safe risk-taking behaviour for the purpose of enjoyment as opposed to those who engage in comparatively unsafe risk-taking behaviour for the purpose of enjoyment.

Now, you want to assert that those who skydive and engage in other adrenaline-provoking activities aren't neurotypical. Prove it. Show us the studies that they are a, unable to experience adrenaline rushes from ordinary experiences (and do not merely prefer higher thresholds of stimulation), that b, this is neuroatypical, and c, that this constitutes a mental illness.

[Jub]

Actually, I referred to ordinary, every day risks taken for convenience or enjoyment that are avoidable - choosing to drive for pleasure, taking non-prescription medications, yoga, scuba diving, drinking coffee while driving, being beaten with a whip, engaging in martial arts or other contact sports, and so on. All of these activities carry significant thresholds of risk of fatality or serious injuries, on par with or exceeding that of skydiving.

If you're going to ask me for proof surely you won't mind showing the fatality rates for each of the activities you've listed.

That was my point - if your threshold is based on risk-taking behaviour as the criterion for mental illness, it makes no sense to apply it only to those who engage in relatively safe risk-taking behaviour for the purpose of enjoyment as opposed to those who engage in comparatively unsafe risk-taking behaviour for the purpose of enjoyment.

Now, you want to assert that those who skydive and engage in other adrenaline-provoking activities aren't neurotypical. Prove it. Show us the studies that they are a, unable to experience adrenaline rushes from ordinary experiences (and do not merely prefer higher thresholds of stimulation), that b, this is neuroatypical, and c, that this constitutes a mental illness.

You haven't proven your point though, I've yet to see you post a shred of evidence for the claim that the mundane activities you've cited as examples are, in fact, riskier than erotic asphyxiation or sky-diving your own examples of safe activities.

EDIT: I also did draw a line between engaging in risky behaviour that has a tangible benefit, such as saving lives, helping mankind reach space, test-flying a new jet, etc. and those that engage in risk merely for the thrill. That means that, by my definition, there's a categoric difference between doing yoga or playing beer league hockey as a means of exercise and hanging off a cliff by one hand for a selfie and the adrenaline rush.

I should also present the fact that psychologists measure the propensity for extreme risk-taking with an instrument known as Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Scale. This instrument defines sensation seeking as “the need for varied, novel and complex sensations and experiences and the willingness to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experience.” and mention that there is ongoing research into adrenaline junkies and mental illness. It seems you may have been ignorant of such.

EDIT 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5798939/

[Isolder74]

Ironically, the high profile Flat morons took no time at all tossing him under the bus because he crashed and died denying that he was even one of them or claiming he isn't really dead but a government agent designed to make them look bad.

They are all a bunch of leaches the lot of them.

[loomer]

Actually, I referred to ordinary, every day risks taken for convenience or enjoyment that are avoidable - choosing to drive for pleasure, taking non-prescription medications, yoga, scuba diving, drinking coffee while driving, being beaten with a whip, engaging in martial arts or other contact sports, and so on. All of these activities carry significant thresholds of risk of fatality or serious injuries, on par with or exceeding that of skydiving.

If you're going to ask me for proof surely you won't mind showing the fatality rates for each of the activities you've listed.

By all means.

Injuries in martial arts are rarely fatal but are frequent and can be serious.
Injuries and fatalities driving are at 4 or so deaths per 100,000 and 160 injuries for the same. This far exceeds the rates for skydiving by around 8 times for injuries and by around 3 times for fatalities. Eating and drinking behind the wheel are distractions that significantly increase the risk of driving, and while Lytx obviously have a bias, I do not believe this spills over into this study.
Paracetamol overdose is a significant risk and ~15-30% of all overdoses are accidental. Up to date figures on paracetamol and other non-prescription analgesic use per capita are hard to come by, unfortunately, but let's conservatively assume that 50% of the population uses paracetamol on average once a week with a rate of about 9,000 hospitalizations yearly, of which 1.5-3k are accidental. That places the rate of accidental overdose at a quick and dirty 1:430,000 - 1:200,000, or around a tenth to a twentieth as likely as skydiving.
Scuba diving, unfortunately, is beset by a lack of reliable studies and statistics but the death rate appears to be at around 15-16:100,000. That would be significantly higher than skydiving.

There are, to my knowledge, no studies examining severe injuries from D/s play with anything approaching a comprehensive pool, so I cheerfully withdraw this, though I note again that the same motive underlies both adrenaline seeking and D/s play. Likewise, I cheerfully withdraw the yoga remark, which was primarily a tongue in cheek inclusion.

