This guy is 29, lives in a van, and climbs big difficult things, often without a safety rope. One of the top climbers in the world, and the generally acknowledged top free soloist. I'm guessing he will either quit this stuff or die before 40.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs21.postimg.org%2Flrv3gt413%2Fimage.jpg&hash=5fcad3b5c2c54ec790e323d6c77dc5187ae59339) (http://postimage.org/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs27.postimg.org%2Fs4zdjvq9f%2Falex_honnold.jpg&hash=488395e1f938e084eb4afcd6a666187c6424eb24) (http://postimage.org/)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs7.postimg.org%2F7spcnof97%2FAlex_Honnold_06.jpg&hash=1e41cc937494cdba1f550d0ee0e669ebc05f3b00) (http://postimage.org/)
The crazy thing is that, even if he never makes a mistake or a hold doesn't break, if the weatherman ever errs and it starts to rain while he is doing one of these climbs, he dies.
Some youtube videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phl82D57P58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR1jwwagtaQ
I once ate so many pancakes for lunch I didn't need to eat again until lunch the next day.
Quote from: The Brain on November 24, 2014, 12:57:52 PM
I once ate so many pancakes for lunch I didn't need to eat again until lunch the next day.
That sounds like more of a submission for a thread on the person with the most bad ass. :)
AKA, every thread monkeybutt posts in.
There are just so many factors out of his control that if they go wrong - he's dead.
Sorry - I just can't call "stupid" being a badass.
It isn't stupid, and controlling those factors is part of what makes the difference between excellent climbers and dead climbers.
They pre-run the route with ropes, for example. They clean the route ahead of time. The entire run takes some number of hours - say 3 for something like Sendero. The odds of the weather suddenly changing from "No chance of rain" to "rain" in three hours is very unlikely. They obviously control for the weather.
Which isn't to say this stuff isn't very dangerous of course. But they are far from stupid about what they are doing. It is probably no more dangerous than, say, driving a race car. Or aggressive scuba diving, or extreme skiing.
A pet peeve of mine is people labeling risk-taking as "stupid" just because they wouldn't take those same risks. It might be stupid if he thought there was no risk, but I see no evidence that that is the case.
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2014, 01:38:29 PM
It isn't stupid, and controlling those factors is part of what makes the difference between excellent climbers and dead climbers.
They pre-run the route with ropes, for example. They clean the route ahead of time. The entire run takes some number of hours - say 3 for something like Sendero. The odds of the weather suddenly changing from "No chance of rain" to "rain" in three hours is very unlikely. They obviously control for the weather.
Which isn't to say this stuff isn't very dangerous of course. But they are far from stupid about what they are doing. It is probably no more dangerous than, say, driving a race car. Or aggressive scuba diving, or extreme skiing.
Lets take driving a race car. Absolutely a dangerous sport. However it's also a sport that takes every opportunity to make it's drivers as safe as possible - from helmets to fire retardant suits, to five point racing harnesses - they're doing everything they can to keep the driver safe.
That's completely different from Honnold, for whom the entire point is to do the climb without safety equipment.
Look - I'm all for climbing as a hobby. Go find the biggest, sheerest rock you can find and go climb it - with safety equipment.
Of course they are not "doing everything they can". If they were "doing everything they can" they would make the cars stronger and slower. They would not allow the drivers to get so close to one another. There are literally a million things they could do to make the sport safer. That is true for pretty much every sport, for that matter.
But they do not do so because they are trying to balance the danger with the excitement, and the existence of the danger is part of what makes it so exciting.
*I* am not going to go climb a mountain with or without safety equipment, but I am certainly not going to look at those who do so and are the very, very best at an incredibly technical and difficult endeavor and call them stupid. Hell, climbing Mt. Everest with every possible safety crutch you can think of is certainly more statistically dangerous than what this guy does - and hell, plenty of people who die on Everest die because they are "stupid" in that they did not understand or control for the risks. But plenty die despite doing everything they can to control those risks.
The risk is part of the point. I would never do something like that where courting risk is the goal, but that is no surprise, I am a normal human being, and he is a bit exceptional.
He might be different from you in how he chooses to live his life, but he isn't stupid.
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2014, 01:38:29 PM
It isn't stupid, and controlling those factors is part of what makes the difference between excellent climbers and dead climbers.
