An unpopular take on The Alpinist

Eric Marx wrote:

I've never heard of Tobin, so I don't have much of an opinion, but I'm going to buy his book when I get home. Thank you. Seems right up my alley. An AAC article describes him as "invariably cheerful" which certainly sounds like somebody with a deep understanding of Christian theology to me.

That's quite the troll comment Marx, you really nailed that one home.

To be serious, could it be possible for non believers to have pure , wholesome beliefs like following the golden rule and do you believe Donald Trump can bring Christianity back from the depths it has sunken to in modern times?

I'm reminded of the fictional documentary skit that Dave Chapelle did where he played a black man in the KKK, I'm not too sure why.

Todd Berlier wrote:

This is actually a take I hadn't considered. I guess I give more leeway in the artistry of film making. I knew the outcome, so my bias is clear. Upon consideration, I do agree it was manipulative to not reveal his death. I felt like a bit of a voyeur into BH's soul and that made me super uncomfortable. I also think that uncomfortable-ness allowed me to explore my feelings about soloing and soloists, which I think is the main sub-point to the movie, primary was celebrating MAL's accomplishments. Shortly after seeing the movie I was walking thru the buttermilk's with my daughter and BH was sitting in front of a boulder putting her shoes on. I looked away and kept walking as I didn't feel comfortable. Normally I would have stopped, said hello and introduced myself and my daughter. I think facing the uncomfortable-ness of death is something we should do with ourselves and our children and talking openly about it, which is imo is one of the goals of the movie and as a result of the movie sparked conversations with my kids about risk, death, etc.

Me, I'm grateful for the movie for the celebration of MAL's life and for what it taught me about myself and the conversations it sparked with my kids.

Oh for sure. The roman coliseum, 13th century executions in Mongolia, Aztec pyramids, and the guillotine have loads of artistry! And I’m sure many in the audience who went to view the gladiator fights or hangings were “super uncomfortable” at various moments, but on the whole felt like the experience was a net positive. Some maybe even feeling some profound philosophical understanding of mortality, or had intimations of the divine as they pulled some poor aztec peasant’s beating heart out! 

People who try to be “artistic” with death are, im sorry to say, untalented lowlifes who go for the easy low blow for maximum effect. Especially in a documentary, which is real life and plays to an audience. I will never forget in middle school when we had an assignment on “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and there was that one scene where some old lady died, and the teacher encouraged us to write about “the beauty of her corpse.” Maybe the directors of the film had a similar teacher, but had a different takeaway...

Yes, in principle, there is nothing wrong with meditating on death and the risks of soloing. But I think all of those positives of the film you describe, like celebrating his life or contemplating soloing, could have been accomplished no problem without doing that surprise climax for 99% of the audience who never heard of him.

M M wrote:

That's quite the troll comment Marx, you really nailed that one home.

To be serious, could it be possible for non believers to have pure , wholesome beliefs like following the golden rule and do you believe Donald Trump can bring Christianity back from the depths it has sunken to in modern times?

I'm reminded of the fictional documentary skit that Dave Chapelle did where he played a black man in the KKK, I'm not too sure why.

Hey, remind me again, where did that golden rule come from?

No, Donald Trump is not a person I would consider to have a deep understanding of Christian theology.

Edit: http://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/12198135400/Tobin-Sorenson-1955-1980

The biggest risk taker I knew in high school broke his neck before graduation, became a quadriplegic and drank himself to death. The biggest risk taker I knew in college (and one of my best friends) did a huge jump into a raging river and drowned. Some people are born different.

I take risks but it’s always calculated and although I know anything can happen I also know the odds are way worse for riskier activities like free soloing or BASE jumping. For some people it’s worth the risk. For some people I don’t think they really understand the risk or don’t care.

Honnold is very calculated. The fact that he backed off his first attempt on El Cap shows his mentality. He’s willing to take risks but he climbed the route many times and knew what he was doing. Of course his risk tolerance is higher than most people but it’s not surprising that he pulled this off and is almost 40 and still alive.

