Olas said:
Yes, because a few seconds of pain in your finger and having a $400 device you just bought destroyed are equivalent.
It can go both ways, depending on how you feel like looking at it. Which is worse, loss of money or actual physical harm? iPhones are expensive (
and this is exactly why you think twice before doing stupid stuff with them!) but can be replaced. Burn scars would stick with you your whole life. Regardless, let's not get hung up on one specific example, I also include "sticking your tongue to a frozen lamp pole" and "browsing the internet without an antivirus" in this category. You know, simple everyday knowledge to live longer, healthier, and happier.
Also, most parents don't TELL their children to touch the stove, by lying to them about what will happen when they do. Trying to defend this prank by calling it a "lesson" is obviously disingenuous; ya, it's real important people learn to not do something they wouldn't have done on their own anyway.
In fairness, I grant you that no, most people will not think to put their phone in a microwave. In turn, I expect you grant me the point that
intelligent people wouldn't do that even if suggested. The folks that
do are apparently not aware of what microwaves do to technology, and in this respect it is indeed a learning experience. It may not be ideal classroom education[footnote]My own education came from watching my friends nuke Free Trial AOL disks in science class, circa 2001[/footnote], but it would be equally disingenuous to say there isn't a lesson to be learned here. Multiple, counting the whole "don't believe everything you read on the internet" adage.
How do you know how "otherwise-intelligent" these people are?
I don't, it was simply my logical conclusion based on the fact that they can still operate a device to post evidence of their incompetence, and hadn't taken themselves out of the equation with a Darwin Award yet. But you're right, they could be complete morons top to bottom, I wouldn't honestly know.
Frankly it doesn't really matter, whether it was actually low intelligence, or gullibility, or whatever, none of it is a moral transgression. I don't have any problem with pranks if all they do is scare or embarrass someone in a non-harmful way, but when you start destroying someone's property I think you're crossing a line.
And here is where we see a fundamental divergence.
-You claim the hoaxers are the ones destroying the property (by suggesting the act).
-I assert it falls upon the one
actually nuking the phone.
I can see where there's a bit of moral leeway in who is "more" at fault here, but consider also: you don't see anyone in this thread crying "Waah, I microwaved my phone and it didn't work!" Which says to me pretty clearly that they saw the same "Wave" ad and somehow managed to keep their phone intact.
Let's face it, you don't have much of a leg to stand on here. You're defending the morality of a prank that was done by people who obviously didn't care about the morality of it.
Incorrect. I am ascribing my own morality to it because I like seeing foolish people learn from their errors. I don't honestly give a damn if the prank is moral or not. You may not
like my sense of morality, but then I don't care much for defending the actions of the stupid either. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.
For goodness sake, saying someone used "free will" doesn't mean a damn thing when they are acting on misinformation. How do you not understand that? Why do you keep bringing up their "free will" like they knowingly chose to destroy their phone?
Because they did? Spin it however you like, the cold, hard (and burned/melted) fact is, they put their own phone in the microwave. They pushed the button.
The end result may not have been what they anticipated, but it was entirely their own choice to do so. Again, that isn't really a debatable point unless you also want to take argument with things like "fate" and "destiny" (or karma, as another user suggested).
Your argument that they should have checked to see if it was fake is based on the notion that they should have been skeptical to begin with, that they should have known better.
Yep. Microwaves have been common household appliances since the 70's. Anyone in this day and age - smartphone owner or otherwise -
should be well acquainted with its function. This is not an unreasonable expectation.
If they weren't smart enough to realize the Wave thing was BS why would you assume they're smart enough to know to search around the internet first?
Because they obviously read it
from the internet to begin with. Taking an extra ten seconds to double-check that isn't asking a whole lot, when they're already connected.
I'm not saying these people didn't need to be taught a lesson about taking things at face value, but teaching lessons doesn't require you to be a dick, which is all these pranksters were trying to be.
A fair and valid point. I don't think a facebook survey "Would you microwave your phone?" would have the same impact though.
Even your own strawman doesn't hold up in this case: When a person drops a bowling ball on another person, you blame the one dropping the ball. When they put their phone in the microwave and nuke it, you blame them for that too.
No, actually it does hold up. It's your interpretation that's flawed. The person who drops the ball
knows what will happen. Only if he was unaware of how gravity works would he be analogous to the person putting the phone in the microwave. You might as well blame the microwave while you're at it since it also acted without knowing that it was going to destroy the phone.
Do you realize you just broke your own example? Regardless, let's dispense with strawmen altogether please, it serves no purpose here.
It's only a "hoax" if you spread a false belief that's not materially damaging. If you spread a false belief that causes someone financial harm it's technically fraud, not that this is something that one could or should take to court.
We're splitting hairs with the semantics here, but for the record I think you might be interested to note:
Hoax said:
As for the closely related terms practical joke and prank, Brunvand states that although there are instances where they overlap, hoax tends to indicate "relatively complex and large-scale fabrications" and includes deceptions that go beyond the merely playful and "cause material loss or harm to the victim".
Not that I consider Wikipedia an almighty bastion of pure truth, but this isn't the first time "hoax" has been used to describe a prank that was indeed damaging in some way.
I'm not trying to raise a mob. I just find it concerning how many people seem perfectly fine, or even happy about this, and I think the notion that these people "deserved" to lose their phones should be challenged.
edit: Also, not that it makes any difference, but I'm clearly not alone in my sentiment like you're trying to imply. I've seen planet of comments from others expressing sympathy for the people who lost their phones.
Not alone, just in the minority. That's fine though, I've found myself on that side of the fence more often than not, and it generally doesn't change anyone's opinions either way.
As I stated earlier, I'd be happiest just knowing people weren't that dumb to begin with, but I've had an astonishingly low tolerance for wanton ignorance all my life. Darwin Awards, Feed Dump, articles like this - it helps knowing that such levels of foolishness do have consequence.
In this case, a slagged iPhone.
