Saying 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 wa

Saying 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?