Have at me December 16, 2006 3:53 PM   Subscribe

Methylviolet sucks.
Discuss.
posted by Methylviolet to Etiquette/Policy at 3:53 PM (126 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

I don't want to derail the thread defending myself. If you want to hear my rationale, or tell me I'm terrible, or whatever, have at me.
posted by Methylviolet at 3:55 PM on December 16, 2006


Hmm, when was the last time someone called themself out, anybody know?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:59 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]



Climbing Mt. Hood in the winter and getting lost ... Screw them. If you need to blaze your own trail and pursue your snowflake destiny, rock on. Be happy. But whatever the consequences are, suck it up. posted by Methylviolet at 12:04 PM PST on December 16 [+] [!]


To clarify, I do not advocate billing the climbers for the cost of the rescue. I advocate locating them, telling them they're bastards, and flying away and leaving them to die.
posted by Methylviolet at 2:07 PM PST on December 16 [+][!]


You were saying people should be left to die, don't post incendiary stuff if you can't take the heat.
posted by delmoi at 4:00 PM on December 16, 2006


I agree. What else is there to discuss?
posted by dhammond at 4:02 PM on December 16, 2006


Metaphorically speaking, you're asking us to rescue you from the Mount Hood of stupidity in the after you've packed no survival gear except an ice axe of assholishness.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:03 PM on December 16, 2006 [11 favorites]


in the
posted by fandango_matt at 4:04 PM on December 16, 2006


I liked his (rhetorical) point. People with intelligence understand it wasn't literal, and it shouldn't have been taken as a derail.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:04 PM on December 16, 2006


i don't think this counts until we see methyl riding on the back of a dropped a-bomb.
posted by Stynxno at 4:04 PM on December 16, 2006


you're not that important.

let's talk about me.
posted by quonsar at 4:04 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


You misunderstand me, Delmoi.
I meant to engage folks. I passionately believe what I do, and name-calling is fine with me. But when it gets personal, it's supposed to go to Meta, because whether I'm terrible isn't relevant to Googly's thread. I may be a troll, but I'm trying to follow the guidelines here.
posted by Methylviolet at 4:06 PM on December 16, 2006


"Trolling" seems harsh*. I'd have said stirring rather than trolling. Using examples such as Russian Roulette may well(!) be exaggerating. Your rhetoric is certainly over the top, I just assumed you were either doing it on purpose or being ironic. So long as it enables others to sort out what they really think about the subject, in the long run it helps the discussion.

Fandago Matt has meta'd the metatalk. Woo.

*But I'm a newbie around here so My Mileage Has Not Yet Varied. Or something.
posted by Coaticass at 4:07 PM on December 16, 2006


Sometimes you come across as judgemental. I've noticed this in AskMe. Do you suck? I don't think so. On the other hand if you're going to voice strong opinions, especially of the "let them die" variety, or the one I noticed today "grow up you guys" or the one I noticed from yesterday "you're dumb" people will often respond in less than positive ways. Many people in MetaFilter have opted to make the choice to be brutally honest/blunt/whatever, and some people don't like them for it. It is also your choice to make.

It doesn't matter to me if you're terrible, if you suck, if you're a great Mom, if you help little old ladies across the street, or if you're typing all of this with a stick between your teeth because you're immobilized with polio. All I know about you is what you write and what you write can sometimes make you seem less than pleasant.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:08 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


What I posted doesn't mean "Methylviolet sucks." It means "Methylviolet can't possibly be serious."

So hush your mewling.
posted by thirteenkiller at 4:08 PM on December 16, 2006


Methyl, how starved for attention do you have to be to pull this sort of disingenous crap? It's kind of pathetic.
posted by dhammond at 4:09 PM on December 16, 2006


Sometimes you come across as judgemental.

because judgement is a bad thing. like discrimination.
posted by quonsar at 4:09 PM on December 16, 2006 [2 favorites]


You misunderstand me, Delmoi.
I meant to engage folks. I passionately believe what I do, and name-calling is fine with me. But when it gets personal, it's supposed to go to Meta, because whether I'm terrible isn't relevant to Googly's thread. I may be a troll, but I'm trying to follow the guidelines here.


So just ignore them. Nothing good for you will come out of this thread, I'm sure.
posted by delmoi at 4:10 PM on December 16, 2006


hey, how about that quonsar, eh?
posted by quonsar at 4:11 PM on December 16, 2006


Kumbaya, my lord, kumbaya...
posted by Methylviolet at 4:13 PM on December 16, 2006


methylviolet, are you high?
posted by Meatbomb at 4:13 PM on December 16, 2006 [2 favorites]


Oh Meatbomb I love you so
posted by thirteenkiller at 4:16 PM on December 16, 2006


I understand where you're coming from and even agree you may have a relevant point but the way it's worded, that we should laugh at these people and leave them to die, is so obviously written for effect and to get people riled that I fail to see how it can be anything but trolling. As a recreational tramper I have strong opinions on this topic too, but see no point in even engaging in discussion when your position has been put in in such a trollish manner from the start.
posted by shelleycat at 4:16 PM on December 16, 2006


People with intelligence understand it wasn't literal

And yet still might have found the rhetoric or the sentiment behind it pretty disturbing.

and it shouldn't have been taken as a derail.

Since it's directly related to some of the moral questions surrounding a rescue, I agree it's not a derail, nor is criticism directed at Mv's ideas or attitudes, but:

I don't want to derail the thread defending myself. If you want to hear my rationale, or tell me I'm terrible, or whatever, have at me.
posted by weston at 4:17 PM on December 16, 2006


(like a brother I mean)
posted by thirteenkiller at 4:18 PM on December 16, 2006


I'm sorry, but singing Kumbaya is going too far. Surely you realize that everyone hates that song? What about The Worm Song? [/kidding]

Methylbeige doesn't suit you.
posted by Coaticass at 4:19 PM on December 16, 2006



you're not that important.

let's talk about me.


I'm pretty interesting. Let's talk about me too.
posted by IronLizard at 4:21 PM on December 16, 2006


I believe scheptechs comments were the most relevant and lead to the most useful conclusion, as is usually the case.
posted by scheptech at 4:24 PM on December 16, 2006


I agree with our alcoholfloral member.