Marc was different. He was willing to accept a very high level of risk outside of his control. Free soloing ice routes that can break off is like Russian roulette. It’s like the two people I know who died. It’s a level of risk that most people aren’t willing to take and the chance you will die is much higher.

I thought the movie did a pretty good job not glorifying his behavior but I didn’t really enjoy the movie because I’ve seen similar things happen before it real life. Whereas l love free solo because it was such and amazing and risky thing done as safely as possible. 

Glowering wrote:

The biggest risk taker I knew in high school broke his neck before graduation, became a quadriplegic and drank himself to death. The biggest risk taker I knew in college (and one of my best friends) did a huge jump into a raging river and drowned. Some people are born different.

I take risks but it’s always calculated and although I know anything can happen I also know the odds are way worse for riskier activities like free soloing or BASE jumping. For some people it’s worth the risk. For some people I don’t think they really understand the risk or don’t care.

Honnold is very calculated. The fact that he backed off his first attempt on El Cap shows his mentality. He’s willing to take risks but he climbed the route many times and knew what he was doing. Of course his risk tolerance is higher than most people but it’s not surprising that he pulled this off and is almost 40 and still alive.

Marc was different. He was willing to accept a very high level of risk outside of his control. Free soloing ice routes that can break off is like Russian roulette. It’s like the two people I know who died. It’s a level of risk that most people aren’t willing to take and the chance you will die is much higher.

I thought the movie did a pretty good job not glorifying his behavior but I didn’t really enjoy the movie because I’ve seen similar things happen before it real life. Whereas l love free solo because it was such and amazing and risky thing done as safely as possible. 

I think it’s a bit disrespectful to the life and legacy of Marc Andre to decide posthumously how calculated he was or was not. I’m not singling you out because others have done it as well.

Stating that Honnold is calculated but Marc Andre wasnt is impossible to prove. One of them had a film crew following him, years of documentation of his solos, and hours of interviews describing his process. The other dodged the film crew, generally avoided media attention, and was very quiet about everything until he accomplished it.

These declarations about their relative risk tolerances and acceptance are unsubstantiated without Marc Andre having the ability to tell his own story.

And fwiw, “I take risks but it’s always calculated” is something everyone believes about himself…including those who do things you deem too risky. 

BrokenChairs 88 wrote:

I don't think anyone complaining has ever actually climbed a single pitch. 

And there it is!  Hahaha.

No, I dont climb much these days. But I used to climb a lot in france as a kid. I was 8 when I first top-roped a pitch in Sisteron. 10 years old when I  led a 4 pitch climb in Verdon. We climbed almost every weekend.  I was 11 when I first tried a bit of soloing while the parents weren't watching. Admittedly a super easy climb.  

So I once was that kid who obsessed about climbing, read about it, and wondered about these things we are discussing now on this thread..

NateC wrote:

I think it’s a bit disrespectful to the life and legacy of Marc Andre to decide posthumously how calculated he was or was not. I’m not singling you out because others have done it as well.

Stating that Honnold is calculated but Marc Andre wasnt is impossible to prove. One of them had a film crew following him, years of documentation of his solos, and hours of interviews describing his process. The other dodged the film crew, generally avoided media attention, and was very quiet about everything until he accomplished it.

These declarations about their relative risk tolerances and acceptance are unsubstantiated without Marc Andre having the ability to tell his own story.

And fwiw, “I take risks but it’s always calculated” is something everyone believes about himself…including those who do things you deem too risky. 

Marc was calculating in many ways. And in others he was happy to roll the dice.

Example of very careful and very calculating: I read in an interview that he called his mum to pick up somewhere because he didn't want to cycle back home through dangerous traffic.

Example of rolling dice:  Any vertical solo climb on a mix of crumbling rock, ice, snow.  On sight thrown in. Unpredicable alpine weather thrown in. All of which we see in the film.  It doesn't matter how good you are or how calculating or well prepared.  