They pre-run the route with ropes, for example. They clean the route ahead of time. The entire run takes some number of hours - say 3 for something like Sendero. The odds of the weather suddenly changing from "No chance of rain" to "rain" in three hours is very unlikely. They obviously control for the weather.
Which isn't to say this stuff isn't very dangerous of course. But they are far from stupid about what they are doing. It is probably no more dangerous than, say, driving a race car. Or aggressive scuba diving, or extreme skiing.
I agree until the point about driving a race car--the death rate among drivers is quite low. I think it is significantly higher for Honnold.
Where I do agree is that he is very measured about climbs like those in the video. He is taking an opposite tact of most of the top climbers in the world. Those guys are often spending months trying to climb extremely difficult routes and failing hundreds of times before finding success. To put it in basketball terms, they are trying to hit full court shots. Honnold is instead going for layups, only without safety equipment. I don't think he is doing this stuff for a marketing gimmick, but if he was I think there is an insight there: to a non expert climber, it is hard to differentiate the layup routes he is doing from the full court routes other guys are trying. But it is easy to see he has no safety equipment.
I understand he does a lot of free soloing climbs, and the two I linked to are the rather exceptional ones (that is why cbs is documenting one, and apparently a helicopter is there to film the other). So maybe those are like the left handed layups.
Yeah, I'm fine with not considering people into extreme sports stupid. They value the adrenaline kick and other types of satisfaction higher than the risk (which they minimize as much as possible within their chosen parameters). It's a hobby or a way to make a living that I wouldn't chose, but it's not stupid.
I wouldn't call them badass, though, at least not on the strength of their extreme sport activity. I've been trying to figure out how to articulate it and ultimately I think a badass is someone who has a proven record of overcoming unexpected physical and psychological adversity; it's someone who you'd like to have on your side when the shit hits the fan because even if they haven't dealt with this particular type of situation, they've been through stuff like it and beaten the odds.
Climbing rocks for kicks, no matter how challenging, does not make you a badass. It may be that Mr. Honnold is a badass, and the rock climbing is part of what made him that way, but the ability to climb stuff is not enough to be a badass IMO.
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 02:15:30 PM
Yeah, I'm fine with not considering people into extreme sports stupid. They value the adrenaline kick and other types of satisfaction higher than the risk (which they minimize as much as possible within their chosen parameters). It's a hobby or a way to make a living that I wouldn't chose, but it's not stupid.
I wouldn't call them badass, though, at least not on the strength of their extreme sport activity. I've been trying to figure out how to articulate it and ultimately I think a badass is someone who has a proven record of overcoming unexpected physical and psychological adversity; it's someone who you'd like to have on your side when the shit hits the fan because even if they haven't dealt with this particular type of situation, they've been through stuff like it and beaten the odds.
Climbing rocks for kicks, no matter how challenging, does not make you a badass. It may be that Mr. Honnold is a badass, and the rock climbing is part of what made him that way, but the ability to climb stuff is not enough to be a badass IMO.
Rock climbing is, basically by definition, pointless. One could compare that to many other activities, like video games.
What he demonstrates, to a remarkable degree:
-endurance, mental and physical
-physical strength
-physical courage
-perseverance
-dedication
To a lesser degree, some measure of intelligence.
You mentioned responding to adversity: forgetting the things on film, I am sure there are many times in his life he pushed himself maybe a bit too far, or things weren't quite going the way he wanted, and he had to respond.
None of that means he is a good person. And maybe we want to define being a badass in a way that incorporates that, such as stepping in to be a father to your nephews because their parents are drug addicts. But I was thinking more along the lines of a morally neutral superhero type badass.
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 02:15:30 PM
Yeah, I'm fine with not considering people into extreme sports stupid. They value the adrenaline kick and other types of satisfaction higher than the risk (which they minimize as much as possible within their chosen parameters). It's a hobby or a way to make a living that I wouldn't chose, but it's not stupid.
I wouldn't call them badass, though, at least not on the strength of their extreme sport activity. I've been trying to figure out how to articulate it and ultimately I think a badass is someone who has a proven record of overcoming unexpected physical and psychological adversity; it's someone who you'd like to have on your side when the shit hits the fan because even if they haven't dealt with this particular type of situation, they've been through stuff like it and beaten the odds.
Climbing rocks for kicks, no matter how challenging, does not make you a badass. It may be that Mr. Honnold is a badass, and the rock climbing is part of what made him that way, but the ability to climb stuff is not enough to be a badass IMO.