I'm just not going to say with which comment I agree.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:25 PM on December 16, 2006


I passionately believe what I do
And what exactly do you do?
posted by Joeforking at 4:35 PM on December 16, 2006


Methyl, if you're actually soliciting helpful advice (which seems unlikely, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), then here goes:
The reason people are reacting negatively to your posts is because your self-described "passionate" reactions are a little over the top. When you feel strongly about something, it's easy to jump the gun and take things to the extreme (for instance, your question about whether Brian B. would take a bullet for you). This approach is dismissive of others' views. It takes someone else's argument and boils it down to an overly simplistic and irrational assertion. You come across as snide and lacking a full understanding of the other person's point. You didn't honestly think Brian B. was offering to take a bullet, did you? Probably not. You took his point to the extreme. If you want others to value your logical, rational input, then you need to make an effort to keep things logical and rational. Focus on the actual points being made, not exaggerated hypotheticals. If you don't want things to get heated, just remember that it takes two to tango, and a "passionate" response is likely to escalate the situation unnecessarily.

OK, enough rational conversation. My honest opinion: this thread is ridiculous.
posted by Help, I can't stop talking! at 4:38 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


Methylviolet sucks.

So what does it taste like?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:40 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


Self-indulgent and lacking violence. Would not read again.
posted by The God Complex at 4:41 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


I agree, I prefer methylene blue.
posted by IronLizard at 4:58 PM on December 16, 2006


The question, I think, is what degree of personal responsibility we expect of people. Complete autonomy? None at all?


Some people seem to feel we as a society should just gladly bail anyone out of any self-inflicted difficulty at any cost.


Nope you're overreaching here. I seriously doubt anyone is angry/disgusted/disappointed with the rescue workers who backed off today because of worsening weather. In short, we should make reasonable efforts to save others, even a bit of risk, but clearly there are times when the situation can't be help, when people can't be saved. Ok, fine, it happens.

But society needs to make a reasonable effort.


People understand incentives better than anything else, and financial ruin is a pretty strong disincentive for reckless behavior.


Nope again, or else the credit cards with high interest rates would have gone out of business a while ago.

People don't always know where they're in danger. Don't leave them to die because you're smarter than them.

Here we have people who apparently aren't afraid to die in pursuit of their bliss.

Doesn't matter, they're still people and they get to be saved. We do it for attempted sucide, we can do it for some dumb hikers.

I say let them, when saving them would endanger innocent lives.

Getting in car endangers innocent lives. Life is full of risk.

There's no free money.

We know. They're called taxes.

Everything government does you pay for, and if the money goes over here, there's less to go over there.

We've got plenty, we can afford to rescue people.

Is this how you want to spend it? Underwriting someone's Xtreme jollies?

Sigh, no no no. We're not underwriting anything. We're trying to save people from dying. Earlier you commented about the death of volunteers, what cost would it be to their family. What of the cost of the hikers and their families? Have they simply stepped beyond society in your opinion and are worthless and not worthy of live? Could they not be useful members of society?

If you answer is no, once again, I urge you to relay this train of thought to the hiker's families.




Taking responsibility for your actions is not the same as being a conformist automaton.
It is, in fact, real independence.


There is no real independence in society. We all rely on others for something.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:00 PM on December 16, 2006 [2 favorites]


I don't get it. You'll leave climbers to die on a mountain, but you're so angst-ridden that you call yourself out because someone tentatively suggested you might be trolling?

There exists a sort of thing, an abstract thing, as it were, referred in some dark places as a medium that is, shall we say, happy, and you might enjoy this thing, if you can find it.
posted by bingo at 5:13 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


quonsar sucks.
posted by MrMustard at 5:16 PM on December 16, 2006


Condensed cream of turkey soup with a penny in it. IMHO.

Methyl, if you're actually soliciting helpful advice (which seems unlikely, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt)
Ah, right. Am I looking for "helpful advice" on how to improve my personality? No. I'm giving folks a forum, so the actual thread can stay on topic. But thank you for your input.

We're not underwriting anything.

Yes, you are. If you are saving me, at a cost, from the legitimate consequences of my actions, you are underwriting my ability to do it. Some things, like driving a car, we do underwrite -- but only to a degree, because we require people to carry insurance.
What of the cost of the hikers and their families? Could they not be useful members of society?
Yes, they could have been. Shame they threw their lives away.
If you answer is no, once again, I urge you to relay this train of thought to the hiker's families.
Nah. I'm callous, not cruel.
There is no real independence in society. We all rely on others for something.
I rely on people to behave with some minimum level of though to the consequences of their actions to those around them. They let me down, though.
posted by Methylviolet at 5:20 PM on December 16, 2006


Honestly, if what you've been saying is what you believe, then stand by it and deal with the blowback you're going to get. Even better, flesh out your argument so it doesn't come across as pedantic and asinine.

Running over to MeTa won't get you anything but another heapin' helping of scorn. I know this from experience.
posted by dw at 5:21 PM on December 16, 2006


I think Methylviolet is handling things pretty well. And for the record, I think he/she has a point.
posted by MrMustard at 5:26 PM on December 16, 2006


I rely on people to behave with some minimum level of though to the consequences of their actions to those around them. They let me down, though.

Yes, because it's all about you, isn't it?
posted by dhammond at 5:34 PM on December 16, 2006


Nah. I'm callous, not cruel.

"I advocate locating them, telling them they're bastards, and flying away and leaving them to die."

Those two statements don't go together.
posted by weston at 5:36 PM on December 16, 2006


I like the intensity of your posts quite a lot, Methylviolet, and would even if you decide to edge over to Methylultraviolet, I suspect.

But these particular ones do fail what I think of as the friends and family test: what if friends and family of the lost climbers were to stumble across your posts? They are beyond exhausted by now; they must be nearly undone with fear; whatever desperate hope they may have been able to hold is now being displaced by shock edged by resignation, and I think they would see what you've said as cruel, and gratuitously cruel, to an almost incomprehensible degree.

And at the risk of going altogether too far myself, I'd guess some of your vitriol comes from identifying with those friends and family, and not being able to tolerate the feelings which arise from that.
posted by jamjam at 5:39 PM on December 16, 2006 [2 favorites]


Huh -- you might have a point, Jamjam.
My brother-in-law used to ride a motorcycle for kicks despite a stay-at-home wife and two toddlers. I still think he's a bastard for that. (He doesn't like me either.)

But I can't think we all need to apply the friends and family rule to everything we say, unless those friends and family are actually present. I mean... We'd club each other to death much more often than we do if we suppressed ourselves that much.
posted by Methylviolet at 6:01 PM on December 16, 2006


What I think of as the friends and family test: what if friends and family....were to stumble across your posts?

Are there any posts on Metafilter, or any other internet discussion site, that WOULD pass this test? My experience says no.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:01 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


posted by Methylviolet If you are saving me, at a cost, from the legitimate consequences of my actions, you are underwriting my ability to do it.

