Why some jumpers (me) don't take others (you) seriously.

[jimmyh 0]

Since my antics last night didn't get me banned, I still have the freedom to speak my mind here. Whether you read it, or care is actually irrevelant.

Obviously everybody has an opinion about the sport, here's mine...and it won't be an allegory about monkeys.

I did my first base jump at 18 in 1989. The only reason that matters is because it has allowed me to watch the progression of the sport from that moment until now. In the last 16 years, a ton of stuff has changed, and I'm not talking about gear.

I'm sure there has always been a certain level expectation placed on jmpers by fellow jumpers, but what I see today is, in my opinion, bordering on lunacy. What's worse is that it's being flaunted as "ethics."

I just read in another thread that one jumper's "ethics" are judged more on his "attitude" than his "actions." What the flip? I mean seriously, what does that mean? An action is either ethical or it's not. You're attitude while commiting murder has nothing to do with the act itself.

It appears that some jumpers are being accused of having flagrant, "look at me" attitudes, and therefore their actions are rubbing people the wrong way. That's fine, but when you accuse them of being "unethical" while at the same time putting other jumpers up on pedistals who are just as high profile but apperently don't actually use the words "hey look at me," you are no longer making any sense at at all. And that's when people like me just don't care what you say.

I edited all the POTATO BRIDGE rail jumps out of RADIX because in the end there were some good, reasonable arguments that pursuaded me to do so. Incidentally, in the same year continuum II came out and I believe I saw a rail jump in that video, who cares. This year it appears that jumps from the rail aren't as big of an issue...things change, nothing is written in stone.

It all comes to this (AS I SEE IT): Some jumpers don't like other jumpers attitudes and instead of just saying that (because that wouldn't really do anything), those offended people are making accusations about "ethics." If a bunch of offended people all get together and make a unified accusation, some people might buy it and make similar accusations. Almost like Monkeys that have haven't ever been sprayed with water yet still try to keep other hungry Monkeys from eating. And we all know that ethics is always dictated by the majority.

But people like me have been here before most of you, and me not caring what you think, doesn't make me unethical, it doesn't make me anything. It just means that I don't care what you think.

Remember, I'm the guy who taught a sixteen year old girl how to BASE jump before she ever did a a tandem even. Now she's got 13 base jumps and 42 skydives. Who cares? Not me.

If anyone has an issue with me, or my very good friends, all I as k is that you make sense, otherwise we'll never get anywhere.

[Zennie 0]

Quote

I just read in another thread that one jumper's "ethics" are judged more on his "attitude" than his "actions." What the flip? I mean seriously, what does that mean? An action is either ethical or it's not. You're attitude while commiting murder has nothing to do with the act itself.

I'm in 90% agreement with you here. I'll explain the 10% reservation in a second. The most import thing is a person's actions... they're either ethical or unethical (granted there are plenty of grays in there). I think if you go back through any of my rant posts you'll see that I try to focus on WHAT is being done, not the person doing it.

If Jeb went off a tower on a bicycle, resulting in the bicycle striking the tower, or day blazed high-profile objects which are mainstays of many jumpers (thus putting their ability to jump it at risk), I'd be equally upset with him. Or any jumper for that matter.

The 10% reservation regarding attitude has to do with repercussions. In the justice system... and human dealings in general... if you have two otherwise identical people who do the identical thing wrong... who gets the harsher treatment? The one who shows true remorse or the one who's remorseless?

Further, if one person realizes what they did is wrong and chooses to no longer do that thing, while the other person continues to do it, who is going to receive the harsher treatment? Finally, which person will have a lower tolerance threshold for future less egregious actions from the community in general than the other?

Quote

It appears that some jumpers are being accused of having flagrant, "look at me" attitudes, and therefore their actions are rubbing people the wrong way. That's fine, but when you accuse them of being "unethical" while at the same time putting other jumpers up on pedistals who are just as high profile but apperently don't actually use the words "hey look at me," you are no longer making any sense at at all.

All BASE videos are "look at me" things of one sort or another. Again, it's more a matter of what is being done on the video than the "look at me" aspect that gets people riled.

Quote

I edited all the POTATO BRIDGE rail jumps out of RADIX because in the end there were some good, reasonable arguments that pursuaded me to do so. Incidentally, in the same year continuum II came out and I believe I saw a rail jump in that video, who cares.

What you did with the RADIX/rail jumping issue was really cool and I think most people here will give you credit for that. At least they should.

And I'll be the first to admit that the rail jumping scenes from Continuum make me uncomfortable... and I tell folks who see it not to do that... but the circumstances there are important. When they were doing that, and when the film was originally released, rail jumping wasn't a problem with the City of Twin Falls. As far as I know they still frown upon it.

But the rail jumping thing is a dead horse I think most everyone is tired of beating.

Quote

If anyone has an issue with me, or my very good friends, all I as k is that you make sense, otherwise we'll never get anywhere.

I agree, again it's why I try to focus on actions, though the attitude that comes with it often gives me an insight into their personal ethical system.

I've had plenty of strong personal disagreements with people. I also know that people change, as do their actions. So if someone has a torrid past (and god knows I do) I tend to overlook it in light of their present actions.

