6 ms·

A counter article, to keep the dangers into perspective: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/11/a-daredevil-died-doing-pullups-off-a-skys

A counter article, to keep the dangers into perspective: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/11/a-daredevil-died-doing-pullups-off-a-skyscraper-in-china https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/12/11... If you have nerves to see it, the video of him losing the grip and falling is available online (sorry, I won't link here) and it's nerve-wracking terrible. How he struggles to climb back, just to let go... I only saw it because I didn't know at that time that he fell to his death. From personal (anecdotal) experience, after videos of the person from huckmagazine went viral - Shangai Tower, Hong Kong - a lot of Chinese started to do the same, plainly risking their lives to be cool. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say, maybe that it's all awesome until someone dies.

jsjohnst 9y ago
> maybe that it's all awesome until someone dies Someone dies every 500ms around the world. It’s tragic, but it happens. If the person dies doing something they love, who are we to judge?
- Firebrand 9y ago
  Because somebody else has to clean up their splattered remains.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    So what? Whenever anyone dies someone has to deal with the body. Someone has to clean up the garbage we create every day, and they usually get paid for it.
    - Audible_logic 9y ago
      Well, how about the possibility of the falling in the middle of a crowd? Should people be exposed to an exploding person raining from a skyscraper out of nowhere, long as the climber died doing what he/she loved? It would definitely ruin my day and possibly scar some people.
      - gambiting 9y ago
        That possibility is so miniscule it's not worth worrying about. If you love driving fast, you are exposing everyone around you to the possibility that you make a mistake and kill someone else. Don't see how this is any different, except for the fact that it's so rare it's more of a curiosity than anything else.
        jm__87 9y ago
        There are laws against driving above a certain speed. This is exactly the argument that was being made above.
      - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
        This is a much better argument than the former, however this risk is inconsistent with the much more imminent risks we face every day which have been deemed acceptable to society. Should people not be able to fly airplanes for pleasure?
        jm__87 9y ago
        You have to be licensed to fly an airplane. You have to log a flight plan. I'm not an expert in aviation but I imagine if your flight plan includes something excessively risky that endangers the lives of yourself or others, someone is going to question it.
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        Flight plans are essentially like driving directions, just a bit more involved. They don’t however include things like “I plan to do barrel rolls”, or “I’m going to fly inverted”, or “I’m going to bank beyond the limits of my air frame and possibly sheer off the wings”, the risky/stupid equivalent to what this guy did.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
  >> If the person dies doing something they love, who are we to judge? "We" are a society who has decided, according to our morals, that preventable loss of life is tragic and we should do everything in our power to avoid it. And why is that "judging"? The point is not to bestow some moral value on the person putting themselves in mortal dagner for "something they love". It is, rather, to stop them from needlessly and pointlessly killing themselves while at it. Your comment expresses a certain view, that looking into others' lives and forming opinions about their choices is somehow morally wrong. An alternative view is that it's the responsible thing to do, when one lives in common with other people.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    > It is, rather, to stop them from needlessly and pointlessly killing themselves while at it. Bringing in morals is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line then? Based on the number of times he did this is done before dying, I’d say he’s got say a 1 in 100 chance of death. Sky divers have to sign forms repeatedly at drop zones that they understand dying is a very real risk and it’s a 1 in 20000 risk of death. For BASE jumping, risks are even higher. Should skydiving be banned too because ”preventable loss of life is tragic”? What about car racing? What about rock climbing? What about <insert one of a hundred other risky “sports”>?
myth_drannon 9y ago
People died in Cirque de Soleil, climbing Everest and others. I don't think these activities should be forbidden, but I personally refuse to go to circus shows. If we all ignore these people and their activities they might stop doing it.
- jrowley 9y ago
  It’s now illegal to climb Everest without a guide. I guess they were tired of rescuing inexperienced macho people.
  - gambiting 9y ago
    Climbing everest without a guide was only banned because as the highest peak on Earth people want to climb it just for the achievement of it, not because doing it extremely dangerous - that are far worse mountains to climb in the world, ones where you are almost guaranteed to die, and it's perfectly legal for anyone to just go and try. My point is - legality of doing something shouldn't be correlated with the dangerousness of doing it(except where others can be harmed, of course).
majos 9y ago
There is a similar discussion in the rock climbing community about free soloing, which is climbing without any sort of safety gear except climbing shoes and chalk. Its foremost practicioner is Alex Honnold, and he produces some amazing photos: https://static.businessinsider.com/image/57bf13b9b996ebef008b474c/image.jpg https://static.businessinsider.com/image/57bf13b9b996ebef008... But a sizable chunk of the climbing community is against publicizing of free solos. Some think it will encourage others, some think the practicioners are irresponsible -- not so much for risking their own lives as commanding rescue resources if they mess up but don't fall and need rescue. Sponsors have an uncertain relationship with the whole thing. I personally think it's fine to publicize free soloing, and the original post here as well. Watching a skilled practicioner like Honnold do it is a unique experience [1] and remarkable just like any demonstration of skill and athleticism in a very high-stakes environment, except perhaps more so. The fact that there is apparently a subset of less-prepared people interested in copying these stunts is unfortunate. A compromise might be to cover the level of preparation that goes into these things rather than just shots of tennis shoes dangling off a crane -- Honnold has said he only started soloing after thousands of hours of climbing -- but in general this is one of those things where the risk is so obvious that I think publicizing it is not really irresponsible. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4c-8xWD1Mk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4c-8xWD1Mk
- dahart 9y ago
  The same discussion is going on with lots of sports from winguit flying to football. I do wonder if pointing at some people's lack of preparedness or skill is misleading. These choices carry significant risk, regardless of skill. Very experienced mountaineers die every year. Skydivers and base jumpers with decades of experience have accidents. (I knew some, before I chose to stop skydiving.) Suggesting that "experience" will make you safer leaves one with the obvious question of how to gain that experience. It also ignores the fact that more participation in any risky activity is more exposure; the longer you do it, the more likely you are to have an accident.
  - majos 9y ago
    To elaborate on my suggestion of emphasizing the experience of people who participate in dangerous activities: the goal would be to communicate that experience is necessary (not sufficient) for safety. I agree that these activities have some constant fraction of risk you can't remove.