The costs of saving people--as has been repeatedly pointed out to you--are covered by the taxes we, as a society, pay. In this society, we pay taxes which pay for services like fire departments, the Coast Guard, paramedics, and the like in the event people need them. Whether people need these services because of poor planning, lack of judgement or knowledge, freak weather conditions, or what-have-you, is irrelevant. We don't "underwrite" risky activity; we pay taxes to ensure you can be rescued from the consequences of it, regardless of the circumstances which necessitate your rescue. When we decide certain activity--to cite your example, drunk driving--endangers the lives of other citizens, we make that activity illegal.

posted by Methylviolet Here we have people who apparently aren't afraid to die in pursuit of their bliss. I say let them, when saving them would endanger innocent lives. I'd also like to spit on their graves 'cause they make me mad, but that's just me.

They make you that mad, eh? Psychologists have long known that kind of anger is simply deep-seated self-loathing buried under Id jealousy--I think you're actually mad at yourself for not working harder to obtain the money, endurance, experience, and ability to follow your bliss. Indeed, you keep mentioning words like freedom and independence; perhaps if you spent less time posting your pathetic, self-serving vitriol on MetaFilter, you'd find the time and the money to pursue the life and the bliss which currently elude you.
posted by fandango_matt at 6:02 PM on December 16, 2006


Not everyone puts themselves out there like you, Pink. For better or for worse, some of us (despite our anonymity) take a more cautious path when choosing what to say here.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:07 PM on December 16, 2006


I'm sure there are posters who would be safe, SeizeTheDay, but as a whole, I have never been in a community that would pass the Friends/Family test, and I've been on a lot (Just the other day on a theatre board I'm on, someone came on and called out another poster for being nasty about the Broadway show that he himself was in.)
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:11 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


Is this the line for the glory hole?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:11 PM on December 16, 2006


No. I'm giving folks a forum, so the actual thread can stay on topic.

Thank you, Methylviolet. Thank you for finally creating a safe space where we can all discuss you. Wow, so generous and thoughtful.
posted by muddgirl at 6:14 PM on December 16, 2006


And for the record, I think he/she has a point.

Yeah, but lets not have people die for it ok?

Meth,

Homemade is always better.


If you are saving me, at a cost, from the legitimate consequences of my actions,


You keep painting in those broad brushes, making ugly pictures.

The cost is pretty low for society. the risks are measured and the benefit could be great (a saved person returns alive, more upbeat etc, etc to society).

Or it might mean nothing, someone saved might come back and kill someone in a drunken rage 3 years later. More likely they'll make a difference in peoples lives in a thousand different small ways. The point is, you know, i don't know and as society, we should cut'em some slack and save their dumb asses, for free, 'cause that's what society is, banding together, pooling rescources to help others,

Shame they threw their lives away.

They didn't, you let them die.

You didn't bother to take the gun away when they were playing Russian Roulette, you just slapped them, called them asshole and then walked outta the room, closing the door behind you.

You're partially responsible for their deaths. You could have done something and you actively chose to do nothing.


I rely on people to behave with some minimum level of though to the consequences of their actions to those around them. They let me down, though.


People fuck up, they make mistakes, shit happens. No need to get all Mad Max on'em, you know?

What if (oh you knew it was coming), it was one of your kids out there lost?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:19 PM on December 16, 2006


Your pathetic, self-serving vitriol... Psychologists have long known that kind of anger is simply deep-seated self-loathing buried under Id jealousy--I think you're actually mad at yourself for not working harder to obtain the money...

I'm sorry, Fandango Matt -- I didn't realize your pathetic, self-serving vitriol was anything other than you just being a dick. Now that I know what your psychologists have long known, I do want to help you; I am not without compassion.

Let's start an investment club! Email's in the profile!
posted by Methylviolet at 6:19 PM on December 16, 2006


Stop it guys, you're hurting my internet feelings!
posted by schroedinger at 6:20 PM on December 16, 2006


Disclaimer: I'm too pissed too focus, and I'm clutching a teatowel to my hand to stop the blleeding from a cut I have no memroy of getting.

That said, Methylwhatsit is absolutely spot on: frivolous explorers should be left to rot. Not sure I'd bother gobbing on their graves, mind.


'pon Preview, this is limbering up to be a proper flameout. Fabtacular.
posted by jack_mo at 6:23 PM on December 16, 2006


Methylviolet sucks.
posted by 31d1 at 6:26 PM on December 16, 2006


frivolous explorers should be left to rot.

That reminds me of what they said to Christopher Columbus. And Edison.

Not that I'm comparing these climbers with either Columbus or Edison, but just food for thought. Also, the government (as it's setup today) is made to save people from themselves. Ya'll (who think that they should be left to rot) must be hardcore anti-government types (which I suspect you aren't). And because you probably aren't, your hypocrisy is duly noted.

Should those who have genetic diseases be disallowed from procreating? Should smokers be refused emergency medical attention if they can't afford it?

Who the fuck do you think your kidding to suggest that the government should refuse care to people? My anger for your lack of empathy is only overwhelmed by the pity I have for you, as your inability to understand humanity is very sad.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:31 PM on December 16, 2006


Glad to see you've come around, methylviolet. Let the healing begin.
posted by boo_radley at 6:33 PM on December 16, 2006


Ironic, isn't it? Methylviolet asks total strangers for help with her assorted life crises, and yet she wants to spit on the graves of total strangers who need help with their life crises.
posted by fandango_matt at 6:37 PM on December 16, 2006


Meh. Flameouts seem to have gotten crappier since I joined, maybe it's that they were so odd and confusing to an occasional lurker, maybe I've just gotten used to them.

This isn't even a fight it's one idiot continually spouting the same ideas over and over in response to requests for reconsideration, and more idiots spouting bull right back. No one really seems to care.

I have a great comment I prepped early today for a callout on an askme thread I didn't like. That would have been a fantastic flameout, glorious, sky scorching, it would have made babies weep and old people beg death's release. My comment alone might have started a nuclear war (at least one irrational and emotional mefite has access to nuclear weapons right?) it was crafted with care to do so.

This flameout sucks and is stupid.
posted by Science! at 6:38 PM on December 16, 2006


Psychologists have long known that kind of anger is simply deep-seated self-loathing buried under Id jealousy
This sounds interesting do you have citation fandango_matt?
posted by econous at 6:59 PM on December 16, 2006


A lot of people see others with more stuff than they have, with shinier possessions and better jobs and more attractive sexual partners and so on, and they'll try to perform a wee bit of moral calculus to compare themselves with the more successful person. And they'll weigh themselves against the person who has more than them, and find no significant difference, and they'll say, "That's so unfair."

That's pretty natural.

