sexual_chocolate

Of course during an attack itself, one might defend oneself. Someone jumps me on the corner, I'll defend myself, if I can, and depending what the situation presents to me (I was held up at gun-point once. Didn't have much of a chance to defend myself!). But after I've been jumped (or held up), my immediate response wouldn't necessarily be a movement towards revenge (it wasn't after i had a gun to my head)! Now, if the perpetrator was planning to jump me again (Please mr., don't jump me again!), which is kinda what we're facing now, I sure as hell would want to find out what the cat was all about, damn. I wouldn't go shooting up his whole family, thinking that would solve the problem. Everyone's got relatives (we're ALL related) and I know my violence would come back to me, especially if it's the self-righteous kind (Read: GW Bush). I can't CONTROL the world; no one can, although we try. So hopefully I would have the humility to go beyond my anger and pain and hurt and actually try to talk. I know this isn't a very popular position, but that would hopefully be my response. Our leadership's indignant self-righteousness makes for great pomp and fanfare, but I'm afraid it does nothing to secure our future. I fully believe that it will make the world a much more dangerous place for years to come, ESPECIALLY if we want to travel (plus, you CAN'T keep "them foreigners" out. Look at Israel, for god's sake, and they are a TINY country of 5 mil). [ 09-18-2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

"It's a very good question. Basically it comes down to the fact that while it it not permissible to be an initiating aggressor, once one is attacked it is permissible to defend oneself even if this means offensive actions." There's a problem here, of course. Who attacked who first? Hatfields and McCoys. Violence is the most naive response to violence; it just keeps the cycle intact. But I think that's what alot want, anyways.

Hey thanks for that info. Based on that info, it seems like a mistake that was bound to happen, sooner or later. I think her fear is understandable, anyone's fear regarding an attack is understandable. My thinking with the whole "terrorist" attack thing is knowing that fear and anger are going to happen, sure, but not letting those instinctual reactive emotions make our choices for us when we respond.

I took the time to look. I couldn't find the "he said/she said" (I think that's what this has turned to). Oh well....

A side-note: I've often found that messing with self-righteous humanoids is rather fun, but counter-productive. It usually simply intensifies their self-righteousness.

quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: She made no mistake, the dumbsh*ts messing with her made the mistake. Would *you* simply allow someone to go on their merry way after hearing comments like she heard? I wouldn't. If they don't like what their shitty comments get them, they should be more careful. In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter what they say. In this one however, it does and if they're not cognizant of that, they're not as smart as they look no matter how they come across on TV. Your veneer of civility is fading! But, you didn't answer the question: What is it they said? I for one haven't heard.

"Still, some great thinking on your part." Dare I accuse you of sanctimony here? I certainly hope you wouldn't become so uncivilized, after holding up so well under your own scruples for so long.... "But I really find someone believing we cause more extinctions than any other cause to be a pretty big statement." Ahhh, but you did not read my post carefully! Either that, or your intention is lost, due to some vague word usage. Clue: We are free to consider the correlations as we desire, yet I believe it would be silly to dismiss perhaps the most obvious possibility. I would think this to be the dominant paradigm in scientific circles.... "But what about weeds, trees, frogs, ants, birds, etc now with us? They survived too, without any of the qualities you describe as necessary for ours. The constant of the earths climate is *change*. I see here defenses of an idea where the climate is static. IMO this is not supportable." My bad. I neglected to reply in completion. Yes, indeed, many organisms have survived, many have not. Those that survived simply did, because the changes in the environment didn't kill them. Quite simple! Of course we will ALL cease to exist, but sheesh, I think understanding our role in the continuation of environmental viability is of paramount importance, don't you think? A higher calling, if you will.... Why do we get to assume this causes harm and suffering, a-priori? How do you know the temperature isn't "supposed" to be 5 degrees hotter or cooler? The idea that the earth is "perfect" now is *itself* a construct that must be defended and explained before one can make a case against warming, and I don't see any of that here yet! I have never said anything is "perfect". I think sometimes the notion of perfection is a construct of our limited awareness. But I think it to be self-evident that a lack of stewardship towards the earth will result in harm to ourselves and our environment. Do you not think that we have created many casualties due to our lack of foresight and episodes of greed? " ...when the Vikings were growing crops in Greenland, a place where they later starved to death when it got towards todays "normal" temperature, wouldn't they consider the future cooling to *now* insufferable?" I believe they might be a little more pissed if they saw that they did it to themselves, especially if they ignored a ton of clues along the way! "This is the problem I have with this. The entire debate assumes an unknown and arbitrary setpoint, which does not exist." For me, the argument isn't about optimal setpoints, it's more about the potential or actual consequences of our actions.... It stakes such a point as the current time (or a few decades previous), when a look at any climate chart shows how rediculous this is, and then people claim we must save the earth from change, when all it has ever done is change, for reasons no one can explain! Some changes are readily explainable, others not. In the case of climate change, obviously some disagreement exists, yet did not a major scientific organization sign off on a statement indicating their opinion to be in accordance with the idea that we are indeed raising our temperatures due to greenhouse gases? I flew to Thailand not too long ago, and realized that we live on quite a small planet! Then, flying into Bangkok and seeing the smog stretching out into the horizon, by god, and all the millions of cars churning out burn by-products 24/7, and the factories with their attendant pollutions... I'd have to be a fool to think that this wasn't affecting our environment tremendously! I think "setpoint" debates become secondary at this point, yet this is a problem with science: to argue a point, one needs objective criteria with which to argue, yet many of these criteria are only indicators, small pointers easily manipulatable and argued about endlessly. The forest is burning, yet we argue about individual trees! But, I think I see some of the points you are making, and in many ways I have no disagreements with some of them. I just think we see a different forest; mine is green, yours is blue.

