a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by ButterflyEffect

There's some interesting discussion going on right now about what it means to be a responsible mountaineer. If you are partaking in these kind of expeditions (for any of the eight-thounsanders), is it reckless to do so without having rescue money set aside? Contingency planning involves beacons, satellite communication devices, and gear, but not evacuation funding as a last-ditch resort.

In this case I would hope (to kleinbl00's point about the Nepalese army) that it is common knowledge for those attempting routes in Pakistan that funding is a requirement before a helicopter will be scrambled. It's a reasonable response from the private company operating the helicopter, it is a dangerous enough thing to send one into these areas with how fast the weather and winds can change.

I'm fine with it, ultimately. $50,000, $100,000, a handful of times of year in rescue attempts pales in financial comparison to many, many other things. Crowdfunded or not. You and I agree that this is the pursuit and reflection of the human spirit that keeps these things going. Hopefully not in a conquest against nature, but in an exploration of what it has to offer. Caves shouldn't be closed, nor should mountain, nor should our national parks.





kleinbl00  ·  2487 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Caves shouldn't be closed, nor should mountain, nor should our national parks.

What a fucking cheap shot. Would you care to continue your argument without pathetic attempts at false equivalency and whataboutism?

ButterflyEffect  ·  2487 days ago  ·  link  ·  

How is that a cheap shot? I honestly don't think either should be closed. They're incredibly different things, you're right, but should one or the other be closed? No, is my opinion.

kleinbl00  ·  2487 days ago  ·  link  ·  

How is it not a cheap shot? We're discussing things that are inherently dangerous, like caves that eat boy scouts or mountains called "killer mountain" and here you are all drawing fucking national parks into the equation.

ButterflyEffect  ·  2487 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That had no relation to whatever argument this is nor was it a (intended) cheap shot. Nature should be open and the topic was on my mind considering other countries are adding national parks while we're subtracting.

kleinbl00  ·  2487 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Then why bring it up? It's like discussing whether or not chefs should be allowed to cook blowfish sushi and then saying "and also I think everyone should be allowed to eat salmon, even though the President hates it."

Nobody here is discussing closing national parks. You're leading with "responsible mountaineer" and including within that solution space "keep national parks open." My beef is that, as always, someone not quite prepared enough doesn't get rescued by a bunch of people who have to risk their lives in pursuit of picking up everyone else's slack and you gotta paint me with Bears Ears Bullshit?

If "nature should be open" then leave your fuckin' transponder at home, sporto. "Open" doesn't mean "the whole community drops everything to try and keep your ass from freezing to death because you thought the Himalayas in winter would be invigorating.

ButterflyEffect  ·  2487 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    If "nature should be open" then leave your fuckin' transponder at home, sporto. "Open" doesn't mean "the whole community drops everything to try and keep your ass from freezing to death because you thought the Himalayas in winter would be invigorating.

    false equivalency

This is going in a mean-spirited direction, I think it's best I drop it at this point.