Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Right to Risk?

Minimally moderated forum for climbing related hearsay, misinformation, and lies.
 

Postby Marmaduke » Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:36 pm

MikeTX wrote:
Bob Sihler wrote:This thread was a lot more interesting when we were debating the questions of the OP instead of starting a second Everest thread.


it's actually the third one.
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewto ... 52e289354a

somebody stole my thunder.


Don't they go hand and hand?
User Avatar
Marmaduke

 
Posts: 1323
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:08 am
Location: Sonoma, California, United States
Thanked: 576 times in 442 posts

Postby Lolli » Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:44 pm

The fear of risk, is worse than the fear when at risk.
If one learns to handle risk, one has a better survival rate.
So, it's Darwin's award, to be risk avers into absurdum.
User Avatar
Lolli

 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: Sweden
Thanked: 108 times in 67 posts

Postby Bob Sihler » Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:57 pm

MikeTX wrote:
Bob Sihler wrote:This thread was a lot more interesting when we were debating the questions of the OP instead of starting a second Everest thread.


it's actually the third one.
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewto ... 52e289354a

somebody stole my thunder.


Yup, I remember that one. I even commented on it. But you didn't have as catchy a title, I guess...
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7290
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 1812 times in 1027 posts

Postby Bill Kerr » Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:10 pm

We all need to learn how to judge the degree and changes in risk levels in each situation and how to recognize the various levels of danger/consequences. Real world experience is the best way to seriously learn these lessons and as parents we need to let our children try things and sometimes fail in order to get the lessons through. Of course we hope we can do this in an environment that has minimal consequences.

In my view things crossover into child endangerment when you take your unprepared child into a situation where there is a very high risk that the consequences will be very serious or fatal. That was discussed in this previous thread where a snowmobiler took his 7 year old child out in high avalanche conditions and then parked in the runout zone while watching some idiots high marking!
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=52332
User Avatar
Bill Kerr

 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 4:23 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Thanked: 16 times in 15 posts

Postby isostatic » Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:20 pm

MikeTX wrote:it's actually the third one.
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewto ... 52e289354a

somebody stole my thunder.


Or the fourth!

http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewto ... ady#740643

This thread is still on SP, but in limboland, not showing up on GENERAL.
User Avatar
isostatic

 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:52 pm
Location: Göteborg, Västra Götaland, Sweden
Thanked: 53 times in 35 posts

Postby Augie Medina » Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:34 pm

Dingus Milktoast wrote:
Yet we all mostly agree that eventually exposure to risk does grade into true abuse, or could anyway... and that's the line I am willing to draw in the sand. Anything more than that, imo, must be considered on a case by case basis.


I think that knowingly exposing a child to a situation where you know there is a probability (not just possibility) of great bodily harm or death crosses the line into abuse. Having said that, I also don't think you can automatically conclude this rule is being violated by the parents of this 13 year old. All circumstances have to be considered on a case by case basis. Leave for the summit in the face of a 1996 type storm? An adult can make a decision to go for it, but the rule above would be violated if a parent consented to let his minor child go.

I am definitely in the camp of exposing your children to risk as part of the growing up process. But crossing over into abuse is justifiably illegal in most jurisdictions in this country. To paraphrase Forest Gump and Bob Sihler, that's all I have to say about that.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Am I under arrest yet?


You have the right to remain silent. Any thing you say can be used against you in... Do you waive extradition?
User Avatar
Augie Medina

 
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:56 pm
Location: South Pasadena, California, United States
Thanked: 9 times in 6 posts

Postby simonov » Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:42 pm

Mountain Impulse wrote:Knowingly putting a child in a situation where great bodily harm is likely to result is a common standard for child endangerment laws. And it's not whether the person doing the endangering "knew" but rather would a "reasonable person" have known harm was likely to result.


If that's the legal definition, then case closed: given the percentages, great bodily harm is not likely to result during the kid's Everest attempt.


Neophiteat48 wrote:So regarding the 13 year old attempting Everest, couldn't that fall into that definition? I would think so,


That would be a reasonable assessment, I should think, if more Everest climbers experienced great bodily harm than didn't.

The operative word here is "likely."
User Avatar
simonov

 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Costa Mesa, California, United States
Thanked: 463 times in 268 posts

Postby isostatic » Fri Apr 16, 2010 8:08 am

BorutKantuser wrote:This Father & Son TR is a contribution to the topic.
Enjoy!


Welcome back, Borut!
User Avatar
isostatic

 
Posts: 4285
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:52 pm
Location: Göteborg, Västra Götaland, Sweden
Thanked: 53 times in 35 posts

Previous

Return to Ethics, Spray, and Slander

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.