I think in that case I'd go with Ernest Shackleton.
There must be people living to day who beat his achievement of getting to South Georgia and rescuing all of his crew, but I haven't heard of them. Though I guess things like GPS and instant comms flip the scales in favour of the modern adventurer.
You know what's really badass? Helping those in need.
That John Glenn guy must be the world's biggest idiot. Who in their right mind would strap themselves into a flying bomb and then shoot themselves into freaking orbit? I mean you can't breathe up there. If you break a window you'll turn into beef jerky. And that little capsule he was in had less processing power than an Atari console. How is it supposed to recalculate the reentry if something goes wrong? And then finally, he's supposed to drop back into the fucking ocean inside what is essentially an iron meteorite and hope his parachutes don't burn up or deploy badly. What a moron.
The argument posed reminds me of the argument made by Raz in the CW thread - how can rifles be more deadly than muskets if the actual casualty rate doesn't increase when everyone is armed with rifles as opposed to muskets?
The answer is the same - because the increase in deadliness is so profound it fundamentally changes the behavior of the humans involved.
If your company has to get from point A to point B across an open field and you know there are men in the woods with muskets about 80 yards away, you might take the chance (assuming the mission is important enough or you commander is stupid enough) to accept that you will lose 10% of your men getting across.
If you know there are men with rifles, and you will lose 80% of your men, you simply don't even try.
Same thing here - if you are climbing up something, and you know that that next hold is a tough grab, and you have a 20% chance of missing it, you might take that chance with safety equipment...and then the safety equipment might just fail.
If you know that you have no safety equipment, there is a 0% chance of you taking the risk. Or rather, anyone dumb enough to take the risk will only do so about 5 times at best before they are an ex-solo climber.
You can't just say "Hey, do the same thing, but use safety equipment!" If you use safety equipment, it isn't the same thing anymore, and the very process is certainly radically different.
The guy, by my standards, if fucking nuts. But he isn't stupid.
Quote from: mongers on November 24, 2014, 02:42:12 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 02:15:30 PM
Yeah, I'm fine with not considering people into extreme sports stupid. They value the adrenaline kick and other types of satisfaction higher than the risk (which they minimize as much as possible within their chosen parameters). It's a hobby or a way to make a living that I wouldn't chose, but it's not stupid.
I wouldn't call them badass, though, at least not on the strength of their extreme sport activity. I've been trying to figure out how to articulate it and ultimately I think a badass is someone who has a proven record of overcoming unexpected physical and psychological adversity; it's someone who you'd like to have on your side when the shit hits the fan because even if they haven't dealt with this particular type of situation, they've been through stuff like it and beaten the odds.
Climbing rocks for kicks, no matter how challenging, does not make you a badass. It may be that Mr. Honnold is a badass, and the rock climbing is part of what made him that way, but the ability to climb stuff is not enough to be a badass IMO.
I think in that case I'd go with Ernest Shackleton.
There must be people living to day who beat his achievement of getting to South Georgia and rescuing all of his crew, but I haven't heard of them. Though I guess things like GPS and instant comms flip the scales in favour of the modern adventurer.
Ernest Shackleton may indeed be history's greatest badass. :thumbsup:
Though for an almost equalled performance in open-boat sailing is the one and only Captain William Bligh, of HMS Bounty-infamy.
It's too bad he fought for the wrong side, because von Lettow-Vorbeck was probably one of history's greatest badasses also. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on November 24, 2014, 02:55:12 PM
It's too bad he fought for the wrong side, because von Lettow-Vorbeck was probably one of history's greatest badasses also. :cool:
I'd say the same thing about Cortes and Pizzarro.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 02:15:30 PM
Yeah, I'm fine with not considering people into extreme sports stupid. They value the adrenaline kick and other types of satisfaction higher than the risk (which they minimize as much as possible within their chosen parameters). It's a hobby or a way to make a living that I wouldn't chose, but it's not stupid.
I wouldn't call them badass, though, at least not on the strength of their extreme sport activity. I've been trying to figure out how to articulate it and ultimately I think a badass is someone who has a proven record of overcoming unexpected physical and psychological adversity; it's someone who you'd like to have on your side when the shit hits the fan because even if they haven't dealt with this particular type of situation, they've been through stuff like it and beaten the odds.