jsjohnst 9y ago

> maybe that it's all awesome until someone dies Someone dies every 500ms around the world. It’s tragic, but it happens. If the person dies doing something they love, who are we to judge?

Firebrand 9y ago
Because somebody else has to clean up their splattered remains.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  So what? Whenever anyone dies someone has to deal with the body. Someone has to clean up the garbage we create every day, and they usually get paid for it.
  - Audible_logic 9y ago
    Well, how about the possibility of the falling in the middle of a crowd? Should people be exposed to an exploding person raining from a skyscraper out of nowhere, long as the climber died doing what he/she loved? It would definitely ruin my day and possibly scar some people.
    - gambiting 9y ago
      That possibility is so miniscule it's not worth worrying about. If you love driving fast, you are exposing everyone around you to the possibility that you make a mistake and kill someone else. Don't see how this is any different, except for the fact that it's so rare it's more of a curiosity than anything else.
      - jm__87 9y ago
        There are laws against driving above a certain speed. This is exactly the argument that was being made above.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      This is a much better argument than the former, however this risk is inconsistent with the much more imminent risks we face every day which have been deemed acceptable to society. Should people not be able to fly airplanes for pleasure?
      - jm__87 9y ago
        You have to be licensed to fly an airplane. You have to log a flight plan. I'm not an expert in aviation but I imagine if your flight plan includes something excessively risky that endangers the lives of yourself or others, someone is going to question it.
        jsjohnst 9y ago
        Flight plans are essentially like driving directions, just a bit more involved. They don’t however include things like “I plan to do barrel rolls”, or “I’m going to fly inverted”, or “I’m going to bank beyond the limits of my air frame and possibly sheer off the wings”, the risky/stupid equivalent to what this guy did.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> If the person dies doing something they love, who are we to judge? "We" are a society who has decided, according to our morals, that preventable loss of life is tragic and we should do everything in our power to avoid it. And why is that "judging"? The point is not to bestow some moral value on the person putting themselves in mortal dagner for "something they love". It is, rather, to stop them from needlessly and pointlessly killing themselves while at it. Your comment expresses a certain view, that looking into others' lives and forming opinions about their choices is somehow morally wrong. An alternative view is that it's the responsible thing to do, when one lives in common with other people.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  > It is, rather, to stop them from needlessly and pointlessly killing themselves while at it. Bringing in morals is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line then? Based on the number of times he did this is done before dying, I’d say he’s got say a 1 in 100 chance of death. Sky divers have to sign forms repeatedly at drop zones that they understand dying is a very real risk and it’s a 1 in 20000 risk of death. For BASE jumping, risks are even higher. Should skydiving be banned too because ”preventable loss of life is tragic”? What about car racing? What about rock climbing? What about <insert one of a hundred other risky “sports”>?

