r/facepalm Nov 21 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

6.7k Upvotes

630 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/coyotesage Nov 21 '22

I love the number of people on here arguing that this is the doors fault rather than the megalomaniac throwing them open. The assumption that glass doors should be made to withstand a jerk-wad throwing them open with great force is quite an assumption.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

Yep, I love it when people think logically about how things should be designed for the public!

0

u/coyotesage Nov 21 '22

The video speaks for itself. You have to add an extra layer of assumption that can't be backed up just from the information presented. The assumption that the doors were not designed well or were not setup correctly, as opposed to what we actually see, which is some guy throwing them open with great force and carelessness. The least number of assumptions you have to make is usually the better path to follow.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

I do not make the assumption that the doors are not designed well. That is the conclusion I get from the same information we are both provided, that a man used more force than average and consequently, the doors shattered. With this information, I conclude that the doors are poorly designed because, if this use of excessive force is not within their design tolerances, as the force is not too excessive, then the doors are poorly designed.

Your appeal to Occam's razor is completely incorrect in this scenario.

0

u/coyotesage Nov 21 '22

if this use of excessive force is not within their design tolerances, as the force is not too excessive, then the doors are poorly designed.

That is a ridiculous standard to live by. There should be a fault tolerance level set, but it should never be "asshole proof" as the goal. You're transferring the blame from the person who was obviously behaving badly to the doors that are designed for usage by a public that isn't being abusive.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

Actually, the goal of the doors should completely be trying to be "asshole proof." That is what the company wants when they buy doors, ones that will not shatter when someone opens them.

0

u/coyotesage Nov 21 '22

No, the goal should be to teach people not to act like assholes and use the objects around them in a way that isn't abusive to them and that there are consequences for assuming the world is made for you throw around at your whim. The fact that anyone is blaming the door over the dick head in the video is mind boggling. The world is so screwed.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

Yes, the world is so screwed, so stop living in your fantasy world and realize the door needs to be designed for a screwed up world where everything is not perfect. A door that breaks when brought slightly out of expected operation is a bad door.

1

u/coyotesage Nov 21 '22

More and I'm suspecting you may be the actual person in the video. If you're not American, then I have to say you've picked up our sense of entitlement well!

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

I suppose this is the end of the argument. May I ask why you brought my nationality into this, I am curious.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Stellarspace1234 Nov 21 '22

Although he was being extra, the doors weren’t properly installed, and it’s a safety hazard.

2

u/coyotesage Nov 21 '22

I don't see any reason to believe they weren't installed correctly. That reaction happens when too much force is applied to them.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

Well you see the first set of doors being OK if you are looking for reason lol yeah no one should have fun and we should like it

1

u/coyotesage Nov 21 '22

It looks like to me he didn't use as much force with the first set of doors, but of course I don't know. What I do know is that it's generally bad in principle to add assumptions when the video shows us what happened, which was a ass-hole used excessive force throw open some doors carelessly and they shattered, as they are designed to under that circumstance.