Climbing rocks for kicks, no matter how challenging, does not make you a badass. It may be that Mr. Honnold is a badass, and the rock climbing is part of what made him that way, but the ability to climb stuff is not enough to be a badass IMO.
Rock climbing is, basically by definition, pointless. One could compare that to many other activities, like video games.
What he demonstrates, to a remarkable degree:
-endurance, mental and physical
-physical strength
-physical courage
-perseverance
-dedication
To a lesser degree, some measure of intelligence.
You mentioned responding to adversity: forgetting the things on film, I am sure there are many times in his life he pushed himself maybe a bit too far, or things weren't quite going the way he wanted, and he had to respond.
None of that means he is a good person. And maybe we want to define being a badass in a way that incorporates that, such as stepping in to be a father to your nephews because their parents are drug addicts. But I was thinking more along the lines of a morally neutral superhero type badass.
In spite of spicy's little funny, I don't think being a father to your nephews et. al. is badass. When I think of a quintessential badass, I think of that Gurkha who killed twenty robbers on a train, while he was armed only with a knife.
Thinking more about it, I think violence has to be involved for someone to be a real badass.
It is interesting to compare accomplishments across history. Cross comparison of accomplishments across eras is tricky.
Take the north face of the Eiger:
In 1935, a team made the first serious attempt at it. Everyone died.
A couple more teams made attempts after that, with everyone dying. The Swiss for a time banned anyone from trying.
In 1938, a German / Austrian team succeeded in 4 days, with lots of close calls. The story is that one climber had a nazi flag to plant on the summit, but they were so beat up by the climb they never got the pictures and just climbed down asap. It was considered an epic accomplishment.
In the 1970s, Messner climbed it in 10 hours, which was considered unbelievable.
A few years ago, Steck climbed it in 2:47. That record stood for 3-4 years before it was beat by a guy who did it in 2:28.
I think I agree re: violence, but I think I still agree on Shackleton being one of history's greatest badasses because nature can be pretty fucking violent, and certainly was in his case.
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 03:04:05 PM
When I think of a quintessential badass, I think of that Gurkha who killed twenty robbers on a train, while he was armed only with a knife.
Thinking more about it, I think violence has to be involved for someone to be a real badass.
Are boxers badass?
The problem is that it is hard to establish yourself as badass if you have to be violent in a socially positive manner. Short of Alex Honnold flying to India and riding trains with attractive females, I'm not sure what he can do to establish his badassness, and even then it might be hours or even days before someone makes a move.
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 03:04:05 PM
Thinking more about it, I think violence has to be involved for someone to be a real badass.
Not violence specifically, but risk-taking.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 03:11:12 PMAre boxers badass?
They can be.
QuoteThe problem is that it is hard to establish yourself as badass if you have to be violent in a socially positive manner. Short of Alex Honnold flying to India and riding trains with attractive females, I'm not sure what he can do to establish his badassness, and even then it might be hours or even days before someone makes a move.
It's not a problem for me, because I don't think badass needs to be defined so that there are easy venues for establishing that you are one.
Looking at Shackleton, if we say that violence is not the only or exlusive criterion, I think coolness in the face of overwhelming disaster is another key factor. So picking these difficult climbs and filming them is not badass. But if he somehow found himself in a situation where he had to do a super difficult climb with no preparation to save his life (or he risks his life to reach some other necessary objective) then he'd be a badass in the Shackleton vein.
Like, say, if his plane crashes at the bottom of some cliff and the only way to avoid death by starvation and get help is to climb up the cliff, then he's a badass for pulling off that climb.
So yeah... maybe being a badass is facing an unexpected and unsought out danger, and dealing with it successfully through grit and skill.... though I don't know, because I think some guy who goes out and get in fights all the time is a badass (psycho as he may be), more so than a boxer who only fights in the ring. Miyamoto Musashi, for example, was a badass.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 24, 2014, 03:16:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 03:04:05 PM
Thinking more about it, I think violence has to be involved for someone to be a real badass.
Not violence specifically, but risk-taking.
I'm trying to figure it out, because while I agree that it isn't just about violence (Shackleton was pretty badass), I don't think rock-climbing or bungee jumping or 100' wave surfing or base jumping etc are badass, even if it's very much about the risk-taking.
In my mind a true badass gets The Medal of Honor, many times posthumously for said action that earned them the medal.
