Why does the media only care when someone falls from a Carnival Ship?

[Cuizer2]

The 2 Sea and air Captains were EACH acting in the most responsible manner. Any deviations from their actions and neither accident would have happened. The girl was not in concert with the actions of another that could or could not have led to an accident. She was acting INTENTIONALLY, on her own.

A vast difference from your scenarios of ACTUAL accidents.

 

The strong survive, the weak perish. Applies to animals, businesses, and humans. And your bleeding heart wishful thinking will not change nature.

 

The girl killed HERSELF. End of story, and I'm off as I am bored to suicide:rolleyes: over your Utopian dreams of a perfect world. IT AIN'T.

 

If you claim that the captains were acting intentionally and did not understand the consequences of their actions, then the same can be said for a girl who acted intentionally but also did not understand the consequences of her actions.

 

The bottom line is, unintended consequences result from accidents. Just because you don't like the implications does not change that fact.

[Nunu]

If you claim that the captains were acting intentionally and did not understand the consequences of their actions, then the same can be said for a girl who acted intentionally but also did not understand the consequences of her actions.

 

The bottom line is, unintended consequences result from accidents. Just because you don't like the implications does not change that fact.

 

Dan's watching football.

[Cuizer2]

Dan's watching football.

So are a lot of other people.

[dan40]

If you claim that the captains were acting intentionally and did not understand the consequences of their actions, then the same can be said for a girl who acted intentionally but also did not understand the consequences of her actions.

 

The bottom line is, unintended consequences result from accidents. Just because you don't like the implications does not change that fact.

 

 

I said:

"The 2 Sea and air Captains were EACH acting in the most responsible manner."

 

HOW did that confuse you?

 

 

Please stop acting intentionality obtuse. You have NO point to make and trying to change my completely obvious meaning does nothing to alleviate your lost cause.

 

It is halftime.

[southbayer]

Let me try to answer the question.........

 

Ughhh, what was the question ???

sorry, couldn't resist!:D

 

I think the media after the last 30 years or so of serious cruise line growth, still doesn't get it. They don't have Hollywood actors in droves traveling on cruise ships to follow around and ooogle over.

 

But your right, if it bleeds, it leads - the media will never do the research to truly find out and point out how safe and fun sea travel can be. They like to simply bash/report deaths then move on - never afterwards do any serious follow up with ordinary travelers.

 

Thank God for the Travel Channel, even its only on cable tv

 

[sharecruises]

What does coverage of any tragedy get anyone? Not that this mans life is insignificant, but what is anyone reading about it can do? Just say poor man, glad it wasn't me, my wife, blah, blah,. blah. Sh*t happens. And what does coverage get anyone? The next day we forget about it. :mad:

 

Good point...sad and bad things happen all the time

 

Suicide is horrible but it happens and it doesn't get press coverage unless "spectacular" or on a ship

 

The media today pumps up stories so much...years ago many of the stories on Nancy Grace etc would be "local news"..now it national and dragged out for months...

 

The "wow" factor that gets these stories national attention is the cruise angle..and the media jumps on it

 

As for Carnival....simply math...more ships..more "ships" happen stuff occurs

 

I do think that the ship/coast guard etc should sue the survivor who is drunk and falls off and/or jumps or even tries to commit suicide and lives,

then again I feel that people who mountain climb and do high risk things should pay for their own rescues

 

I did see a horrible road accident on 95 on the way to Port of Miami right before one cruise I went on...that was pretty unnerving and sad to see

Of course it didn't get national attention, just as a person who rents a hotel room and kills themselves won't get national attention. The media doesn't even feature suicides unless it is from a ship I guess

[futaba951]

I am not drunk and I am of legal drinking age. I am not here by accident. Perhaps her drinking was no accident, but unless she intended to kill herself, her actions after she became drunk are an accident. Again I refer you to the definition of an accident. It leads to unintended consequences. Someone may intentionally run a red light, but that does not mean that they intended to cause an accident. How about the ships that hit the pier and get damaged. Are you claiming that because the caption intentionally tried to get close to the pier that the captain intended to damage to the ship?

 

How about when the Andrea Doria collided with the Stockholm. Each Captain purposely steered the ship in the direction the ship was going. Are you now claiming that the two captains intentionally tried to hit each other?

 

How about the collision of the two 747s on Tenerife. The Pam Am captain intentionally taxied up the runway. The KLM captain intentionally began his takeoff roll. Are you now claiming the collision of the two jets was an intentional act by both captains?

 

 

You make a great defense for all drunk drivers. By your definition, if a drunk driver hits another and a death results, the drunk driver should not be charged or convicted of manslaughter or murder because it was simply an accident. They did not mean for it to happen. They did not intend to kill the other party. The problem with that logic is that while tragic and "accidental",

negligence was involved and responsibility falls onto the offending party. In the case of the girl who went over the side, I'm sure she didn't wish to kill herself in her drunken stupor, but she did. Had she been sober, with all her wits about her, she probably would be alive today. It's her fault. It's her parents fault. It's not like she tripped over a shoe and fell headlong over the rail. It was no accident. Negligence was involved. Dan 1 - Cuizer 0.

[Cuizer2]

I said:

"The 2 Sea and air Captains were EACH acting in the most responsible manner."

 

HOW did that confuse you?

 

 

Please stop acting intentionality obtuse. You have NO point to make and trying to change my completely obvious meaning does nothing to alleviate your lost cause.

 

It is halftime.

 

You consider powering a plane for take off while another plane is on the runway "responsible"? You consider turning your ship into the path of another ship "responsible"? Who then do you feel was responsible for the two collisions if the captains were acting in a "responsible" manner?

[Cuizer2]

You make a great defense for all drunk drivers. By your definition, if a drunk driver hits another and a death results, the drunk driver should not be charged or convicted of manslaughter or murder because it was simply an accident. They did not mean for it to happen. They did not intend to kill the other party. The problem with that logic is that while tragic and "accidental",

negligence was involved and responsibility falls onto the offending party. In the case of the girl who went over the side, I'm sure she didn't wish to kill herself in her drunken stupor, but she did. Had she been sober, with all her wits about her, she probably would be alive today. It's her fault. It's her parents fault. It's not like she tripped over a shoe and fell headlong over the rail. It was no accident. Negligence was involved. Dan 1 - Cuizer 0.

 

No, I never said that the drunk was not responsible nor did I say that the girl was not responsible. All I said was that it was an accident. That the drunk did not intend to cause the accident and that the girl may not have intended to kill herself.

 

Besides, the prosecution of a drunk driver runs on the theory that the person was sober when the began drinking and knew that they would have to drive.

 

Furthermore, the definition of manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without malice. This could be either voluntarily (in the heat of the moment) or involuntarily (in the commission of some other unlawful act). Thus manslaughter involves an accident. So if a drunk driver accidentally kills someone, the definition of manslaughter allows for that.

 

The drunk could not be convicted of an intentional murder because that would require that the drunk intentionally killed the person.

 

Finally you admit that it was tragic and accidental. Exactly my point with the girl. It was tragic and accidental. Dan40 does not agree. You admit negligence was involved. That also supports my position, as negligence is the cause of many accidents. Though you don't seem to realize it, you have completed supported my position.

 

And there is no need to keep score - that is a very immature thing to do. This is not a contest. It is just two people who disagree.