I think that establishes the range of risks of the day to day activities I've nominated. The risk of serious accidental injury for something as simple and ordinary as taking paracetamol is (theoretically) only ten times lower than that of a skydive. For driving a car, substantially higher. Scuba diving is a death sentence. Martial arts will break your bones. There are a million ordinary activities we undertake for pleasure that impose risks on par with skydiving's 1:100,000 fatality/1:2000 injury rate.

That was my point - if your threshold is based on risk-taking behaviour as the criterion for mental illness, it makes no sense to apply it only to those who engage in relatively safe risk-taking behaviour for the purpose of enjoyment as opposed to those who engage in comparatively unsafe risk-taking behaviour for the purpose of enjoyment.

Now, you want to assert that those who skydive and engage in other adrenaline-provoking activities aren't neurotypical. Prove it. Show us the studies that they are a, unable to experience adrenaline rushes from ordinary experiences (and do not merely prefer higher thresholds of stimulation), that b, this is neuroatypical, and c, that this constitutes a mental illness.

You haven't proven your point though, I've yet to see you post a shred of evidence for the claim that the mundane activities you've cited as examples are, in fact, riskier than erotic asphyxiation or sky-diving your own examples of safe activities.

I await your response establishing these factors.

EDIT: I also did draw a line between engaging in risky behaviour that has a tangible benefit, such as saving lives, helping mankind reach space, test-flying a new jet, etc. and those that engage in risk merely for the thrill. That means that, by my definition, there's a categoric difference between doing yoga or playing beer league hockey as a means of exercise and hanging off a cliff by one hand for a selfie and the adrenaline rush.

Yes you did - but only after declaring all adrenaline junkies are mentally ill. Arguably, anyone who engages in risky behaviour for a 'tangible benefit such as saving lives... etc' is not an adrenaline junkie by your own definition, and so your attempt to delineate using the edge cases of 'helping mankind reach space' (though of course, test pilots are adrenaline junkies by their own admission) and 'hanging off a cliff by one hand for a selfie' is silly. Now, you've also attempted to steer yoga and hockey into just a means of exercise (which they are) rather than recognizing that people who play hockey, practice yoga, and so on usually play and practice because they enjoy it. The desire for enjoyment is also the goal of the skydiver and adrenaline junkies and many forms of adrenaline junkie activity are excellent exercise (e.g. rock climbing), so this divide is essentially untenable. If the divide is between 'tangible benefits' so broadly defined that it includes exercise and the desire for pleasure, then it falls short for the bulk of adrenaline junkie activity because adrenaline junkies, as a whole, enjoy themselves - and this human good is a tangible benefit.

I should also present the fact that psychologists measure the propensity for extreme risk-taking with an instrument known as Zuckerman’s Sensation Seeking Scale. This instrument defines sensation seeking as “the need for varied, novel and complex sensations and experiences and the willingness to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experience.” and mention that there is ongoing research into adrenaline junkies and mental illness. It seems you may have been ignorant of such.

EDIT 2: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5798939/

I am far from ignorant of the studies examining extreme sports and adrenaline addiction, but as far as I'm aware there is no data establishing that all or even most adrenaline junkies are neuroatypical and mentally ill. Even your own article does not establish that they are - in fact, it spells out the exact difference between what we might call 'sensible' adrenaline junkies - those who ensure they are as safe as possible given their preferred form of recreation through training, experience, conditions, and equipment - and those we might call 'at-risk' adrenaline junkies whose underlying behaviours are problematic. There is an important distinction there which you wish to erase by declaring the pursuit of adrenaline highs as in itself a sign of mental illness.

There is also the followup: If it is, what do you propose? If the only person who would skydive is mentally ill and this behaviour is itself a symptom of mental illness, should they not be prohibited from doing so for their own safety? What other forms of risk-taking activity do you feel adrenaline seekers should be prohibited from participating in? These are the necessary follow-up questions to any position that holds that the pursuit of adrenaline highs is in and of itself a mental illness: Where do you draw the line, on what basis, in declaring people to have impaired capacity? How do you treat it, and when is it appropriate to force that treatment?

Knowing your tactics, I will not respond until such a time as you have provided evidence of these three claims you make:
1. Adrenaline junkies are unable to experience adrenaline rushes from ordinary activities (while you're at it, you'll need to establish 'ordinary' in this context - are roller coasters ordinary? Go-karting?) and do not merely prefer higher thresholds of stimulation;
2. That this stems from being neuroatypical and not merely from habituation;
3. That this constitutes a mental illness.