But then there's some people who'll see one person voluntarily put themselves in a place of danger to save the life of another human being, toward whom they have no obligation or even connection beyond their shared humanity, and they'll look at that and say, "That's so unfair."

I don't get that so much.

Anyway, what I'm really saying is, somebody promise to cut their hand off, already. Are flameouts not in season or something?
posted by flashboy at 7:02 PM on December 16, 2006


Methylviolet is Time's person of the year!
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:15 PM on December 16, 2006


You do suck. You're all stident and bitchy in that thread.
posted by loquacious at 7:19 PM on December 16, 2006


In the early 80's a friend and I would drive out to the Joshua Tree national park, which at the time was infested with rock climbers. We used to have a lot of fun with these fucking adrenaline junkies, using a remington 700 pss. If these idiots needed to risk their lives to get their kicks, well they barely deserved to live. At least that's what we thought at the time. We never actually killed or injured anyone, just scare the bejesus out of them. Although occasionally we may have precipitated a nasty fall or two. Still it was probably as much fun for them as it was for us, they must have got a real buzz from it, we did.
posted by econous at 7:33 PM on December 16, 2006


We used to have a lot of fun with these fucking adrenaline junkies, using a remington 700 pss.

meh ... if you wanted to be a real bastard, you would have beat them all up there and pissed on their heads as they were climbing up

amateur

(you could do that from a rescue helicopter, too ... oops ... i'm giving methviolated ideas ...)
posted by pyramid termite at 7:43 PM on December 16, 2006


MetaFilter: I'm giving folks a forum.
posted by Duncan at 7:47 PM on December 16, 2006


Every morning, there is a puddle of pee and one or more piles of poop on my kitchen floor. I think it's the dog. Please help me.
posted on Oct-24-06 at 1:44 PM EST

So this person I love wants to see my children. Does he get to?
posted on Sep-28-06 at 6:11 PM EST

[Break-up Filter] What do I do with all this stuff?
posted on Jul-13-06 at 6:29 PM EST


it was him shitting on the floor, wasn't it?
posted by quonsar at 7:56 PM on December 16, 2006 [3 favorites]


LOL@Quosnar!
posted by loquacious at 8:01 PM on December 16, 2006


But it's posted in the wrong order.
posted by liquorice at 8:17 PM on December 16, 2006


Thank you, Captain Obvious!
posted by liquorice at 8:18 PM on December 16, 2006


*sits on hands, trying not to be an asshole in MeTa*
posted by mediareport at 8:22 PM on December 16, 2006


Well this gives an Invalid User ID error so I guess you're not being an asshole as far as that goes.
posted by Science! at 8:30 PM on December 16, 2006


the other day i ordered a menu item that i didn't recognize. fancy name. it turned out to basically be creamed corn. odd stuff. it tastes good, but it looks like momma bird already chewed it up for the little baby birds. hard to get past the appearance, for me anyway.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:33 PM on December 16, 2006 [1 favorite]


loquacious writes "You do suck. You're all stident and bitchy in that thread."

And this one. But it is good to clarify these things.
posted by OmieWise at 8:47 PM on December 16, 2006


Narcissist in aisle 13317!
Shoot a bolt in her head. Fuck, should have known better. Don't even call her a bastard, just to the compactor straightaway.
posted by nj_subgenius at 9:29 PM on December 16, 2006


MV, I didn't take your comment literally, I just laughed, because it's something I'd say. Would you really just leave them on the mountain, though?

And "snowflake destiny" sounds like a bad romance novel.
posted by Liosliath at 10:06 PM on December 16, 2006


I think muddgirl has a good point here, MV.

You made a trenchant comment about "snowflake destiny" or something like that, implying that people who go mountain-climbing are outrageously hubristic, I guess, but it seems to me that you've got an awful lot of confidence in the necessity of us all discussing your shockingly inhumane stance. If you didn't want to derail, maybe you should have avoided being so inflammatory.
posted by clockzero at 10:08 PM on December 16, 2006


I advocate locating them, telling them they're bastards, and flying away and leaving them to die.

Yes, you do suck. I hope you receive the same callousness one day.

Caught in a car accident? Tough shit. You should have walked.

Your kids get sick and need emergency medical care? Oh well, you should have gotten them flu shots / an extra blanket.

Getting kicked out of your home because you lost your job? I guess you should have thought of that before you went to work for a company that was going to go under one day.
posted by bshort at 10:15 PM on December 16, 2006


I don't think those analogies work - we're not talking about everyday situations, but risky adventuring/tourism.

For example, a British tourist went hiking in the mountains, thought he was some kind of great outdoorsy person, and told the rest of the group that he was going off on his own. Didn't come back that night, cue massive effort from local authorities, embassy, etc... He was found dead. Lots of people climb in those mountains every year, just like people climb on Mt. Hood, and some die. It kind of pisses me off that such an effort had to be made for that idiot, but that's how it goes. If I had found him alive, though, I wouldn't have left him. OK, maybe I would have left him if he was in good health, just lost - then I would have hid just around a bend and laughed.
posted by Liosliath at 10:27 PM on December 16, 2006


I don't think those analogies work - we're not talking about everyday situations, but risky adventuring/tourism.

I think these analogies work just fine.

Far, far, far more people die every year getting into their car than climbing a mountain. Driving a car is, for most people, the single most riskiest thing they do, and is easily avoidable.
posted by bshort at 10:33 PM on December 16, 2006


Well, you would, since you made them.

Driving a car is not so easily avoidable - see the thread on the couple "scraping by" on $150,000 per year. I think, though I don't have any statistics on it, that going climbing on Mount Hood in winter is a lot more dangerous/riskier than the drive to work.

Unless you live in Boston. [kidding!]
posted by Liosliath at 10:50 PM on December 16, 2006


Christ, what an asshole.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:25 AM on December 17, 2006


I think you suck because your mad-capped KAH-RAAY-ZY rants are so entirely predictable. Honing the art of assholish-contrarianism requires way more nuance and practice than you're obviously willing to devote. If you'd like some easily searchable study-aids, I recommend perusing the MeFi stacks for some Mayor Curley, or perhaps quonsar, the Early Years.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:46 AM on December 17, 2006


thirteenkiller is all that.
posted by 31d1 at 7:25 AM on December 17, 2006


i used to be funny.
posted by quonsar at 7:39 AM on December 17, 2006


Ya'll (who think that they should be left to rot) must be hardcore anti-government types (which I suspect you aren't). And because you probably aren't, your hypocrisy is duly noted.

That's an odd assumption, it's my hadcore pro-government beliefs that make me unhappy with vast resources being spent to save people who deliberately put themselves in extreme danger then wait for the taxpayer to rescue them, putting other lives at risk in the process.