Isnt this Russian Roulette with 3 bullets in the cyclinder in terms of chance of death?

For example the stats on attempting to summit Annapurna is a bit more than a 1 in 4 death rate.

Its an absolutely fascinating paradox. 

NateC wrote:

I think it’s a bit disrespectful to the life and legacy of Marc Andre to decide posthumously how calculated he was or was not. I’m not singling you out because others have done it as well.

And fwiw, “I take risks but it’s always calculated” is something everyone believes about himself…including those who do things you deem too risky. 

I’m basing my opinion based on what I saw in the film. And like I said soloing on ice that could break off is a pretty high level of risk tolerance. I don’t think he wasn’t calculated at all and I could have explained my thinking better. Your risk tolerance and how calculated you are, are both on a spectrum and some people are more to one side or the other for either of them. I have friends who of course think I’m crazy for climbing at all. And there’s some truth to it. I can be a very safe climber but for example just being on El Cap you are subjecting yourself to the risk of rockfall you can’t control. But I also know I subject myself to risk every time I drive so I weigh the risk vs reward. 

Eric Marx wrote:

Hey, remind me again, where did that golden rule come from?

No, Donald Trump is not a person I would consider to have a deep understanding of Christian theology.

Edit: http://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/12198135400/Tobin-Sorenson-1955-1980

That golden rule is not owned by any specific religion FYI,  it is a shared philosophy all over the world, even Islam embraces the concept. You didn't really answer the Trump question, maybe I'll rephrase it into- will all the super happy Christians get what they want when the majority of them vote for him? I thought your past rape victim shaming was pretty low but crapping on non Christians as well is bottom barrel. I think you should dig deeper pious one.

Marc was a badass, he will be remembered in a positive light by most.

Ywan C wrote:

Example of rolling dice:  Any vertical solo climb on a mix of crumbling rock, ice, snow.  On sight thrown in. Unpredicable alpine weather thrown in. All of which we see in the film.  It doesn't matter how good you are or how calculating or well prepared.  

This is what I feel pretty strongly is disrespectful. You state it as fact. The reality is that it is your conjecture and opinion that this is rolling the dice. 

To counter: Colin Haley is considered widely to be highly calculated and have very tight risk management... yet he is known for solos of rock, ice and snow (I left out crumbling because you threw that in there) in alpine environments. 

This is where I argued earlier that you should stop picking apart the life and death of Marc Andre. You are using his death as a tool to enhance your own argument which is largely emotional, lacking in fact, and labeling a man who isn't here to defend himself or provide fact to the contrary. You're doing it all off of a highly dramatized "documentary." 

You leave no room for anything to the contrary. Things like: What if Marc Andre wasn't anything like you? What if Marc Andre thought normal life was sad and unfulfilling and he was so profoundly fulfilled by climbing that he was willing to accept that death would be a part of it? What if Marc Andre knew what it was to so completely devote himself to something that anything less than the complete acceptance of all possible outcomes was to tarnish the gift of what it provided to him?

To make the statements you are making requires you to make assumptions about someone you don't know and to assume that they approached life through the same lens you do. Therefore what they did was unacceptable. But this is a slippery slope, because before too long humans start policing the way one another choose to live. And maybe he didn't want to live like you? So why don't you just let it go and accept that you didn't understand the man? Quit judging him through the myopic lense of your own life and understand that he was a human with free will and he chose to go about life differently than you did. 

NateC wrote:

This is what I feel pretty strongly is disrespectful. You state it as fact. The reality is that it is your conjecture and opinion that this is rolling the dice. 

To counter: Colin Haley is considered widely to be highly calculated and have very tight risk management... yet he is known for solos of rock, ice and snow (I left out crumbling because you threw that in there) in alpine environments. 