That guy is an incredible athlete. But it is a solo test. Being "badass" implies a competition with/against others. He may be a "badass" but we dont know yet. He may actually be a very meek and mild person when confronted with social competition.
Also, I don't think being a badass necessarily means a resolution through violence. I think the true Badasses get their way through sheer force of personality.
Having said that I think my Grandfather was a signficant badass for having killed a bear with a small sapling he pulled out of the ground when the bear wouldnt leave his camp way back in the day. As he explained it - bullets were expensive and the bear wasnt that big.
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 03:27:42 PM
I'm trying to figure it out, because while I agree that it isn't just about violence (Shackleton was pretty badass), I don't think rock-climbing or bungee jumping or 100' wave surfing or base jumping etc are badass, even if it's very much about the risk-taking.
To personalize this a bit, I've hired some certified international mountain guides. These guys are insanely fit, risk takers, etc. But also skilled to an unbelievable degree--getting certified is something like a 5 year process. All the guides do is take dumbass clients up and down really big and dangerous peaks. One of the guides I had had spent a couple years as a mountaineering guide in Anarctica. Another guide, after we summitted a 4,000m peak, decided that wasn't enough exercise for the day and went on a 3 hour run in the mountains.
On Mont Blanc, we got up at 1 am to start climbing. Earlier that night, there was a distress call--people were in trouble higher up. The guides from our group formed a rescue party--which was successful--but it meant they got no sleep that night. When we made the ascent, a client needed to turn back, and the guides basically had a big argument about who should go down with him--all of them wanted to go to the summit. The guide that ended up taking him down, despite having been up the mountain like 50 times and not sleeping that night before, decided to summit by himself after getting the client to safety. He never said why he did that--I think he had the attitude, "I set out to climb this mountain, and even if my client can't make it, nothing is going to keep me from doing it."
I think those guys should be considered badass. A guy like Alex Honnold is basically those guys--only more hardcore. If the guides are badass, then he has to be as well.
Charles XII was badass. Hell he was even Badass of the Week.
As I think about it, if you want a badass climber I give you - Stanley Waters.
In WWII he was a member of the "Devil's Brigade" - an American-Canadian special forces commando unit. A company under his command used climbing ropes to climb the cliffs of Monte La Difense at near Montecassino. He was involved in some heroics at Anzio for which he received a Silver Star. My recollection was also (but I can't find confirmation) was that he was the first allied soldier in Rome.
After the war he stayed in the Canadian Army, eventually reaching the rank of Lt General and becoming commander of Mobile Command.
And upon retirement, because he hadn't done enough in his life yet, he became Canada's first elected senator.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=RAtfybsdp4sC&lpg=PA237&ots=81VW4mMuaF&dq=gen.%20stan%20waters%20anzio&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q=gen.%20stan%20waters%20anzio&f=false
Of course WWII generated tons of "badasses", so it'd be hard to say Stan Waters was the biggest of them all, but his name deserves to be in the discussion.
And of course for climbing bad-assedness, climbing cliffs in order to fight the nazis beats anything else.
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 24, 2014, 03:44:52 PM
In my mind a true badass gets The Medal of Honor, many times posthumously for said action that earned them the medal.
You can only earn it once :rolleyes:
:P
Quote from: Barrister on November 24, 2014, 04:54:17 PM
As I think about it, if you want a badass climber I give you - Stanley Waters.
In WWII he was a member of the "Devil's Brigade" - an American-Canadian special forces commando unit. A company under his command used climbing ropes to climb the cliffs of Monte La Difense at near Montecassino. He was involved in some heroics at Anzio for which he received a Silver Star. My recollection was also (but I can't find confirmation) was that he was the first allied soldier in Rome.
After the war he stayed in the Canadian Army, eventually reaching the rank of Lt General and becoming commander of Mobile Command.
And upon retirement, because he hadn't done enough in his life yet, he became Canada's first elected senator.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=RAtfybsdp4sC&lpg=PA237&ots=81VW4mMuaF&dq=gen.%20stan%20waters%20anzio&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q=gen.%20stan%20waters%20anzio&f=false
Of course WWII generated tons of "badasses", so it'd be hard to say Stan Waters was the biggest of them all, but his name deserves to be in the discussion.
And of course for climbing bad-assedness, climbing cliffs in order to fight the nazis beats anything else.
