13-year-olds climbing Everest

[giblets]

Probably less than those on a mountain. But if you're gonna live in the mountains, surely you should know how to climb them.

But apparently you went and ignored that part of my post.

This thread is about letting children climb a specific mountain, one with a really high death rate, not about letting them climb mountains in general. And who says the people who die climbing mount everest don't know how to climb mountains?

[giblets]

Climbing Mt. Everest is riskier than these activities, to be sure, and it would be a tragedy for one so young to lose his life climbing a mountain, but it's a tragedy for anyone to lose their life climbing a mountain and we don't outlaw mountain-climbing simply because of the tragedies. And when we consider the fact that he's apparently climbed the highest mountains of other continents, we can reasonably guess that he's got enough experience to have as good a chance as many adults.

The issue is not whether he is more likely to die than an adult. The issue is not whether it would be more of a tragedy. The issue is whether children can consent to something that is this risky.

They should let him try heroin. It would be a learning experience.

[monolith94]

[SlowwHand]

I hope the little bastard loses his toes and fingers. I won't hope for actual death. I don't want to burn in Hell or I would wish it. That way his parents have plenty of opportunity to feel like absolute ****forbrains.

[monolith94]

I'm pretty sure that wishing that a kid loses toes and fingers for no other reason than your whim counts as a sin, from most theological perspectives.

[Dauphin]

How do you build a structure like that (i.e when the fall is more significant). I'd hate to be the workman trying to drive those first pitons in to hold those chains.

[Dr Strangelove]

Bens' right. In "the good old days" ten year olds could become drummer boys marching beside the attack column storming the enemies front lines. I'm pretty sure the grape shot didn't distinguish them from the troops carrying muskets. Ten year olds could also become "powder mokeys", carrying bags of gunpowder from the store room to the guns above.

[MikeH]

So we should send 10 year olds to Afghanistan then!

[SlowwHand]

Ben and Doc are talking about times when the average life span was significantly less.

[Ecofarm]

And people were significantly more ignorant, more brutal and less civilized. Looking back in history to justify one's actions is pathetic.

[DaShi]

Ben and Doc are talking about times when the average life span was significantly less.

But Ben said that he still thinks it is ok for 13 year old boys to marry middle-aged men.

[SlowwHand]

And people were significantly more ignorant, more brutal and less civilized. Looking back in history to justify one's actions is pathetic.

I said that life spans used to be less. What's your point in this? Nothing?

[Japher]

His point is that using the past to justify the present is stupid... 12 yos used to get marry and have kids too, does that mean we should marry off our preteens?

[Ecofarm]

I said that life spans used to be less. What's your point in this? Nothing?

1. Lifespans were not that different. The main factor in average lifespan is and always was infant/child mortality.

2. Who cares how long lifespans were? That does NOT justify what has happened in the past.

3. Using lifespan as an excuse is weak sauce. Fact of the matter is that we were less civilized. That's all the argument you need.


It's retarded to think that an action today can be justified by actions in the past. Everything has been done before, and anything can be "justified" by pointing to it in the past.


My point is that your rebuttal is weak sauce and a better one exists (illustrated above). According to your logic, terminal cancer patients should be allowed to molest children who also have terminal cancer.

[SlowwHand]

You're an idiot. Don't talk to me.