Solo climber loses life in Yosemite N. P.

if anyone is to blame for thread stealing, i would have to be the culprit here. Mr Skoog simply added that in his opinion both of these opinions represent a moral breakdown.
from there i asked why? and stated my case, which is that i dont think this is a moral question necessarily. personally i think this is a great thread!
the question of community is very pertinent. especially on a site which creates and adds meaning (via communication) to the community of ski crazies
irregardless...I can appreciate what u have to say toby t. The relativism argument is certainly valid....
scotsman, per your earlier post

"Human nature doesn't work that way. I'm sure even in Stone Age society, the hunter that took the most risk in hunting down the woolly mammoth was the most revered( and thereby got the most mates)  and had the most rapt audience for their exploits around the fire at night.

Trying to control  the behaviour of humans ( the moderate trying to adjust the behaviour of the elite) by setting up rules over what is acceptable and unacceptable by those that push the envelope of human achievement seems to me an attempt to put mediocracy as a higher goal than doing something extraordinary."

I agree with you that human nature does reward the risk-taker, and that to the victor go the spoils. Im not sure that chicks dig not knowing whether youre coming home after every ski trip. Stability, im told, is so in right now.

I think it is telling that you used the Stone Age as  a part of your argument. One of the beauties of societal evolution is that we can go beyond our natural drive to "do one better"  and kill the biggest mammoth, and consider larger, more meaningful questions. For example, "if everyone killed the biggest mammoths, would that be good for us in the long run?"  The capitalism of Adam Smith, unfortunately does not account for many of our current problems. The problem with bigger is better is that its not sustainable. And as such is not responsible. And as such....maybe even immoral? Societies police their own attitudes without end. Why cant we, a small society, do the same?
im really undecided as to whether we should or not (change our attitude towards extreme skiing) but I do think that we can.
so dammit scotsman, i want my individual power back!!!!

Unfortunately Ruski, according to this latest science, you can't have your individual power back, free will may not exist and we are forever, in the long run, no matter how we rationalize subject to our Darwinian responses.

See opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/25...20free%20will&st=cse

But I understand your point:
The tribe is sitting around the fire listening to YUgga's story of killing the wooly mammoth. Emo says" but what about Nigel???... he walked for miles and found some plant you can eat." Tribe doesn't want to listen to Nigel's proto-grain gathering story. Nigel's discovery revolutionizes tribe and they live better and it creates the process that allows them to become a more advanced society.
Generations later... the tribe gathers around the hearth, bellies full from bread and ask the elder's to tell them story of YUgga's great mammoth hunt.

hahaha, i love it!!! My fellow atheist, you underestimate our own power! also, I've given up sex for powder before. darwin be dammed!!!
dont worry scotsman, i dont think evolution is a theory, it is a fact, even in texas That being said, public discourse can influence societal opinion. u gotta give me that?
and if so, this discourse can too?
and lastly, have you ever thought of becoming a therapist? for the overly happy?

amen scotsman. we do need a little more passion in our lives. no argument here. get after it then, be safe.

Scotsman, I've learned that it is pointless to debate with you in this forum. So, I'm not going to address any of your misrepresentations of my views. I'll just ask that people read what I actually wrote, instead of what you say I believe. Have a nice day.

Some people, like my in-laws, argue for sport.