"Is this belief *true*, or just commonly held? I don't care how many people believe something in a factual case." Well, I would certainly say the "belief" itself is true, since there are many who practice it. Yes, the belief does exist! It is also commonly held, from what I understand. And the reason it is commonly held is that most indications at the disposal of those making the observations seem to indicate a validity in the hypothesis. I understand you to be a clinical rationalist, and as such, I would be led to think that a preponderance of observable phenomena indicating the validity of a certain hypothesis would sway you towards that hypothesis, no? I think we have it, in this case. "You still are not answering the question, how is it we survived all those earlier events, along with all the flora and fauna we see now, in spite of the fact that the climate has varied more than some project it varying in their worst cases?" Certainly we survived because we are adaptable creatures. We have been imbued with intelligence, foresight, communal caring and compassion, along with other qualities we might call greed, selfishness, viciousness, and brutality. I tend to think that on some level, all of these led to our survival. (Interesting reading exists about life in survival situations, such as in gulags or concentration camps.) But, is survival the bottom line? Why would we want to make life difficult for ourselves, if we know better? I think we can use these qualities of intelligence and foresight to notice trends and patterns in our behaviour, and work towards the elimination of behaviours that create harm and suffering. Let's not force insufferable conditions on our progeny, a progeny still without a voice! Their liberties must be considered also, no?

"In addition, I'd present the fact that we still exist, and all the flora and fauna here today, and made we all made it, through all the cyclical changes in the last few millennia." The problem with this statement is that it disregards a commonly held belief in the scientific community, namely that in the last hundred years, the rate of species extinction has NEVER been seen before in the entire history of the earth. This is coupled with the FACT that humans have never affected their environment to even nearly the degree to which they have affected it in the last hundred years (I think this is pretty evident to anyone, no?). I know the topic (hah!) was global warming, but global warming is only one aspect of our effect on the environment, although potentially the most serious in the long run, unless our current foreign policy brings us even closer to the precipitous edge of nuclear warhead usage.

quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: [QB] If they want to fight then bring em on and "let's start a war" as quoted by The Exploited. QB] Who was Exploited quoting? Fear?

quote: Originally posted by Jarred Jackman: I think it's funny that those who want to enjoy the land and the climbing tell others to fuck off, or to be wary, while those same folks were once in the exact same position of wanting to climb at that new place where there aren't many people and the rock isn't all chalked up like a home gym. Seems as though there's some hypocrytical bug out there biting people, maybe it carries West Nile virus too, better look out, you may be the next victim. Hey, I'd love to tell everyone about the climbing there, and other areas too. I think it'd be rad to organize a bouldering and climbing trip out there. If it was up to me, I would. But part of the deal for me is respecting the desire of the same individuals that keyed me in to the climbing out there in the first place, and that desire is to keep the area pristine. Do I personally think it would ever be over-run? No, it's not that great, nor that big. But that isn't for me to decide; it's their land, after all! But seriously, it isn't THAT great. If it was, I'd be hoofin' over more than once a year, which is my current rate of visitation.