Anyway, as I said, I was double-vision pissed when I wrote that, in the cold light of hangover, I'm pro-rescue, if still anti-recklessness.
posted by jack_mo at 8:02 AM on December 17, 2006


I thought methylviolet's point was a good one, even though I would not advocate leaving people to die. For every glory-seeking adrenaline-junkie idiot who gets lost while mountain climbing, there's another glory-seeking adrenaline-junkie idiot who will be more than happy to go risk his life looking for the lost one.

It is a little funny that the adrenaline junkies get such social prestige from their supposed courage in risking their lives in their recreational pursuits, never hesitating to lord it over the rest of us who spend our weekends playing canasta and shopping at outlet malls --- but when their life really hangs in the balance, they're shitting their pants and begging for help just like anyone else would.
posted by jayder at 9:12 AM on December 17, 2006


i used to be funny.

you smell funny, anyway ... when's the last time you changed that fish?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:34 AM on December 17, 2006


"Everything government does you pay for, and if the money goes over here, there's less to go over there.

We've got plenty, we can afford to rescue people."

Bullshit. Our government is in debt up to our eyeballs, and I'd rather give money to school lunches than mountaineering dilletantes.

"Is this how you want to spend it? Underwriting someone's Xtreme jollies?

Sigh, no no no. We're not underwriting anything. We're trying to save people from dying. Earlier you commented about the death of volunteers, what cost would it be to their family. What of the cost of the hikers and their families? Have they simply stepped beyond society in your opinion and are worthless and not worthy of live? Could they not be useful members of society?"

Yes, you are underwriting it. You're placing the group at risk for individual's risky behavior. And if you can't see the moral difference between someone who died helping someone else out and someone who died because they went out of their way to enlarge their risk, you're a fool. This is why we have seatbelt laws, this is why we have helmet laws. I have no problem requiring hikers to have equipment that will mitigate the cost of rescue and the likelyhood that someone else will die trying to get them out.

In a weird way, it's you who keeps privileging the individual over society, in arguing that society's basic function is to absorb the risk of foolish actors. This is the same logic that leads to underfunding pensions and airline bailouts.

"If you answer is no, once again, I urge you to relay this train of thought to the hiker's families."

I'll do it happily: I'm sorry that your family members were killed while engaging in a risky behavior, and we hope that they can serve as an example for others who now might be better prepared.

"Taking responsibility for your actions is not the same as being a conformist automaton.
It is, in fact, real independence.

There is no real independence in society. We all rely on others for something."

Bullshit. For an easy example, you're able to think whatever thoughts you choose, without having to pass them by anyone else. (Unless you want to come back with a hackneyed "Well, but are they original" sort of gambit). In fact, Hegel argued that to be the highest form of freedom, and the font from which all other freedom ran.
You're right in saying that we have a social contract, but that contract is forever negotiated, and it's not out of bounds to say that these climbers are violating the spirit of it by placing others at risk. We do not countanence liberty turned to license.

(And Gawd, I wish that all these people arguing about the bounds of social responsibility and freedom would read a little more political philosophy so that we could have a reasonably informed debate, rather than just a bunch of ill-articulated gut sense).
posted by klangklangston at 10:03 AM on December 17, 2006


But I'm derailing this call-out, aren't I?
posted by klangklangston at 10:04 AM on December 17, 2006


It is a little funny that the adrenaline junkies get such social prestige from their supposed courage in risking their lives in their recreational pursuits, never hesitating to lord it over the rest of us who spend our weekends playing canasta and shopping at outlet malls --- but when their life really hangs in the balance, they're shitting their pants and begging for help just like anyone else would.

This comment sums it up very nicely.

The controversy we've seen here is rooted in resentment, in a desire to punish those who step outside the narrow routines of contemporary society. Being an "andrenaline junkie" is hubristic and sinful and you must be taken down a notch. Your pursuits offend our pride. You make us feel small, common and insignificant. So if you stumble or if nature decides not to cooperate, don't expect any help from us, buddy.
posted by jason's_planet at 10:10 AM on December 17, 2006


klang, is there a reason you don't use italics for quoted blocks of text? It's much harder to read your posts without them.
posted by mediareport at 10:12 AM on December 17, 2006


you know, Big Dick DeVos was noting in an interview with the local paper that his wealth seems to have been a liability to his election campaign. he spent $35 million of his own money on it. the same week there was a front page feature about a little hispanic girl with some terrible disease whose mother brought her here illegally in hopes of getting her treatment. the DeVos Children's Hospital is willing to eat the cost of the required surgery, but won't even do the surgery unless a source of funding for the very expensive aftercare has been located. the Big Dick has been silent on the matter. i think Dick DeVos should pay for this rescue.
posted by quonsar at 10:13 AM on December 17, 2006


so.. what the total cost per taxpayer for this rescue effort will be...? $.01? or perhaps a whole $1? The climbers where foolish, but guess what I'd be willing to pony up my share to get them out alive. In the scheme of things this is not so massive, Iraq... now THATS massive.

This summer I went hiking in the SD Badlands, it is possible I could have fallen somewhere dangerous, my partner got bitten by a rattlesnake and we would have been in serious trouble, nice to know there are those who advocate I should have died in that situation. I'm sure we should not have tried to rescue that CNET reporter and family who made the news a few weeks ago.

On balance I would rather live in a society that tries to save people from stupid decisions rather than one that does not.
posted by edgeways at 10:29 AM on December 17, 2006


but when their life really hangs in the balance, they're shitting their pants and begging for help just like anyone else would.

Or, they're sawing their own arm off to escape.

Bullshit. Our government is in debt up to our eyeballs, and I'd rather give money to school lunches than mountaineering dilletantes.

Bullshit. Different budgets. Most local and state budgets are happily balanced and in the black. I doubt much federal money goes to search and rescue operations.
posted by muddgirl at 10:38 AM on December 17, 2006


Quonsar's thing goes to show -- it's all very well to cry compassion and "save-'em-all!" But when that isn't possible, what do you do? Rescue mountain-climbers? Undocumented little girls? Missing white women? Or who?

I don't doubt that the amount of money going to this rescue operation is a vanishingly small percentage of the GNP, but that same percentage, that same money, applied to a school health program in an disadvantaged neighborhood, or a high school prenatal care program, would save lives. Can any of you really say it would be better spent pulling thrill-seekers off mountains?
posted by Methylviolet at 11:07 AM on December 17, 2006


Also, if you're "pretty sure" someone's guilty of a crime, why would you bother with a trial? Waste of taxpayer's money that could be spent on the disadvantaged. Car accident's? Leave the fuckers on the highway unless they can demonstrably prove (before they bleed out!) that they weren't at fault (all those appendages strewn across the highway will act as a deterrant--two for one!). That money could be spent on the infirmed.

