Just to stir the conversation...

What if I choose to not buy medical insurance? Apparently, the government must force to do so, or fine me, because they know what is better for me. One could say that I will cause the others to pay for my care, especially once I have an accident.

How is this different? I didn't mean to get into a catostrophic condition.

Neophiteat48 wrote:

Lolli wrote:Oh, the point was, I think, the understanding of why somebody wants to climb Everest, even if they're 13.

I think even with my limited resume (so far), that I understand the kids desire. I understand with his hiking experience and skills, his desire to attempt Everest.

I don't think it's so much a desire, as an urge.

Neophiteat48 wrote:But I'm not sure I understand actually getting to this point at this age. The risks that came with getting to this point and the same risks of climbing Everest are such, that from the standpoint as a Father, I don't.

Why? "At this age?" 13 is beyond childhood.
Also, there are kids that has climbed all their lives. At 13, they're way beyond many adults.
I'd be way more concerned if it had been Annapurna. Or Dychau.
As a Mother, I do.

You get the kind of child you raise. Keep the children overprotected and tied in, and your wish will be fulfilled: they stay on the flatland, for the rest of their lives - or take the car to the summit.
(Note: you is the general you, as English is a poor language which doesn't distinguish between the different pronouns.)

Neophiteat48 wrote:This kid is extremely mature, I saw the interview. But I just think this roadmap, so to speak should have been a longer time coming.

Why? Deny him, just to deny?
Holding him back, not letting him use his abilities?
Everest isn't any ultimate goal. It might be the world's highest mountain, but it's far from the most dangerous or most challenging.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:

Neophiteat48 wrote:But certain actions, by parents
must have consquences if tragedy happens. I can see you do not believe that should be the case here. So my question to you then, "what action by a parent that resulted in a tragedy, should have criminal charges attached to it?"

Let's assume willful abuse to inflict harm is not part of the discussion, OK? So we're talking the idiot things parents might do that could cause harm to the kids in their care... like climbing Everest, or hiking into the back country in jeans and T shirts in Nov a day ahead of the first major winter storm, or say hiking to the top of Half Dome in a lightning storm with kids in tow, or putting a lake canoe into a spring flooded Sierra river and running class III rapids, or...

IF tragedy happens, why do you think it is society's role to inflict EVEN MORE PUNISHMENT on the parent????

Let's say I get my kid killed through some bone headed act? Oh my fucking god, not only to have have to face the remainder of my life knowing what I did... I have to face the child's mother, grand parents, siblings, cousins, teachers, friends, and admit my sins, over and over and over.

Isn't that punishment enough, for a goofball parent?

Why do YOU feel it is YOUR job or society's , to heap more punishment upon such a parent?

Now think of all the potential ways you might one day get YOUR kid killed and consider yourself JUDGED as ye seek to judge others - how do you like it now?

Now if its willful infliction or harm, pain or punishment, that's different.

DMT

Wow, you're pissed. I don't think it's MY job as you stated, my opinion yes. And as far as living with the grief of what the parent had done, yea, I understand. BUT what if you and your son are doing one of these stupid things and your son has brought a friend? Then is that the same? Should the parents of the other kid not have some retribution towards a stupid parent? Absolutely! So I guess then the "stupid adult" law would have zero consequences for harm to the son but, yes......consequences if it is a neighbor kid?

We will continue to disagree, but society has a place in having laws that are suppose to protect us and have consequences for our actions.

You haven't met me yet DMT, don't hate me

Daughters.
Dingus has daughters.

Something interesting I've noticed in this thread-- some of the people who are so against the kid climbing Everest also say they don't want anyone, especially the government, making rules about what you have to do with your kids.

So exactly how do you expect to get any of these people to change?

I'm not saying I support every rule, written or unwritten, pertaining to safety of children, but it seems there is a disconnect here.

News flash: In general, people don't change their ways unless they're forced to or it's in their economic self-interest to do so. So if you're against taking those kinds of measures, how is any of this anything but hot air?

Lolli wrote:

Neophiteat48 wrote:

Lolli wrote:Oh, the point was, I think, the understanding of why somebody wants to climb Everest, even if they're 13.

I think even with my limited resume (so far), that I understand the kids desire. I understand with his hiking experience and skills, his desire to attempt Everest.

I don't think it's so much a desire, as an urge.

Neophiteat48 wrote:But I'm not sure I understand actually getting to this point at this age. The risks that came with getting to this point and the same risks of climbing Everest are such, that from the standpoint as a Father, I don't.

Why? "At this age?" 13 is beyond childhood.
Also, there are kids that has climbed all their lives. At 13, they're way beyond many adults.
I'd be way more concerned if it had been Annapurna. Or Dychau.
As a Mother, I do.

You get the kind of child you raise. Keep the children overprotected and tied in, and your wish will be fulfilled: they stay on the flatland, for the rest of their lives - or take the car to the summit.
(Note: you is the general you, as English is a poor language which doesn't distinguish between the different pronouns.)

Neophiteat48 wrote:This kid is extremely mature, I saw the interview. But I just think this roadmap, so to speak should have been a longer time coming.

Why? Deny him, just to deny?
Holding him back, not letting him use his abilities?
Everest isn't any ultimate goal. It might be the world's highest mountain, but it's far from the most dangerous or most challenging.

You make great points and in this debate "for the attempt", you have clearly made the best argument. I still question the decision of the parents but your points have moved me closer to middle ground on this. If there are other kids out there who may have climbing abilities equal to this kid and are younger, where and how do you draw a line and say it's too young? I know that it's up to the parent but society (as we're discussing here), will always weigh in as well. And is there set of circumstances that when "young"....... is too young and then at the very least child neglect comes into play and laws to answer too?