Yeah, I think Waters goes in the undisputed badass categorie.
Quote from: derspiess on November 24, 2014, 04:55:42 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on November 24, 2014, 03:44:52 PM
In my mind a true badass gets The Medal of Honor, many times posthumously for said action that earned them the medal.
You can only earn it once :rolleyes:
:P
LOL, but incorrect. :smarty:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 02:13:54 PM
I agree until the point about driving a race car--the death rate among drivers is quite low. I think it is significantly higher for Honnold.
:hmm:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2014, 05:34:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 02:13:54 PM
I agree until the point about driving a race car--the death rate among drivers is quite low. I think it is significantly higher for Honnold.
:hmm:
I meant the people that do the stuff Honnold does. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 24, 2014, 05:34:38 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 02:13:54 PM
I agree until the point about driving a race car--the death rate among drivers is quite low. I think it is significantly higher for Honnold.
:hmm:
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on November 24, 2014, 02:46:22 PM
You know what's really badass? Helping those in need.
:lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 02:58:08 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 24, 2014, 02:55:12 PM
It's too bad he fought for the wrong side, because von Lettow-Vorbeck was probably one of history's greatest badasses also. :cool:
I'd say the same thing about Cortes and Pizzarro.
As awful as the Spanish may have been, they're saints compared to the Aztecs.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 24, 2014, 07:30:20 PMAs awful as the Spanish may have been, they're saints compared to the Aztecs.
At least according to Spanish accounts?
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 07:31:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 24, 2014, 07:30:20 PMAs awful as the Spanish may have been, they're saints compared to the Aztecs.
At least according to Spanish accounts?
No, Mel Gibson's accounts.
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2014, 02:49:49 PM
Same thing here - if you are climbing up something, and you know that that next hold is a tough grab, and you have a 20% chance of missing it, you might take that chance with safety equipment...and then the safety equipment might just fail.
If you know that you have no safety equipment, there is a 0% chance of you taking the risk. Or rather, anyone dumb enough to take the risk will only do so about 5 times at best before they are an ex-solo climber.
:hmm: It's possible to do it more than 5 times.
A badass is someone who makes a ton of money.
Quote from: Barrister on November 24, 2014, 01:13:47 PM
There are just so many factors out of his control that if they go wrong - he's dead.
Sorry - I just can't call "stupid" being a badass.
:mad: (BB, apparently, on the right)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnkennethmuir.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fstartrekfivemountain.jpg&hash=c143830be2f4e8023b30b83e0bc05401e74fbd05)
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 07:31:48 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 24, 2014, 07:30:20 PMAs awful as the Spanish may have been, they're saints compared to the Aztecs.
At least according to Spanish accounts?
Are you seriously suggesting that now, in 2014, the entirety of research on the Aztec Empire has been the reading of Spanish accounts?
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 24, 2014, 08:20:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 24, 2014, 01:13:47 PM
There are just so many factors out of his control that if they go wrong - he's dead.
Sorry - I just can't call "stupid" being a badass.
:mad: (BB, apparently, on the right)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnkennethmuir.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fstartrekfivemountain.jpg&hash=c143830be2f4e8023b30b83e0bc05401e74fbd05)
Yosemite rules. And Spock has been known to be wrong on at least a couple very important occasions.
Quote from: Valmy on November 24, 2014, 08:23:22 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that now, in 2014, the entirety of research on the Aztec Empire has been the reading of Spanish accounts?
I'm guessing that when Jacob contested that "As awful as the Spanish may have been, they're saints compared to the Aztecs", he wasn't contesting that the Aztecs were good guys, but that the Spanish were saints even in comparison.
Quote from: DGuller on November 24, 2014, 07:49:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2014, 02:49:49 PM
Same thing here - if you are climbing up something, and you know that that next hold is a tough grab, and you have a 20% chance of missing it, you might take that chance with safety equipment...and then the safety equipment might just fail.
If you know that you have no safety equipment, there is a 0% chance of you taking the risk. Or rather, anyone dumb enough to take the risk will only do so about 5 times at best before they are an ex-solo climber.
:hmm: It's possible to do it more than 5 times.
DGuller is always here to tell us the odds :)
He is probably reading this thread in the horror that Honnold may have gotten a life insurance policy. Though I can't imagine the application process went well.
Agent: "What is your address?"
Honnold: "I don't have one."
Agent: "...."
Honnold: "I live in my van."
Agent: "What is your occupation?"
Honnold: "I'm a professional rock climber."
Agent: "These days professional rock climbing is fairly safe, with harnesses and ropes right?"
Honnold: "It is, but I don't use those."
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 24, 2014, 08:28:42 PM
Yosemite rules. And Spock has been known to be wrong on at least a couple very important occasions.
Making this video was the worst of all his mistakes. :(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRAU
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 24, 2014, 08:20:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 24, 2014, 01:13:47 PM
There are just so many factors out of his control that if they go wrong - he's dead.
Sorry - I just can't call "stupid" being a badass.
:mad: (BB, apparently, on the right)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnkennethmuir.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fstartrekfivemountain.jpg&hash=c143830be2f4e8023b30b83e0bc05401e74fbd05)
AR: doesn't get it. :( I know, I made the reference like three times.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 24, 2014, 08:48:47 PM
AR: doesn't get it. :( I know, I made the reference like three times.
When I saw the picture, I was like "ah so that is what Ide was talking about." :bowler:
Quote from: Valmy on November 24, 2014, 08:23:22 PMAre you seriously suggesting that now, in 2014, the entirety of research on the Aztec Empire has been the reading of Spanish accounts?
Nope, not seriously.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 08:40:26 PMI'm guessing that when Jacob contested that "As awful as the Spanish may have been, they're saints compared to the Aztecs", he wasn't contesting that the Aztecs were good guys, but that the Spanish were saints even in comparison.
You give me too much credit. I know little about the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, and even less of the Aztecs; so it was more of a fishing expedition, hoping for someone to post something interesting.
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 11:03:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 08:40:26 PMI'm guessing that when Jacob contested that "As awful as the Spanish may have been, they're saints compared to the Aztecs", he wasn't contesting that the Aztecs were good guys, but that the Spanish were saints even in comparison.
You give me too much credit. I know little about the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, and even less of the Aztecs; so it was more of a fishing expedition, hoping for someone to post something interesting.
Well, you got your monkey shit fight at the zoo instead.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 08:53:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 24, 2014, 08:48:47 PM
AR: doesn't get it. :( I know, I made the reference like three times.
When I saw the picture, I was like "ah so that is what Ide was talking about." :bowler:
The classical education is truly dead. :(
Quote from: Jacob on November 24, 2014, 11:03:08 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 24, 2014, 08:40:26 PMI'm guessing that when Jacob contested that "As awful as the Spanish may have been, they're saints compared to the Aztecs", he wasn't contesting that the Aztecs were good guys, but that the Spanish were saints even in comparison.
You give me too much credit. I know little about the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, and even less of the Aztecs; so it was more of a fishing expedition, hoping for someone to post something interesting.
In Mexico, there is a lot of "Aztec Pride" in recent years: official identification with the indigenous Aztecs vs. the Spanish colonizers. I've been told that there is some resistance to this from some of the indigenous groups who have oral traditions dating back to Aztec times and have preserved a severely negative point of view toward the Aztecs.
Quote from: Berkut on November 24, 2014, 02:49:49 PM
The argument posed reminds me of the argument made by Raz in the CW thread - how can rifles be more deadly than muskets if the actual casualty rate doesn't increase when everyone is armed with rifles as opposed to muskets?
The answer is the same - because the increase in deadliness is so profound it fundamentally changes the behavior of the humans involved.
If your company has to get from point A to point B across an open field and you know there are men in the woods with muskets about 80 yards away, you might take the chance (assuming the mission is important enough or you commander is stupid enough) to accept that you will lose 10% of your men getting across.
If you know there are men with rifles, and you will lose 80% of your men, you simply don't even try.
Same thing here - if you are climbing up something, and you know that that next hold is a tough grab, and you have a 20% chance of missing it, you might take that chance with safety equipment...and then the safety equipment might just fail.
If you know that you have no safety equipment, there is a 0% chance of you taking the risk. Or rather, anyone dumb enough to take the risk will only do so about 5 times at best before they are an ex-solo climber.
You can't just say "Hey, do the same thing, but use safety equipment!" If you use safety equipment, it isn't the same thing anymore, and the very process is certainly radically different.
The guy, by my standards, if fucking nuts. But he isn't stupid.
I remember that was well. I asked you to back up your assertions with facts and you ran away. Didn't think you'd want to bring that back up.