I also know I tend to be WAY more argumentative writing things than discussing them in person. Probably a lawyer thing going there. *shrug*

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[RhondaLea 3]

This time, Jimmy, I agree with you.

I'm not going to touch the issue of Clair, except to say the following: You know what I said in that thread, and you know what I've said to you privately, so you understand that my objection was not that you were teaching someone with no skydiving experience to base jump--that part I agree with for the reasons I gave you in the PM. I'm glad she's doing well at it, and that we don't have much longer to go before her 18th birthday.

But as for the rest of it, there is no good argument that I can see against anything you've written.

"Ethics" is what we do, not what we think. Exactly that, no more no less. A good attitude only counts if it is expressed in action, and trying to distinguish identical acts based on the attitude underlying them is ridiculous.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Zennie 0]

Shouldn't you be in bed?

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

This year it appears that jumps from the rail aren't as big of an issue...

Having met with an ITD foreman and talked about this issue in the last 3 days, I'd say you're wrong about this.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

I just read in another thread that one jumper's "ethics" are judged more on his "attitude" than his "actions." What the flip? I mean seriously, what does that mean? An action is either ethical or it's not. You're attitude while commiting murder has nothing to do with the act itself.

Example:

Action: I'm running through the hanger, and I accidentally trip, and yank your reserve handle, making you miss the next load and lose the 45 bucks you'd make flying camera for a tandem.

Attitude 1: I laugh and say "Hey, screw you, dude, I never liked you anyway. In fact, I think it's pretty damn funny that you're losing some money. Ha, ha, ha!"

Attitude 2: I say "Oh, shoot, dude, I'm really sorry. Here's my rig for that load. I'll take your rig into the loft and repack the reserve while you do that camera jump."


Same action. Different attitudes. Are you sure you'd react the same way in both cases?

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[CactusJack 0]

One could argue though that the loaning of the rig and the free repack are both actions, and that the attitude would be wether you were happy or disgruntled while doing them. Most of this debate will be about definitions, I'm sure everyone pretty much agrees with each other on this topic, but defining ethics is where it gets tricky. Just ask aristotle.

[TomAiello 25]

Sure. But looked at it in BASE-ethics specific terms:

Example:

Action: I wander through your city and jump a building in daylight, nearly getting busted and heating things up nicely for you and your crew.

Attitude 1: I hold a press conference, taunt the cops, and declare myself "god of the skies, and world's best BASE jumper."

Attitude 2: I call you guys up and explain that I didn't know there were any locals, and apologize for bringing the heat onto your site.

My actions are driven by my attitudes, in either case.

When people evaluate your "attitude" what they are really doing is evaluating the actions you take prior, or subsequent to, some specific event. How you plan, publicize, react and respond are all actions--but they all stem from your underlying attitude.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Shouldn't you be in bed?

My daughter is posting in the Bonfire.

That would keep anyone awake. Next I think I'll send her here to reminisce about base.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Zennie 0]

Quote

Next I think I'll send her here to reminisce about base.

Good lord keep her away from those lecherous skydivers. Everyone knows we BASE jumpers are a clean, wholesome bunch.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[dploi 0]

I didn't read Jimmy's post, yet I concur with whatever was in there because the title was funny.

We seriously need a "Best of" video containing only day blazes and rail bails.

[Zennie 0]

Quote

We seriously need a "Best of" video containing only day blazes and rail bails.

Yep. Immediately followed by the JV clip that demonstrates what happens to day blazers and rail bailers.

- Z
"Always be yourself... unless you suck." - Joss Whedon

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

My actions are driven by my attitudes, in either case.

But the site's still hot.

Some people make a career of being sorry. Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission and all that. Also easier to be careless and apologize than to use caution.

Attitude can be manipulative. Dale Carnegie taught us old folks How to Win Friends and Influence People and people are still using the same lessons today to get their way.

Words are meaningless without underlying action. So is so-called attitude.

I suspect that in the rig example--just a guess, mind you--that Jimmy would offer the rig while saying "ha, ha, ha." Unless he really didn't like you, of course.

It's weird to be taking Jimmy's side in this. His flying fingers and his smart mouth have pissed me off more times than I can count.

But this time, I think he has the better argument.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[jimmyh 0]

My point is that we should call apples "APPLES" and oranges "ORANGES" and not get our categories confused if we are going to keep using the word "ethics."

If we want to talk about attitudes and whether or not some of us like/dislike, agree/disagree about them then that's cool and we can stay in a subjective vibe.

But if we are going to talk about ethics, we have to be very careful cuz that's a word that demands it's users step to the table, having checked their egos and personal grievances at the door, wearing blindfolds, ready to discuss actions devoid of emotion. I understand that we all are pationately concerned for the sport we love. However, while we are having a passionate reaction to something someone did, let's keep it in the "that guy has a disrespectful attitude and I think his actions are hurting the sport" category. After we count to ten, then let's discuss whether those actions were ethical/unethical.


Not gonna debate hypothetical situations about wierd reserve handles being pulled.