Since that only took me twenty seconds, you're either very bad at trolling or very good at being a self-indulgent blowhard. Hard to say! Instead of figuring it out, though, I'll spend that time at a soup kitchen.
posted by The God Complex at 11:27 AM on December 17, 2006


I realized something last night after I made my comment. Something along the lines of what TGC just pointed out. The "points" Methylviolet is making here are so terribly constructed (as an argument) that she's clearly just projecting some other form of irresponsibility found in her own life onto this scenario, and is (in a futile attempt) trying to justify her hard-nosed stance (like what jamjam said above). The mere fact that you'd "call yourself out" in this manner and my responding to all of this is evidence of at least two things: 1) You're an attention-whore who felt like she needed her own thread to vent her frustration and 2) I'm a fucking moron for writing as much as I have already in this thread.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:35 AM on December 17, 2006


It is a little funny that the adrenaline junkies get such social prestige from their supposed courage in risking their lives in their recreational pursuits, never hesitating to lord it over the rest of us who spend our weekends playing canasta and shopping at outlet malls

Eh? I don't think I've ever felt "lorded over" by "adrenaline junkies", let alone as often as the phrase "never hesitating" seems to suggest.
posted by Land Stander at 11:38 AM on December 17, 2006


You want adrenaline junkies? Eat like snake, baby, eat like snake.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:48 AM on December 17, 2006


Is this today's flameout thread? It's still no fun without the image tag.
posted by fixedgear at 1:19 PM on December 17, 2006


Can any of you really say it would be better spent pulling thrill-seekers off mountains?

Methylviolet, one other thing that might be going on here is that your view of climbing seems to have constricted until all you see about it is the danger involved and your perception of climbers is that they're just junkies who get their thrill from exposure to that danger. It's like you consider the whole enterprise as just someone else's particular version of a drug high.

(Except you've managed to extend empathy to drug users, which is more than a little incongruous to me, though it does lend some credence to the idea that you're not without empathy.)
posted by weston at 1:46 PM on December 17, 2006


According to The Oregonian, it is costing Hood River County between $5,000 and $6,000 per day. It didn't say how much it cost for the Air Force to bring in a Chinook helicopter. Hood River County has a permanent population of 20,500. You do the math.
posted by leftcoastbob at 1:57 PM on December 17, 2006


jayder writes
"It is a little funny that the adrenaline junkies get such social prestige from their supposed courage in risking their lives in their recreational pursuits, never hesitating to lord it over the rest of us who spend our weekends playing canasta and shopping at outlet malls --- but when their life really hangs in the balance, they're shitting their pants and begging for help just like anyone else would."


For the record, I don't really feel this way, it was just a fun thing to say.
posted by jayder at 2:03 PM on December 17, 2006


I don't doubt that the amount of money going to this rescue operation is a vanishingly small percentage of the GNP, but that same percentage, that same money, applied to a school health program in an disadvantaged neighborhood, or a high school prenatal care program, would save lives. Can any of you really say it would be better spent pulling thrill-seekers off mountains?

That's a false dichotomy.

And anyway, I'd rather be spending $20M a year on mountain search and rescue than $250M on the Bridge To Nowhere, which saves zero lives, barely improves commerce, and only benefits a handful of people in Ketchikan.

Admittedly, I'm comparing an "operating" cost with a "capital" cost, but the point being that MSR saves lives (even if some of them are stupid idiots), while there are an obscene number of pork-barrel items and earmarks in the Federal Omnibus every year that are wasteful, stupid, and do nothing to improve our quality of life.

I'm sure you are empathetic, but given the option between being that or judgmental, I think I know what you'd choose, what you feel most comfortable with being. But then, we are all Americans, out to judge because it makes life easier.
posted by dw at 2:05 PM on December 17, 2006


According to The Oregonian, it is costing Hood River County between $5,000 and $6,000 per day. It didn't say how much it cost for the Air Force to bring in a Chinook helicopter. Hood River County has a permanent population of 20,500. You do the math.

So it's justifiable if it's Multnomah County doing the search because with 660,000 residents it costs less per person?

Small counties like Hood River get money from the state and federal governments to help pay for essential services. So the reality is that it's not ~30 cents/day/person, but more like ~10 cents/day/person.
posted by dw at 2:11 PM on December 17, 2006


I don't see human life through $-tinted glasses. What's the going rate for these days? Or is it judged on a case-by-case basis?
posted by slimepuppy at 3:14 PM on December 17, 2006


Bullshit. Our government is in debt up to our eyeballs, and I'd rather give money to school lunches than mountaineering dilletantes.

And yet, yet, yet...we're still spending. Since we are, we can toss out a few thousand to save some people, whether their mountaineering dilletantes or not. I didn't realize that we'll only save poor people. And it's not the government's job to feed kids.


Yes, you are underwriting it. You're placing the group at risk for individual's risky behavior.

I'm' not doing ANYTHING. Some of the group volunteered, some of'em get paid for it, we got it covered, you can chill back at the lodge and continue talking about social contracts and what not.

And if you can't see the moral difference between someone who died helping someone else out and someone who died because they went out of their way to enlarge their risk, you're a fool.

If you want to argue a difference, that's fine, I see where you're coming from, but both are still dead.

I have no problem requiring hikers to have equipment that will mitigate the cost of rescue and the likelyhood that someone else will die trying to get them out.

I have no problem with this either.

In a weird way, it's you who keeps privileging the individual over society, in arguing that society's basic function is to absorb the risk of foolish actors. This is the same logic that leads to underfunding pensions and airline bailouts.

There's not what I'm arguing AT ALL and apologies if I've conveyed that impression.

I'm simply arguing that it is against leaving people to die, even stupid people, who put themselves at risk. As society, we're going to make a reasonable effort to find your dumb ass and if we do, we're not going to let you do this sort of thing again.

Now, you might want to conflate that with airline bailouts and what not, but those aren't matters of life and death. and airline bailouts aren't a bad thing per se, when not doing it can have a significant impact on the economy.


I'll do it happily: I'm sorry that your family members were killed while engaging in a risky behavior, and we hope that they can serve as an example for others who now might be better prepared.

It only works if you say to their face.


Bullshit. For an easy example, you're able to think whatever thoughts you choose, without having to pass them by anyone else. (Unless you want to come back with a hackneyed "Well, but are they original" sort of gambit).

That's like saying you can do whatever you want in your house, but once you step outta it, then I can tell you want to do. In short, it's a beautiful thought, but not much pratical value.

