|By Tradsplatter |
From Boulder, CO
Dec 30, 2006
National Propaganda Radio shamelessly promoting irrational emotionally charged response that boils down to equivocation, AS USUAL! Are we being shamed into avoiding risk here because other people will potentially suffer a loss if we are killed?? Risk is part of life. Death is part of life. Arenít some things worth dying for? Apparently there are, since our government has no problem sending soldiers to die (sarcasm intended here). David Roberts dismisses the analogy of crossing the street being more risky than climbing. He says it depends on how you cross the street, from crossing recklessly to exercising caution. His implication seems to be that crossing with caution is somehow just fine, but recklessness will get you killed. Mr. Roberts then goes on to say people like Ed Viesters are wrong to claim mountain climbing can be done safely by being as cautious as possible and mitigating risk factors. What kind of reverse horsepoop logic is this!? One can exercise great caution and still trip and fall down on the street, only to be run over by a reckless speeding vehicle beyond your control. Just as with mountaineering and climbing..you can be experienced, conservative risk taker doing all the accepted safety precautions and still get killed by rock fall, an unfortunate slip or other unforeseen hazard. Mr. Roberts and everyone who listens to him might benefit if he registered for a logic course.
Personal responsibility is at issue here, not shared responsibility between the individual and society. If you do things such as solo or climb in risky situations, then YOU accept the consequence Ė pretty simple. The problem is when you do risky things and expect to be bailed out if something goes wrong. Your family is free to question your actions or lobby for you not to engage in behavior that endangers the family unit, but ultimately the risk analysis and decision to climb rests with that individual. David Roberts acknowledges at one point that people who mountaineer without expectation of rescue is an admirable way to approach the sport. Yet the subtext of this interview appears to be somehow that responsibility involved in a decision to mountain climb is somehow spread to society and family. How exactly does this work? I could be off base, but isnít this just typical of societal tendency to make an outcast of someone who chooses a lifestyle which does not conform to mainstream views, practices or social norm?
ďA man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he becomes a conformist.Ē
--Ralph Waldo Emerson