[Jub]

Injuries in martial arts are rarely fatal but are frequent and can be serious.

This martial arts data is so garbage I'm unsure of where to begin... First, it's just under a decade old. Second, it appears to take all of its data from Kingston Ontario. Third, it doesn't appear to differentiate between injuries sustained in competition and full contact sparing versus injuries sustained in routine trained. So all around this study is pretty worthless and even you admit that the rate of fatalities is negligible even compared to our benchmark of sky diving.

Injuries and fatalities driving are at 4 or so deaths per 100,000 and 160 injuries for the same. This far exceeds the rates for skydiving by around 8 times for injuries and by around 3 times for fatalities.

Why are you using a report from Canada for one set of numbers and from Australia for another? Are you shopping around for the worst numbers you can find or something?

Eating and drinking behind the wheel are distractions that significantly increase the risk of driving, and while Lytx obviously have a bias, I do not believe this spills over into this study.

How about we find an unbiased source for this one.

Paracetamol overdose is a significant risk and ~15-30% of all overdoses are accidental. Up to date figures on paracetamol and other non-prescription analgesic use per capita are hard to come by, unfortunately, but let's conservatively assume that 50% of the population uses paracetamol on average once a week with a rate of about 9,000 hospitalizations yearly, of which 1.5-3k are accidental. That places the rate of accidental overdose at a quick and dirty 1:430,000 - 1:200,000, or around a tenth to a twentieth as likely as skydiving.

People are dying of drug abuse or botched suicide attempts. Paracetamol has very clear use case instructions and specifically instructs you to seek out a doctor before taking it with other medications. If you're ODing on it you're either a massive idiot or doing it intentionally.

Scuba diving, unfortunately, is beset by a lack of reliable studies and statistics but the death rate appears to be at around 15-16:100,000. That would be significantly higher than skydiving.

So no numbers here then...

I think that establishes the range of risks of the day to day activities I've nominated. The risk of serious accidental injury for something as simple and ordinary as taking paracetamol is (theoretically) only ten times lower than that of a skydive. For driving a car, substantially higher. Scuba diving is a death sentence. Martial arts will break your bones. There are a million ordinary activities we undertake for pleasure that impose risks on par with skydiving's 1:100,000 fatality/1:2000 injury rate.

Your studies are pretty bunk my friend...

Yes you did - but only after declaring all adrenaline junkies are mentally ill. Arguably, anyone who engages in risky behaviour for a 'tangible benefit such as saving lives... etc' is not an adrenaline junkie by your own definition, and so your attempt to delineate using the edge cases of 'helping mankind reach space' (though of course, test pilots are adrenaline junkies by their own admission) and 'hanging off a cliff by one hand for a selfie' is silly. Now, you've also attempted to steer yoga and hockey into just a means of exercise (which they are) rather than recognizing that people who play hockey, practice yoga, and so on usually play and practice because they enjoy it. The desire for enjoyment is also the goal of the skydiver and adrenaline junkies and many forms of adrenaline junkie activity are excellent exercise (e.g. rock climbing), so this divide is essentially untenable. If the divide is between 'tangible benefits' so broadly defined that it includes exercise and the desire for pleasure, then it falls short for the bulk of adrenaline junkie activity because adrenaline junkies, as a whole, enjoy themselves - and this human good is a tangible benefit.

There's a difference between hitting a climbing wall with a trained spotter and belaying rope and free climbing a frozen waterfall. If you can't see this there's no reasoning with you.

I am far from ignorant of the studies examining extreme sports and adrenaline addiction, but as far as I'm aware there is no data establishing that all or even most adrenaline junkies are neuroatypical and mentally ill. Even your own article does not establish that they are - in fact, it spells out the exact difference between what we might call 'sensible' adrenaline junkies - those who ensure they are as safe as possible given their preferred form of recreation through training, experience, conditions, and equipment - and those we might call 'at-risk' adrenaline junkies whose underlying behaviours are problematic. There is an important distinction there which you wish to erase by declaring the pursuit of adrenaline highs as in itself a sign of mental illness.

I think our definition of what counts as an adrenaline junkie may be different and that is causing our arguments to fail to satisfy one another. Given that you've asked me to prove something about them I'd like you to define exactly what you define as an adrenaline junkie as I fear my definition will cause you to accuse me of moving the goalposts. The study I linked to doesn't use the term and even you have divided the group into what you call 'sensible adrenaline junkies' and 'at-risk adrenaline junkies'.