myth_drannon 9y ago

People died in Cirque de Soleil, climbing Everest and others. I don't think these activities should be forbidden, but I personally refuse to go to circus shows. If we all ignore these people and their activities they might stop doing it.

jrowley 9y ago
It’s now illegal to climb Everest without a guide. I guess they were tired of rescuing inexperienced macho people.
- gambiting 9y ago
  Climbing everest without a guide was only banned because as the highest peak on Earth people want to climb it just for the achievement of it, not because doing it extremely dangerous - that are far worse mountains to climb in the world, ones where you are almost guaranteed to die, and it's perfectly legal for anyone to just go and try. My point is - legality of doing something shouldn't be correlated with the dangerousness of doing it(except where others can be harmed, of course).

majos 9y ago

There is a similar discussion in the rock climbing community about free soloing, which is climbing without any sort of safety gear except climbing shoes and chalk. Its foremost practicioner is Alex Honnold, and he produces some amazing photos: https://static.businessinsider.com/image/57bf13b9b996ebef008b474c/image.jpg https://static.businessinsider.com/image/57bf13b9b996ebef008... But a sizable chunk of the climbing community is against publicizing of free solos. Some think it will encourage others, some think the practicioners are irresponsible -- not so much for risking their own lives as commanding rescue resources if they mess up but don't fall and need rescue. Sponsors have an uncertain relationship with the whole thing. I personally think it's fine to publicize free soloing, and the original post here as well. Watching a skilled practicioner like Honnold do it is a unique experience [1] and remarkable just like any demonstration of skill and athleticism in a very high-stakes environment, except perhaps more so. The fact that there is apparently a subset of less-prepared people interested in copying these stunts is unfortunate. A compromise might be to cover the level of preparation that goes into these things rather than just shots of tennis shoes dangling off a crane -- Honnold has said he only started soloing after thousands of hours of climbing -- but in general this is one of those things where the risk is so obvious that I think publicizing it is not really irresponsible. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4c-8xWD1Mk https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4c-8xWD1Mk

dahart 9y ago
The same discussion is going on with lots of sports from winguit flying to football. I do wonder if pointing at some people's lack of preparedness or skill is misleading. These choices carry significant risk, regardless of skill. Very experienced mountaineers die every year. Skydivers and base jumpers with decades of experience have accidents. (I knew some, before I chose to stop skydiving.) Suggesting that "experience" will make you safer leaves one with the obvious question of how to gain that experience. It also ignores the fact that more participation in any risky activity is more exposure; the longer you do it, the more likely you are to have an accident.
- majos 9y ago
  To elaborate on my suggestion of emphasizing the experience of people who participate in dangerous activities: the goal would be to communicate that experience is necessary (not sufficient) for safety. I agree that these activities have some constant fraction of risk you can't remove.