4 ms·

This article reminds me of a documentary that came out a couple years back on HBO Max called Class Action Park. It was about a notoriously dangerous water park

by slg 5y ago

This article reminds me of a documentary that came out a couple years back on HBO Max called Class Action Park. It was about a notoriously dangerous water park in New Jersey in which several kids died or were maimed. Most of the documentary was toned with nostalgia. They interviewed many former employees and people who went there as kids. Many of the interviewees were comedians that told funny stories about the antics that went on there. Most of them viewed the experience through rose-colored glasses. This was a place were a kid could be a kid in an era when parents still allowed that to happen. Then there would be an interview with a mom whose child died in the park describing how she was so grief-stricken that she walked into traffic trying to kill herself and was pulled back at the last second by her husband. You hear one story like that from a parent who lost a kid and suddenly dangerous waterslides and chemistry kits don't seem that important to a good childhood.

e40 5y ago
To me there's a big difference between a water park slide and a chemistry set. The water park is a business that is providing you an experience on their property. In this case, isn't there the assumption that they hired good engineers to build the slide, so they could make money off me and I won't die using their slide? In the case of the chemistry set, I'm buying something I know can hurt me if I use it wrong. It has warnings all over it. Actually, I had a chemistry set when I was young, but really don't remember anything about it, unfortunately.
- slg 5y ago
  The reputation of the park being dangerous wasn't retroactive. According to Wikipedia, at least 6 people died in the park. That "assumption" that the park was safe should have been gone after the 1st death and was certainly gone after the 5th. People knew that it was dangerous at the time and that was part of the fun. Does that mean the 6th person to die is solely responsible for their own death? To paraphrase you "they were doing something they knew could hurt them". Does that excuse the park's horrendous safety record? Should the park be allowed to operate if customers knew death was a very real possibility?
  - mdavis6890 5y ago
    The same could be said about airplanes, boats, snowboarding, driving, etc. What was the fatality rate of the park compared to, say, skydiving? Or motorcycle riding? Or pop Warner football?
- awb 5y ago
  > In the case of the chemistry set, I'm buying something I know can hurt me if I use it wrong. Chemistry is not a commonly known subject though. For example, I took AP Chemistry in HS and this article is the first time I’ve ever heard of “cobalt chloride”. We have a social contract that parents teach their kids about common household safety like don’t touch hot things, how to use a knife and don’t shoot your brother with a BB gun. Those things we all know can harm us. Chemistry just isn’t in that category. Parents aren’t warning their kids from a young age about “cobalt chloride” and to make sure you never ingest it.
mdavis6890 5y ago
Stories such as the one you mention about the woman who lost her son are very moving - but this is exactly the problem. It’s not wise to base decisions on individual anecdotes, or to reason from emotion. Emotions are real and in some ways the most important consideration, but not one persons emotion, not a few tragic cases. We have to do our best to check our human tendency to overweight these emotional stories and reason about the overall impact to everybody. When we feel ourselves reacting emotionally to a story, that’s when we should least trust our own judgement.
- slg 5y ago
  My argument is no more emotional or anecdotal than the one in the article. They didn't share any statistics about how chemistry kits resulted in smart kids or how accidents with the kits were so rare as to be worth ignoring. Their argument was one based purely on nostalgia and ideology. If you think their argument is reasoned, odds are it is because you have that same nostalgia or share that same ideology.
  - mdavis6890 5y ago
    I don’t think their argument was well reasoned. For one thing, as other posters mentioned, these kits actually ARE still available. Neither one story of happy memories of chemistry sets or one story of a childhood cut short should be the basis of reasoning about things.
- watwut 5y ago
  The "it was so múch fun" is as emotional as it gets. There is literally document all about emotions and you object to one of them and approve the others.
closeparen 5y ago
Action Park didn't banish gs from the American childhood experience. We know perfectly well how to make thrilling amusement park rides under serious safety engineering discipline, and that's what happens.
cipheredStones 5y ago
I was curious and looked this up,and "several kids died" actually understates how dangerous it was. Only one of the victims was a minor (a 15-year-old who drowned) - the rest were all adults. An 18 and a 20-year-old by drowning, a 19-year-old by a ride car jumping a track, and a 27-year-old by electrocution. (And who shall I say is calling?)

by slg 5y ago

e40 5y ago

To me there's a big difference between a water park slide and a chemistry set. The water park is a business that is providing you an experience on their property. In this case, isn't there the assumption that they hired good engineers to build the slide, so they could make money off me and I won't die using their slide? In the case of the chemistry set, I'm buying something I know can hurt me if I use it wrong. It has warnings all over it. Actually, I had a chemistry set when I was young, but really don't remember anything about it, unfortunately.

slg 5y ago
The reputation of the park being dangerous wasn't retroactive. According to Wikipedia, at least 6 people died in the park. That "assumption" that the park was safe should have been gone after the 1st death and was certainly gone after the 5th. People knew that it was dangerous at the time and that was part of the fun. Does that mean the 6th person to die is solely responsible for their own death? To paraphrase you "they were doing something they knew could hurt them". Does that excuse the park's horrendous safety record? Should the park be allowed to operate if customers knew death was a very real possibility?
- mdavis6890 5y ago
  The same could be said about airplanes, boats, snowboarding, driving, etc. What was the fatality rate of the park compared to, say, skydiving? Or motorcycle riding? Or pop Warner football?
awb 5y ago
> In the case of the chemistry set, I'm buying something I know can hurt me if I use it wrong. Chemistry is not a commonly known subject though. For example, I took AP Chemistry in HS and this article is the first time I’ve ever heard of “cobalt chloride”. We have a social contract that parents teach their kids about common household safety like don’t touch hot things, how to use a knife and don’t shoot your brother with a BB gun. Those things we all know can harm us. Chemistry just isn’t in that category. Parents aren’t warning their kids from a young age about “cobalt chloride” and to make sure you never ingest it.

mdavis6890 5y ago

Stories such as the one you mention about the woman who lost her son are very moving - but this is exactly the problem. It’s not wise to base decisions on individual anecdotes, or to reason from emotion. Emotions are real and in some ways the most important consideration, but not one persons emotion, not a few tragic cases. We have to do our best to check our human tendency to overweight these emotional stories and reason about the overall impact to everybody. When we feel ourselves reacting emotionally to a story, that’s when we should least trust our own judgement.

slg 5y ago
My argument is no more emotional or anecdotal than the one in the article. They didn't share any statistics about how chemistry kits resulted in smart kids or how accidents with the kits were so rare as to be worth ignoring. Their argument was one based purely on nostalgia and ideology. If you think their argument is reasoned, odds are it is because you have that same nostalgia or share that same ideology.
- mdavis6890 5y ago
  I don’t think their argument was well reasoned. For one thing, as other posters mentioned, these kits actually ARE still available. Neither one story of happy memories of chemistry sets or one story of a childhood cut short should be the basis of reasoning about things.
watwut 5y ago
The "it was so múch fun" is as emotional as it gets. There is literally document all about emotions and you object to one of them and approve the others.

closeparen 5y ago

Action Park didn't banish gs from the American childhood experience. We know perfectly well how to make thrilling amusement park rides under serious safety engineering discipline, and that's what happens.

cipheredStones 5y ago

I was curious and looked this up,and "several kids died" actually understates how dangerous it was. Only one of the victims was a minor (a 15-year-old who drowned) - the rest were all adults. An 18 and a 20-year-old by drowning, a 19-year-old by a ride car jumping a track, and a 27-year-old by electrocution. (And who shall I say is calling?)