This is where I argued earlier that you should stop picking apart the life and death of Marc Andre. You are using his death as a tool to enhance your own argument which is largely emotional, lacking in fact, and labeling a man who isn't here to defend himself or provide fact to the contrary. You're doing it all off of a highly dramatized "documentary." 

You leave no room for anything to the contrary. Things like: What if Marc Andre wasn't anything like you? What if Marc Andre thought normal life was sad and unfulfilling and he was so profoundly fulfilled by climbing that he was willing to accept that death would be a part of it? What if Marc Andre knew what it was to so completely devote himself to something that anything less than the complete acceptance of all possible outcomes was to tarnish the gift of what it provided to him?

To make the statements you are making requires you to make assumptions about someone you don't know and to assume that they approached life through the same lens you do. Therefore what they did was unacceptable. But this is a slippery slope, because before too long humans start policing the way one another choose to live. And maybe he didn't want to live like you? So why don't you just let it go and accept that you didn't understand the man? Quit judging him through the myopic lense of your own life and understand that he was a human with free will and he chose to go about life differently than you did. 

Here we go again. Somehow there's a type of person who is easily offended by another person enquiring into the risk factor.

I didn't say I knew the risk factor.  It was question. Hence the use of a question mark. See how that works?

I said Annapurna has a 1 in 4 death rate. That is a fact. 

Stating that someone is rolling the dice in mountain climbing is disrespectful? Are you joking?

Now... if no one here has the answer to the risk factors involved in MALs climbing routes then so be it.  

That doesn't change my curiosity in looking for an answer, if answer of some sort can be provided.

Is that clear?

Ywan C wrote:

I said Annapurna has a 1 in 4 death rate. That is a fact. 

I'm pretty sure that that is the total deaths/ number of successful summits which makes the mountain sound more dangerous. Deaths/people leaving base camp would be a better indication of the danger. Not to say the mountain is not dangerous.

Eric Marx wrote:

The Golden Rule explicitly came from the big man JC, Matthew 7:12 “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s been embraced around the world because it’s a good idea, though I would deeply question the traditional Islamic understanding of it. Tell me how you don’t need God but you follow God’s rule. Although based on your blatant lies, you don’t seem to be following it at all.

The Golden Rule:  The earliest known use of the term “Golden Rule”  probably did come from Christians. Some say early 1600s. But that maxim of reciprocity has its’ earliest know recording in an Egyption story (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."

And the maxim has roots in many other cultures and religions.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

We should not imply that such a universal human truth originated from one religion.  It only takes a little detective work to know otherwise. :)

I directly quoted from the Bible as the quote is used today. Since Jesus both claimed to be(“I and the Father are one”) and also happens to be God, and none of the other (slightly different interpretations) of this rule came directly from God himself until Jesus(maybe through prophets) this is still God’s direct rule and commandment.

I didn’t convert from 28 years of devout atheism to Christianity(more specifically Catholicism) because I didn’t spend any time studying world religions, and that study went much deeper than a Wikipedia article.

I have to ask again, to somebody like Bill who isn’t a dishonest person, why can’t I make a single post on this website without people rushing to their torches and pitchforks. This thread has nothing to do with any of this, I simply provided an opinion directly relevant to this thread. Ignore it if you don’t like it. Now we’re talking Christian theology, Trump, and lies about my standing on sexual assault victims lol I’ll talk about all this stuff in a separate “deep Christian theology” thread if you would like.

Eric, this is precisely what I meant when I referred to this discussion entering into 'dangerous territory'. Surely within the context of MP, conversations about such things as religion and politics often quickly deteriorate into name-calling, insults, etc.--and are also almost invariably exercises in futility, in terms of persuasion or 'enlightenment'. But even more 'dangerous', as I initially wrote and others have posted in more elegant terms, is attempting to determine, and pass judgment upon, the motivations of others, especially strangers. Sometimes I'm not even sure what motivates me to do certain things, let alone someone else!!!!

