I suppose what I missed in my first response was the risk-reward calculation. Many things might genuinely be more risky than eating a gecko, and there are probably things I have done which are riskier, but eating a gecko has no intrinsic reward. Why do something that has a degree of risk and where there is absolutely no reward or gain? He's not helping anything or anyone, nor doing anything good for himself by executing this pointless endeavor.
I think the term 'I was drunk' would likely come into the explanation if he did eat the gecko, it was the cause, and he was able to discuss it with us now. The reward is actually fairly similar to the mountaineering example, you just don't relate to it as much. You talk about mountaineering as a thrill and challenge. For many people, eating a live gecko would be quite a challenge. Actually, probably most people would find it a mental challenge. The thrill comes from both doing something which is in some way challenging, and in this case, impressing the crowd. Whether or not you or I find it impressive or challenging, many people would, and clearly we both know that. You don't actually help anyone by climbing a mountain. There's no cure for cancer or answers to the universe's mysteries up at the top. People climb a mountain for the challenge, to say 'I did something difficult'. It's actually extremely similar to the motivation for eating a gecko. Given that climbing a mountain is equally pointless - you literally get no reward other than personal satisfaction and impressing other people, just like eating a gecko when dared to, and sure, you could say you get exercise, but you can do that just as effectively without risking your life by doing it on a mountain, do you have no sympathy for those who die climbing mountains? It is very much the same thing. I used to skydive, I knew people who died doing it, I had a friend die doing it. I've had two friends killed by snakes. Non snake people very often express similar scorn and contempt as yours towards people killed by snakes when those people were deliberately interacting with them. I'm guessing you would disagree with that contempt, which makes your own in this case quite hypocritical.
Take a genuinely riskier practice like mountaineering. Mountaineers risk their lives in a much greater capacity, but they do it for the thrill of the adventure and for the physical challenge. Where is the thrill of eating a gecko? I don't think the two are equatable as I think you might imply. Risk is only valuable when there is a potential payoff, and the potential payoff here was null. It was a pointless act of cruelty with no opportunity to gain and an inherent risk this person made. In this instance that risk (potentially, as you pointed out) resulted in his death, leaving behind a family that can only grieve and wonder why.
I addressed this above, but you are projecting your own standards universally upon all people, which is inappropriate. It makes no sense. What thrills people depends on them personally, and your own personal standards apply only to yourself. I routinely eat foods which most western people could no, and most of those who do find it quite thrilling or challenging. For me, and probably you, handling a snake is nothing, but to some people, handling a harmless python is a massive accomplishment, and to others, it is something beyond their capability. The level of accomplishment, thrill and adventure, depends on the individual person/people involved. For some people, talking to a stranger is a massive accomplishment which deserves congratulations. I have a strange phobia (I won't discuss it here as it'll get off topic) and for me to face it is extremely difficult, but to almost anyone else in the world, doing the exact same thing is nothing.
I am curious though: To me, sympathy entails a degree of common feeling and understanding between people, sharing their emotional state and understanding their position and feelings towards the world. My question to you would be in what capacity do you understand this man's decision making thereby allowing you to relate to him emotionally? I'm genuinely struggling to conjure a state of mind where I could justify that course of thinking which I guess is why I'm struggle to sympathize.
I think this paragraph demonstrates what I meant when I said your statement says a lot about who you are. You seem incapable of sympathising with someone simply because you can not understand that their standards of challenge, adventure, reward, achievement, etc, while different from your own, are still valid and do exist.
You say sympathy entails common feelings and understanding between people. I would have hoped that the fact that this man was a father, a partner, a friend, someone who loved and was loved by others, meant you could relate to him on some level. I don't even need to understand what he was thinking when he did whatever he did to sympathise. He could have misjudged how slippery the floor was and taken the risk of walking on the tiles rather than waiting for them to dry, fallen and broken his neck and I'd sympathise. But even if it was important to understand the situation, assuming the gecko story is true, surely you can see that to him and his mates, eating the gecko was a dare based on their feeling that it was scary or took some level of mental fortitude or they would find it funny or amazing, and he wanted to impress them and challenge himself. Even if we think that's stupid and even if it's true that it's stupid, we can surely understand that. I mean, I know of people who have died because of their own stupidity, and I still sympathise with some of those cases. He wasn't trying to hurt anyone, there's nothing to suggest he was a bad person, he seems to have been a loving person who was well liked, and that seems to be enough to sympathise or at least not speak harshly.