I just want the word "ethical" to be used a little more sparingly before it looses it's significance. OR, I'd like to see it used correctly, accross the board. Cuz then, I think we might have to put a few more jumpers in the naughty boy corner cuz felix and cliff huckstable are gett'n a little lonely in there.

"My actions are driven by my attitudes" Nope, my actions are driven by my hungers. My hungers are constent, my attitudes are fleeting.

[jimmyh 0]

Oh wait...I just read the reserve pulling, I'm gonna lose forty five bucks scenario and it's resulting hypothetical attitudes.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Tom, is that the best hypothetical situation you can come up with to refute my origional post???

Dude, you have no idea how good I am at what I do...You could pull my reserve handle, turn my camera off, unzip my jumpsuit, give me a paper cut and poor lemon juice in it all on jump run, hell, even after the green light's been turned on, and I'd still be on the ground smiling with with a product that that tandem student will cherish. And regardless of your attitude about the whole thing, I just might thank you for making my day interesting.

Nothing about that had to do with my arguement about ethics.

[Freeflysmiley 2]

Quote

Dude, you have no idea how good I am at what I do...You could pull my reserve handle, turn my camera off, unzip my jumpsuit, give me a paper cut and poor lemon juice in it all on jump run, hell, even after the green light's been turned on, and I'd still be on the ground smiling with with a product that that tandem student will cherish. And regardless of your attitude about the whole thing, I just might thank you for making my day interesting.

Just an observation from an outsider looking in - your talking about attitudes?....................

--------------------------------------------------
Practise the 6 P's!
--------------------------------------------------

[jimmyh 0]

See,
that is exactly my point. You guys care way too much if I brag. Who cares? The point is about ethics. Expect me to be humble if you want, but when I'm not, don't cunfuse the issue with ethics. Say, "he's got a bad attitude."

And when you have done what Iv'e done, tell me how I could have changed my attitude while I did it.

If my tone makes it difficult for you to stay on topic that says more about you than me.


-peace

[Skin 0]

Quote

This time, Jimmy, I agree with you.

"Ethics" is what we do, not what we think. Exactly that, no more no less. A good attitude only counts if it is expressed in action, and trying to distinguish identical acts based on the attitude underlying them is ridiculous.

rl

Err...actually that's not correct. In fact, it's absolutely 180 degrees out of whack.

Ethics is exactly what we think and not what we do.

Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: 'e-thik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek EthikE, from Ethikos
1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values c plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group d : a guiding philosophy

Are carnivors unethical because they eat other animals. No.
Are humans unethical if they eat each other. Yes.

Why...cuz that's the way we think.

Izafraid yuzall talkin' crap.

WWW.M-W.com

I hope for the sake of decency you're all at home masticating since it's breakfast time. If you don't get a dictionary soon it's going to look like a chimp's tea party.

A tout a l'heure.

$kin
There's only one Tom Aiello...

[ChrisHall 0]

Quote

I'm glad Clair's doing well at it, and that we don't have much longer to go before her 18th birthday.

Ha-ha-ha. Me tooooo......

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

Quote

This time, Jimmy, I agree with you.

"Ethics" is what we do, not what we think. Exactly that, no more no less. A good attitude only counts if it is expressed in action, and trying to distinguish identical acts based on the attitude underlying them is ridiculous.

rl

Err...actually that's not correct. In fact, it's absolutely 180 degrees out of whack.

Ethics is exactly what we think and not what we do.

The principles of conduct governing an individual is not represented by his attitude by but his actions.

The quality of an action cannot be judged by intent, and it cannot be judged by an outcome. Only the action counts.

We can talk up a storm about what ethics are from a philosophical point of view, and I always enjoy it. But when it comes down to cases, we're judging events after the fact, and making a determination of ethical/not ethical. And that has nothing to do with thought and attitude and everything to do with action.

If the ethic changes situationally because the people we're applying it to change--because one person has a good attitude and the other person has a bad attitude, all we're saying is that there are two sets of rules and we get to apply the easy set to the people we like and the hard set to the people we don't.

So if you want to get legalistic on me, we've never been talking about ethics, because all we ever talk about is what people do, not about what people should do in all cases--because we keep making ethical exceptions when we feel like it.

Edited to add: The point is if we're going to misapply the word all the way through, then let's continue to use the word as we've misapplied it for this discussion too.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[Skin 0]

[In Valley Girls type voice]

Like...Whatever!

$kin
There's only one Tom Aiello...

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

[In Valley Girls type voice]

Like...Whatever!

Lazy.

Edited to add: Not all humans deem it unethical to eat other humans. Ask any cannibal.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[jimmyh 0]

Is it ok for a person to eat another person if he's really humble, nice, and not dayblazing while he does it?

Just trying to get the correct definiton.

[jimmyh 0]

and if you'll re-read my post post you'll notice that I said the majority dictates what's ethical

damn skin you'da chimp

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

Is it ok for a person to eat another person if he's really humble, nice, and not dayblazing while he does it?

A more appropriately analagous question would be:

"Is it appropriate for a person to eat another person because their plane has crashed in the arctic and if one doesn't eat the other both will die?"

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com