I specifically mentioned Tobin Sorensen ( I'm glad that I, at least, have prompted you to learn more about the history of our sport and some of the many and diverse individuals who have populated it over the years) because in your posts here you suggest that at least certain people, including MAL, engage in such 'envelope pushing' activities, due to 'character defects'--such as depression and addiction, while also implying that now that you are a committed Christian you are not so 'affected'. However, from all I've heard and read of him ( I did not know him personally), Sorensen was a very devoted Christian, who also engaged in  extremely risky climbing activities, even once following a very hard climb 'tied in' via noose around his neck!!!! I mentioned this as an example of how hard it is to know what factors motivate any specific individual to live and act as they do, let alone to pontificate about such things.

Eric Marx wrote:

The Golden Rule explicitly came from the big man JC, Matthew 7:12 “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It’s been embraced around the world because it’s a good idea, Tell me how you don’t need God but you follow God’s rule.

It’s the principle of reciprocity.   It’s not “Gods rule” it’s a core fundamental of the nature of conscious things.  It’s a “thinking persons rule”.  Also, because of this it preceded JC and “Matthew” by hundreds of years in Hinduism and Buddhism and others.   Christians were late to codifying the concept.  

…..You must be referring to the time I said men should marry women…..

This is an example of something that doesn’t need to be said or judged (judge not, lest ye be judged) 

It happens naturally and will never change statistically cuz it’s nature’s way (or God’s way for  you).  It’s similar to having an issue with, and judging MAL as “not normal” somehow.   It reveals a lack of fundamental understanding of how the universe works….without statistical outliers —those persons (or other things) on the edges of our own “normal” personal experience or comprehension—-life as we know it would cease to exist.  

Id suggest having a deeper faith in “God” and just accept it’s all “part of the plan”.    It’s only the Devil who suggests that we point fingers at other people to judge them as less worthy (libs, women, Muslims, gays, etc, etc) 

Eric Marx wrote:

I directly quoted from the Bible as the quote is used today. Since Jesus both claimed to be(“I and the Father are one”) and also happens to be God, and none of the other (slightly different interpretations) of this rule came directly from God himself until Jesus(maybe through prophets) this is still God’s direct rule and commandment.

I'm understanding that as a "precise wording" kind of defense that doesn't work other than for english speakers. 

Remember, this latest kerfuffle has led to an assertion that this "good idea" came from the "big man" in the Christian bible and was embraced around the world.  That if you follow that "good idea" you are following God.  So you need God.

Advocating that people need God goes well beyond "precise wording".  The defense doesn't hold water.  I'll assert again, the Golden Rule is a universal human truth not uniquely tied to any one religion in origin.  And not uniquely tied to just religions in general.

Edit: See Mark Pilate’s prior post as well.

well that went to shit in a hurry .... 

I won’t respond to all of the stuff in this thread because it’s so far off topic, but Alan, I appreciate you.(even though I do remember you as misinterpreting what I said in the Yosemite SA thread.) Hopefully we can move beyond that. I still don’t find any of the conversations dangerous, if a bit irritating that people can be so brutally dishonest, and I’m just waiting for the Mods to come in here to rush the defense of those people. I think it is obvious that MAL or Austin Howell were suffering, they both said as much. I didn’t say mental defects or anything of the sort. I was chronically depressed for a long time and I’m not anymore, so there is something to be said of that. One may say “unequivocally jovial”

Bill, you misinterpreted my defense. My defense is that prior to Jesus, no person claiming to actually be God brought this rule to other humans. Perhaps they were prophets of God, or other, because all religion is a calling to the single creator. But because Jesus said it, and Jesus is God we know it is definitively “God’s Rule.”

If you or anybody else want to talk about why Jesus is God, why God is real or compare or contrast the ideas to other world religions, or atheism, start a separate thread because I’m more than willing to talk all day about things I’m passionate about, which include: God, family, putting sexual predators in prison, diet, climbing, training/anatomy/injury/physiology, and oddly enough antique padlocks.