Of course, as soon as you start saying those thoughts, that's a different matter.

You're right in saying that we have a social contract, but that contract is forever negotiated, and it's not out of bounds to say that these climbers are violating the spirit of it by placing others at risk.

Good point about the constant megotiation of the social contract.

And of course it's out of bounds to say that depending on the social contract. Keep in mind, you can't force people to look for them. Others placed themselves at risk, willingly, because they believed that it's worth finding these people (no doubt for various reasons).


(And Gawd, I wish that all these people arguing about the bounds of social responsibility and freedom would read a little more political philosophy so that we could have a reasonably informed debate, rather than just a bunch of ill-articulated gut sense).

Feel free to make some suggestions on what people should be reading.

Can any of you really say it would be better spent pulling thrill-seekers off mountains?

Yeah, 'cause the thrill seekers aren't sucking up rescources like children do. I mean, since we're all worried about money and what not, we should definitely save people who pay taxes as opposed to kids who require enormous time and money, right?


and you never answered the question: What would you do if it was YOUR kids?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:18 PM on December 17, 2006


posted by Brandon Blatcher we should definitely save people who pay taxes as opposed to kids who require enormous time and money, right?

Well, we want to save kids, because they're all potential taxpayers.

This is sarcasm.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:29 PM on December 17, 2006


Cresyl violet is much better than methyl violet.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:37 PM on December 17, 2006


social prestige from their supposed courage in risking their lives in their recreational pursuits

Does that include NASCAR drivers, Motorcross racers, slalom skiers and speedboat enthusiasts?
posted by ericb at 3:42 PM on December 17, 2006


One of the climbers has been found dead.

A few choice comments from Methylviolet:

posted by Methylviolet Screw them. If you need to blaze your own trail and pursue your snowflake destiny, rock on. Be happy. But whatever the consequences are, suck it up. Why would you deliberately endanger your life, knowing that you are compelling other people to risk their lives -- even give their lives -- to save you? Because you are a selfish ass, and if you can't take care of yourself, that should be a death sentence.

posted by Methylviolet To clarify, I do not advocate billing the climbers for the cost of the rescue. I advocate locating them, telling them they're bastards, and flying away and leaving them to die.

posted by Methylviolet Here we have people who apparently aren't afraid to die in pursuit of their bliss. I say let them, when saving them would endanger innocent lives. I'd also like to spit on their graves 'cause they make me mad, but that's just me.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:25 PM on December 17, 2006


Just think, fandango_matt, if my suggested feature was implemented, your stinging rebuke of methylviolet's shocking inhumanity could have been coded with just one link!
posted by jayder at 4:37 PM on December 17, 2006


I still am not decided on the troll vs sociopath issue.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 5:07 PM on December 17, 2006


Sadly, without the img tag, MethV can never post a picture of the grave being showered with righteous, fiscally conservative spittle. You're still planning on that one, right, Meth? I mean, far be it from any of us to doubt your rational, reasonable assertions.
posted by Help, I can't stop talking! at 5:32 PM on December 17, 2006 [1 favorite]


I'm going to echo dw and say that the choice between paying for mountain rescue OR education/whatever is a ricockulous dichotomy.

I'd also rather my tax money didn't, oh, KILL PEOPLE in foreign countries and gave everyone a kitten, but until someone on the anti-war/pro-kitten platform gets themselves elected and backed by a majority in congress, my taxes will still be going to war and we will all be sans kitten.

Anyhow, I think that it always better to rescue someone, if given the means, than not - no matter how they got into the situation. Victims are victims, even if the circumstance was of their own making.

I also think flameouts are more fun with the img tag. *sigh*
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:35 PM on December 17, 2006


You're a big rich dude, in a big mansion. You look out the window and see the neighbour's kid playing on the roof. You yell to them to get down, because they're going to get hurt.

A few weeks later, you hear that the kid's lost while out hiking. You get in the SUV and help with the hunt, and you use your cash to order up food for the volunteers, and you call in your helicopter pilot to sweep over the area? Why? Because you're a nice guy. Sure you could have given the money to starving children, and you screw over the people who work for you, but you saw a need right there and you were moved to help.

Scale it up. That's how it's supposed to work. America's the biggest, richest dude with the fanciest house. Instead of yelling out the window, it puts out warning signs and offers wardens and mapping. Instead of organising food and a chopper, it provides mountain rescue teams.

At least, it's supposed to. But Katrina showed up the lie.
posted by bonaldi at 5:54 PM on December 17, 2006


Is this where I contribute to the fund to pay for a plane ticket for Methylviolet to go to the climber's funeral and do a Fred Phelps? It'd only have to be a one-way ticket.
posted by wendell at 6:34 PM on December 17, 2006


The thing that makes us human is our ability to put aside the calculating robot and act heroically. We need our heroism. Yeah, some (a lot?) of the people who are on the receiving end of the heroic endeavors are idiots, jerks, Ivy league grads, etc., but the strengthening of our community that surrounds each of these emergencies is well worth the fiscal (and occasional human) cost to society.

A lot of the time, the folks who make idiotic decisions pay the ultimate price--which is pretty fair in the cosmic scheme of things. As a society, we'd pay a higher price if we didn't make an effort to help them any way we can.
posted by maxwelton at 11:42 PM on December 17, 2006


I was wending my way home at about 2 AM through a shitty part of town, when I saw a women getting sexually assaulted across the street from me. You tell from the shouts that it wasn't a game or anything, it was serious. Now I'm not a big guy [I'm also a coward] so I wasn't going to get directly involved. Obviously I couldn't just walk by, so I got my cell phone out. But then I noticed how she was dressed, provocatively, very provocatively. Dressed like that at 2 AM in this shitty neighborhood, well she was asking for it really. So I put my phone away, and just watched. When it was over she was in a terrible state, on her hands and knees with her clothes ripped, big bruise on her face. Just sobbing and sobbing. So I walked over to her, and as I approached she sorta pulled away and huddled against one of those store front shutters, just looking at me and wiping snot from her nose. I spat in her face and walked on by.
posted by econous at 4:15 AM on December 18, 2006


selfish bastard. obviously she wanted more, and you deprived her.
posted by quonsar at 4:18 AM on December 18, 2006


"And yet, yet, yet...we're still spending."
Hey, man, I've protested against this war from the start.

"Since we are, we can toss out a few thousand to save some people, whether their mountaineering dilletantes or not. I didn't realize that we'll only save poor people. And it's not the government's job to feed kids."

Why shouldn't those who can pay pay? And my government could make more lives better by feeding kids (and do, by congressional writ, thus it is their job).