Dingus Milktoast wrote:IF tragedy happens, why do you think it is society's role to inflict EVEN MORE PUNISHMENT on the parent????

Let's say I get my kid killed through some bone headed act? Oh my fucking god, not only to have have to face the remainder of my life knowing what I did... I have to face the child's mother, grand parents, siblings, cousins, teachers, friends, and admit my sins, over and over and over.

Isn't that punishment enough, for a goofball parent?

Why do YOU feel it is YOUR job or society's , to heap more punishment upon such a parent?

I must admit that while I understand the passion behind this argument, I can't follow the reasoning. If a negligent driver kills someone else, kid or not, don't most people agree that the driver should face punishment even if it was an accident? Maybe not Old Sparky, but still something?

So why should parents be excepted for grossly negligent acts that result in the deaths of their own children? Just because they probably feel worse about it?

I'm not talking about the guy who looks away for a second only to have his kid fall off the slide and break his neck. I'm not talking the gray areas like, in my case, taking your kid hiking where there are postings of potential grizzly danger. I'm not even talking this Everest thing. For the record, I don't care if the kid wants to do it and I hope he makes it, and I don't understand all the screaming about it.

I'm talking about the obviously negligent things. Say, the example of taking the kid to the mountaintop when lightning's flashing all around. I'm talking about the guy in my area who drove to work one summer day, somehow forgot his kid was in the car seat, and at Miller Time found a dead, baked kid in the car.

We'd throw the book at the person if it was someone else's kid in those cases. So why does the parent get a pass?

Serious question. Not trying to go on the attack.

Bob Sihler wrote:Something interesting I've noticed in this thread-- some of the people who are so against the kid climbing Everest also say they don't want anyone, especially the government, making rules about what you have to do with your kids.

So exactly how do you expect to get any of these people to change?

I'm not saying I support every rule, written or unwritten, pertaining to safety of children, but it seems there is a disconnect here.

News flash: In general, people don't change their ways unless they're forced to or it's in their economic self-interest to do so. So if you're against taking those kinds of measures, how is any of this anything but hot air?

But can't the government have laws for the results of the actions? No law for the action itself but for the results? For example, if your on a motorcycle with a passenger on the bike. You are doing 65 mph on the freeway (not exceeding the speed limit) and due to some slower traffic and congestion you choose to weave in and out of traffic. We have all seen this, and you continue to do 65 and cause a wreck, seriously hurting or killing your passenger on the bike. Well isn't there reason for retribution or a law for the results of your actions?

Bob Sihler wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:IF tragedy happens, why do you think it is society's role to inflict EVEN MORE PUNISHMENT on the parent????

Let's say I get my kid killed through some bone headed act? Oh my fucking god, not only to have have to face the remainder of my life knowing what I did... I have to face the child's mother, grand parents, siblings, cousins, teachers, friends, and admit my sins, over and over and over.

Isn't that punishment enough, for a goofball parent?

Why do YOU feel it is YOUR job or society's , to heap more punishment upon such a parent?

I must admit that while I understand the passion behind this argument, I can't follow the reasoning. If a negligent driver kills someone else, kid or not, don't most people agree that the driver should face punishment even if it was an accident? Maybe not Old Sparky, but still something?

So why should parents be excepted for grossly negligent acts that result in the deaths of their own children? Just because they probably feel worse about it?

I'm not talking about the guy who looks away for a second only to have his kid fall off the slide and break his neck. I'm not talking the gray areas like, in my case, taking your kid hiking where there are postings of potential grizzly danger. I'm not even talking this Everest thing. For the record, I don't care if the kid wants to do it and I hope he makes it, and I don't understand all the screaming about it.

I'm talking about the obviously negligent things. Say, the example of taking the kid to the mountaintop when lightning's flashing all around. I'm talking about the guy in my area who drove to work one summer day, somehow forgot his kid was in the car seat, and at Miller Time found a dead, baked kid in the car.

We'd throw the book at the person if it was someone else's kid in those cases. So why does the parent get a pass?

Serious question. Not trying to go on the attack.

I made some of these exact arguments, so I ditto virtually all of what you said here.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Now if its willful infliction or harm, pain or punishment, that's different.

DMT

In my eyes, allowing or supporting my 13-year old kid with all means to climb Everest borders on willfully inflicting harm...

Lolli wrote:Why? "At this age?" 13 is beyond childhood.

???? That is news to me...

Granted, some children seem to be more mature than their given age, but they are still children.

SoCalHiker wrote:

Lolli wrote:Why? "At this age?" 13 is beyond childhood.

???? That is news to me...

Granted, some children seem to be more mature than their given age, but they are still children.

Agreed!! and to your response to DMT!!

Bob Sihler wrote:Something interesting I've noticed in this thread-- some of the people who are so against the kid climbing Everest also say they don't want anyone, especially the government, making rules about what you have to do with your kids.

I say let him climb. It is between him and his parents. If he dies, he dies. If he does do this though, the parents should sign over his rights and let him be an emancipated minor, giving him the right to make his own decisions. If they don't, then they need to understand they may be prosecuted for child endangerment if he dies.

Neophiteat48 wrote:Wow, you're pissed.

I'm not pissed in the slightest dude. Not at all.

Cheers
DMT

Dingus Milktoast wrote:

Neophiteat48 wrote:Wow, you're pissed.

I'm not pissed in the slightest dude. Not at all.

Cheers
DMT

canoe in a class 3 river

Ok, my bad (I'm 48, I shouldn't use my kids verbage), thought you were.
And is the rating for a river when canoeing different than rafting? I've
been on class river in a raft, wasn't that bad. I'd take my 13 year old on
a class 3 river any day, as long as he/she was a strong swimmer

Cheers,
Troy