3 ms·
Labeling and criticizing my "tone" is just an ad hominem attack Factually incorrect. An Ad Hominem fallacy is suggesting that there is something wrong with you
by raganwald 16y ago
Labeling and criticizing my "tone" is just an ad hominem attack
Factually incorrect. An Ad Hominem fallacy is suggesting that there is something wrong with you and that therefore your argument is wrong. You are entitled to any opinion you like. We celebrate iconoclasticism here, HN is all about people doing things most people do not like.
However, if you attempt to redefine the word "climbing" in a way that is entirely at odds with how everybody else uses the word, you can expect to encounter resistance. If the only climbing you respect is free soloing, have at it. I've free soloed, I respect it, I won't argue with that.
But if you're going to argue that everything else isn't climbing, well, that doesn't strike me as intellectually constructive. There is already an established vocabulary of terms for the various styles of climbing, and there is no visible need for throwing it all out and starting from scratch.
Now to address your second point. It's an important one, and a little research into climbing history reveals that this is a divisive debate going back over a century. Some people feel that risk is an essential component of the climbing adventure. Some do not.
There is a gymnastic pursuit that is carried out on plastic and on rock called climbing, and in modern times it can be carried out with little or no risk. So can cycling. You can decide for yourself whether it is worth doing if there is no risk of injury or death.
There is also a thrill-seeking or adventure pursuit carried out on rock and in high, cold places. Proponents seeking adventure deliberately place themselves in harms way through free soloing, fast and light alpinism, and through placing protection that is of limited utility. Risk is not a black and white decision, most adventurers manage their adventure to expose themselves to a perceived tolerable amount of risk.
These two pursuits are both called "climbing." If you strongly prefer the latter to the exclusion of the former, you are not alone, but you also aren't in the majority.
So your question of why not build an escalator is easy to answer. The escalator removes the gymnastic element of the exercise and for those who seek adventure, removes too much risk.
- mbyrne 16y agoSaying that I think a guy who can swing from rock to rock like a monkey is an attempt to redefine the meaning of the word "climbing" is ridiculous. I actually have no opinion about what climbing is or is not. I was expressing admiration. Like if a quarterback throws a huge pass and the receiver dives across the goal line and catches the ball with one hand for a touchdown. Now that's football. I'm not saying everyone one else on the field isn't playing football or shouldn't be allowed on the field. Maybe I should have written my comment with three exclamation points...Now, that's climbing!!! Boy Howdy!!! Also, I don't care or judge whether people climb with or without risk. But to your point, you actually could make an escalator the width of a gymnastic balance beam and with bumps, so that it would have adventure and risk, for those who seek that from escalator climbing. I am sorry to have commented because clearly I inadvertantly hit a nerve with a subset of climbers who apparently feel some kind of insecurity or something, when compared to awesome free soloists. Anyway, I have get going, I can't stay here in the basement typing on my Dad's computer, I have to get back to middle school for the afternoon assembly. But thanks for spending all your time chatting with me.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- aplusbi 16y agoSaying that I have some sort of insecurity is an ad hominem attack. Just kidding! No one is saying you can't admire a guy who free solos. What you did say was "Why not just tie yourself to a rope and have your Mommy pull you up?" Followed by "I remember seeing footage of some French guy climbing a rockface ... with no rope, no pitons, nothing. That is climbing." That seems an awful lot like redefining climbing to not include trad climbing (climbing with this sort of protection), and also seems a lot like judging whether people climb with risk or not. You aren't getting down-voted because you expressed a controversial opinion, it's because you expressed it in a way that appeared to be rude. If you merely said: >I don't get it, how is this different from a C-clamp? >I remember seeing footage of some French guy climbing a rockface a thousand feet up swinging like a monkey, with no rope, no pitons, nothing. I admire that. No one would have down-voted you. They would have explained that it is not a C-clamp (it's dynamic so it gets tighter when you fall) and that free soloing is certainly an exciting form of climbing. Edit: >But to your point, you actually could make an escalator the width of a gymnastic balance beam and with bumps, so that it would have adventure and risk, for those who seek that from escalator climbing. Yes, they certainly could do that, and it may very well be a very exciting new sport. But it would not be rock climbing. It wouldn't even be similar to rock climbing. The most similar thing I can think of is perhaps via feratta climbing. Ultimately you brought up the question of "Why do anything?" Why should you go outside when you can just watch TV? Why do you go to school when you can just lay in bed all day?
- mbyrne 16y agoI want to apologize to anyone I offended with anything I said in this thread.