"I'm simply arguing that it is against leaving people to die, even stupid people, who put themselves at risk. As society, we're going to make a reasonable effort to find your dumb ass and if we do, we're not going to let you do this sort of thing again."

Um, actually, that's about where I stand too. I just don't see much problem in letting people know that after the fact, the rescue might cost them some bread.

"Now, you might want to conflate that with airline bailouts and what not, but those aren't matters of life and death. and airline bailouts aren't a bad thing per se, when not doing it can have a significant impact on the economy."

I can understand the difference, but what I was getting at was the philosophy where the government is ultimately responsible being used as justification for pursuing riskier or more foolish paths (as airlines have done again and again, with regard to business models).

"It only works if you say to their face."

I'm not gonna bother tracking them down to spout it off, but if they were in line at the bank with me, I'd have no problem.

"That's like saying you can do whatever you want in your house, but once you step outta it, then I can tell you want to do. In short, it's a beautiful thought, but not much pratical value."

Yes, but individual freedom is based on the individual, and nearly all of our freedoms flow from the idea of what a man can do alone. I understand that being part of society mitigates the full expression of those rights, but the goal should be to have that society limit those rights as little as possible while at the same time ensuring the most happiness or prosperity for the people. The converse of that is that while people should be as free as possible to engage in, say, risky climbs and hikes, they should also have to bear the brunt of the consequences of their actions. If we restrict in meaningful ways their freedom to climb, then that's when we start making a compact (and forming compromises) on what society will accept as a burden in order to allow these people to enjoy their freedom.

"And of course it's out of bounds to say that depending on the social contract. Keep in mind, you can't force people to look for them. Others placed themselves at risk, willingly, because they believed that it's worth finding these people (no doubt for various reasons)."

People in the military, or first-responders, don't have a choice about putting their lives at risk. Volunteers do. And I don't begrudge their freedom to search for these folks (I might, if it was a regular occurence to lose more volunteers than find people, but I think that's very far from the case).

"Feel free to make some suggestions on what people should be reading."

The four biggest works that I'd recommend regarding this would be Hobbes' Leviathon, Rousseau's Social Contract, Locke's Second Treatise, and Mill's On Liberty. The first three deal with social contracts and how they arise, and thus what they can be considered to cover and what they can't be (and give different answers; America is mostly Locke with some Rousseau), and Mill's On Liberty addresses exactly the balance between liberty and license.

"Yeah, 'cause the thrill seekers aren't sucking up rescources like children do. I mean, since we're all worried about money and what not, we should definitely save people who pay taxes as opposed to kids who require enormous time and money, right?"

Thrill seekers die faster than kids; kids pay taxes in the future (we get much more of a net gain out of their lives on the whole than we do out of further investment in most adults. I do generally hate the "Children are our future" argument though).


"and you never answered the question: What would you do if it was YOUR kids?"

Aside from the fact that I don't have any, I'd gladly pay whatever I had to save the lives of my kids.
posted by klangklangston at 7:48 AM on December 18, 2006


Econous: You know who else was able to draw distinctions between situations without resorting to strawman analogies? Hitler.
posted by klangklangston at 7:52 AM on December 18, 2006


You know who else had to resort to gratuitous assholery to prove he passed Philosophy 101? Klangklangston.
posted by fandango_matt at 8:47 AM on December 18, 2006


Fandango Matt, why can't you just answer yes or no to whether it will take the Jaws of Life to make you realize what an ass you are in that thread?
posted by klangklangston at 9:13 AM on December 18, 2006


Why shouldn't those who can pay pay?

They did, it's called taxes.

And my government could make more lives better by feeding kids (and do, by congressional writ, thus it is their job).

This is just odd to me. On one hand you argue for individual responsibility, to the point of leaving someone to die for their mistake, arguging that "babysitting" people only encourages people to be babysat.

On the other hand, you want government to feed kids, as opposed to say, their parents. Odd.

Um, actually, that's about where I stand too. I just don't see much problem in letting people know that after the fact, the rescue might cost them some bread.

The problem I see with this is that it's putting a price on something that is essentially priceless: the willingness of the group to risk something for the individual. The goal here is to save the people, but once we start injecting money into the situation we get other problems: people hiding from rescue 'cause they don't want to be charged, people deciding that the rescue cost too much and suing or came to slow and suing or private industry getting into it to make a buck. Or worse, deciding not to rescue 'cause it costs to much.

I got no problem with making the personal locaters mandtary for this stuff or revoking climbing licenses for stupid people.

I can understand the difference, but what I was getting at was the philosophy where the government is ultimately responsible being used as justification for pursuing riskier or more foolish paths (as airlines have done again and again, with regard to business models).

There's a huge difference in scale here, which nullifies comparing the two really.

The converse of that is that while people should be as free as possible to engage in, say, risky climbs and hikes, they should also have to bear the brunt of the consequences of their actions.

So if they get hurt, we refuse them medical help?

If we restrict in meaningful ways their freedom to climb, then that's when we start making a compact (and forming compromises) on what society will accept as a burden in order to allow these people to enjoy their freedom.

So you're saying people should be allowed to climb at all? If so, that seems like nanny state to me.


People in the military, or first-responders, don't have a choice about putting their lives at risk.

Speaking as the love god of a first responder for Savannah, GA, it IS a choice to take that job.



Thrill seekers die faster than kids;

It doesn't seem so


kids pay taxes in the future (we get much more of a net gain out of their lives on the whole than we do out of further investment in most adults).

Depends on age.


Aside from the fact that I don't have any, I'd gladly pay whatever I had to save the lives of my kids.

That was for the crazy lady who started this thread who has now bowed out.

But what if you don't have enough?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:16 PM on December 18, 2006


NEWSFLASH: PERSON ON THE INTERNET IS ASSHOLE

IN A RELATED STORY: OTHER PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET ARE ASSHOLES TOO!

BREAKING NEWS: INTERNET OPINIONS DO NOT STOP WORLD FROM TURNING
posted by fishfucker at 11:12 AM on December 21, 2006


Voluntarily and deliberately risking your life for no reason but giggles

"Giggles" are what you get from sitting on your ass waving your Wii around. I suppose putting a man on the moon is just "giggles," too, since it does not serve an immediate utilitarian function.

What a small and cheerless and soulless room one must live in to think that taking risks is something you only do for material benefit, and that anyone who does so willfully severs the social contract and deserves to die.

It's pretty obvious that you know nothing about climbers, and less about rescue workers. The latter, the ones actually putting their lives on the line to help others, have fewer qualms than you seem to about it.
posted by scarabic at 2:23 PM on December 21, 2006


« Older Request: click and limit to specific poster   |   AskMe comment linked to by LifeHacker Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments