Are you just dense? Or another closet child abuser?
|Originally posted by Carvemeister:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Maddog1959:
...It is up to the chicken littles in this argument (the party raising the argument) to make some reasonable affirmative show of proof that there is a real and actual danger and that that danger is inherent and unreasonable...
The proof HAS been given.
...Holy crap, What If?
If it's you're not smart enough to understand that, well then you're obviously part of the problem.
Sorry, but somebody had to tell you, before you hurt somebody.
Got kids? Not thinking about getting a dog are you?
I've seen them bite on T.V. :
</font>[/quote]As usual the densitometer is off the scale with the old carvemeister. So, just because placing a child in a backpack means there is a potential for additional injury (bear with me but I suspect that is due to the fact that the child is now elevated above the usual height above planet Earth that the child occupies) therefore the child is endangered and child abuse has occurred. So, backpacking a child or even holding a child could result in the child falling from an unusual height and resulting in serious head injury or a real bad “scare”. Sounds to me like the old Carvemeister is advocating for a ban on carrying children, backpacking children or taking any activity which would or even could result in a child being in any “additional” danger (presumably additional is based on the average danger all children in Carvemeisterland are subject to on a daily basis).
Would you run that proof by me again? What is it? Is it your belief that there is additional, inherent danger from the action of skiing a child in a backpack? Is it the potential that the skier could fall? Is it the potential that the skier could be hit by another skier/boarder? What is it?
Sorry Carve, I don’t see that there is all that much additional danger to the child from being backpacked while skiing. Yes, the skier could fall. And, so could Mom if she has the kid in a backpack walking out to the mailbox. Frankly, a fall on the way to the mailbox with all the surrounding concrete would be more dangerous than a fall while Dad is undertaking a slow speed ski run. While carrying your child in your arms (assuming you have a child or have ever carried a child) you could faint from syncope, or collapse from a heart attack, or spontaneous aneurysm, and drop the child causing serious injury or death. Are you advocating that carrying children is child abuse? Or do you believe the risk of these events is so low as to be acceptable? Please provide something which would convince me that skiing a child in a backpack is actually dangerous not just presumably dangerous because you have weak skiing skills and a vivid imagination, and that the danger is sufficiently great to require proscribing the activity.
I remember a while back that the chicken littles of the world were harping that raising the speed limit on the nations highways would result in untold additional deaths, carnage, maimings and the like. Unfortunately for them, when the states increased the speed limits from 55 to a higher number the prophesied carnage didn’t materialize. In most locations, the per mile death and injury rate declined, inferential logic should not be the sole route used to determine whether an activity is sufficiently dangerous to be proscribed.
Its good to know that people like Carvemeister are around waiting to limit your freedom and responsibility. You want to take your 15 year old into the backcountry? Don’t worry; old Carve will be there to accuse you of child abuse. You let your kid ski an 800’ vertical. 50-degree technical face with a rock band in the middle - you abuser, heathen, it’s leg irons for you. You want to take the 3 year old on the back of the Mt. Bike for a single track run; it’s thumbscrews and the rack for you. Teaching your 2 year old to ski? No way, it’s dangerous and old Carve is going to call the Children’s Protection Division on you. But, heaven forbid if you should strap your young one into your Corvair so you can head down to the latte factory for a super fudge double espresso latte sugar bomb and you get T-boned in the intersection, well that was an auto trip and we all know the auto is an invention of NECESSITY, not frivolity.
While I have never skied with a child in a backpack, I have biked, and backpacked my children for endless miles and I have skied with fanny packs, and backpacks of light to heavy weights. The idea of falling with a child in a backpack is foreign to me. The falls I have are on very steep slopes with highly varied snow condition where I plink a tree with my shoulder or get slammed around by an unseen tree root or rock band. Oddly though, I never see kids in backpacks on these runs, only on the double green circle runs where the snow is all groomed and smooth like a baby’s butt. I can’t remember the last time I fell on a green groomer while paying attention to my skiing, and without the assistance of a friend or relative. As for being knocked down by a skier/boarder, I do remember being hit by a boarder two years ago. He bounced off me and was dazed for a bit but it did not knock me down, hell it didn’t even cause me to sway. When he stopped drooling and looked reasonable coherent I chew his ass a bit and sent him packing. Skiing in the Northwest I would be more concerned that the mountain would erupt than I would that my child would be hurt in the backpack. Ohhhhhh, there’s another one for the old Carve, northwest mountains erupt so no child should be allowed near those mountains, that would be child abuse after all. Drivel, but unadulterated drivel!