quote: Originally posted by Retrosaurus: quote:Originally posted by richard noggin: Big talk from a guy that goes around removeing hangers and chopp'in other climbers routes Pretty socially irresponsible if you ask me I have never stolen hangers. I think what you mean is removing bolts from irresponsibly bolted routes. A socially responsible act. Goddamm I'm starting to bore myself. I've got an opinion on everything. Yay, internet! So, this one is this: I firmly believe that the removal of bolts is necessary when previously trad-only routes get bolted. I think specifically of Cunning Stunt at Index, and that steep slab left of Jello Tower at Castle. It's sad to me when the original integrity of a route is desecrated, never again to be enjoyed in the style of the first ascensionist. This robs the first ascensionist of his/her accomplishment, and it removes the awe and respect that future ascensionists and hopefuls might feel when contemplating the route. Try and go bolt gritstone, some of ya! My opinion is in no way an endorsement of Retrosaurus, who continues to baffle me with his feckless feckisms. Retro, go hump some fossils.

Didn't you guys look at the REI pinnacle?

But, I also must say that my feelings are affected by the encounters I've had with management there. I wasn't able to use my punch-card in the allotted 3 months or whatever (traveling), and they wouldn't honor the last two punches. Called for a friend who works there, the manager was ill-tempered and refused to let me speak to him (never even passed the message along). At times, a general unwillingness to makes things fair. Plus, what, 16 or 18 to climb on the weekend? Sheeit. Force a membership down ones throat! I know I know, boo hoo boo hoo, but hey, that's where I'm at! And now, I'm done with this topic!

quote: Originally posted by Cpt.Caveman: One could argue they might get some new customers in the long run. And that's the whole problem I have with VW; the strategizing. Yeah, let's provide something for the community, so that WE can profit in the end. Shit, it's corporate culture, and it's taking over the friggin' minds of everyone! And now the peeps make excuses for them!

Yes, I think there is the possibility of running a business without money always being the bottom line. One might do it to provide a service to the community, for example, because they care about people, about climbing, etc.. A dated ideal? And is $15 a day too much? (More on weekends?) Stone Gardens charges $12 a day, $9 for students. Still expensive, but cheaper, and students get a break, which is cool. Also, A yearly EFT membership is like $24 a month, last time I checked. WAY cheaper. Plus, they don't give you grief if you weren't able to use your punch-card in the allotted time-frame (never did understand that one ). VW has always been solely a business venture for the fellow I mentioned, and it shows! I'd personally rather not climb at the GAP. And when these feelings of mine encounter this promo deal on 9/11, I guess I get a little hot under the collar. Hey, but that's what a deep breath is for! Yoga in action! [ 09-05-2002, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

BTW, I'm unfortunately quite familiar with VW's history, and I think the egregiously high $15 a day is more proof as to what their motivations are.... Rich wants to be....his namesake.

quote: Originally posted by thelawgoddess: quote:Originally posted by Chepe: It's really nothing but a shame that the incident happened last September. What the other shame is that Vertical World has figured out a way to make money from it when the hordes come in and rent gear. I'd rather climb for 10$ without such hoopla surrounding the place anyway. it's $15, and you have a pretty fucked-up view about vw and their intentions. you probably think it's a shame that car dealerships let you test drive their cars for free, too, eh? Well, most car dealerships wouldn't sell too many cars without a test drive, eh? Is this the VW logic?

Aw, come on!

quote: Originally posted by mr.radon: [QB]No, but it does bring smiles to the faces of kids and is a great tool to pick up chicks. QB] How do the "chicks" respond to your "disability"?

Sorry man, I suck. I got no jokes oh wait, here's one: So this horse goes into a bar, sits down and orders a beer. Bartender comes up to him and asks: "So why the long face?"

Here's another one: Why does it always rain in Seattle? Give up?

Hell No! Don't ruin it!

Which one????

I laugh! I laugh uncontrollably! Fucking Nascar!!