I just saw a show on Discovery about four guys who went to China to do some extreme kayaking. When they get there the river is out of the banks. They decide to do it anyway. One of them gets killed. Before they started they talked about the chance of getting killed and I got the impression none of them really thought it was serious. The guy who died had two small children and a wife.
 To me he was not in a position to risk his life. Too many people were depending on him and it was discretionary risk. If you are young and single and want to risk it, go ahead. I don't see how a man can justify getting killed when he has a family on a deal that wasn' t absolutely necessary.
 What is your acceptable risk level?

For me, having a wife and two kids, I think it would be incredibly damned selfish of me to do something that would seriously risk my life unless it was for a greater good (eg being in the military).
OTOH, you risk your life every time you get on the road, so I don't see anything wrong with calculated, well-prepared risks such as sky-diving or say, rock-climbing.  

It depends entirely on the individual's judgement.  I do know that I don't have much sympathy for anyone who is injured/killed while indulging in any 'danger boy' hobbies.  Free country and all that, but you play with the bull long enough and you WILL get the horns.

You've got nothin to lose, right up to the point you have something to lose.

Additionally, adventure is not supposed to be fun when you are having it.  


Who you leave behind makes the difference between irrational behavior and irresponsible.

Quoted: Normal living is risky enough for me.  I would never risk my life in the pursuit of "fun."  Stuff like that is just crazy, IMO.  Another thing that burns me is when rescue personnel are required to risk their lives trying to save some dumbass who went on an "adventure" such as mountain climbing or skiing, etc.  People should be free to go into perilous situations, but should have the knowledge they are on their OWN--no one else will help if you get into trouble.  Rescue personnel should only be deployed for those who suffer misfortune--breakdowns, plane crashes and the like, IMO.  Don't get me started on taxpayers having to PAY for the rescue of thrill-seeking dumbasses.

I fully agree.

Quoted: Additionally, adventure is not supposed to be fun when you are having it.

I forget who it was that said "Adventure is other people being miserable somewhere far away."

Was there Banjo music?

Quoted: Quoted: Additionally, adventure is not supposed to be fun when you are having it.   I forget who it was that said "Adventure is other people being miserable somewhere far away."

I think it was all those professional sports and nascar fans

Risk management is the key.

For example, I like to ride a motorcycle, which involves risk.  I take into consideration factors such as road conditions, weather, traffic, etc., and adjust my decision making and riding style accordingly.

If there is ice on the road I decide that the conditions are to odangerous and I don't ride.

If I am on a road that is in good condition with little to no traffic, I ride a bit more aggressively than if I was in town or on a road scattered with sand & gravel.

This guy exercised poor risk management.

And yes, having a wife and two kids has affected my decision making, since the consequences of my actions impact more than just me.

What the thebeekeeper1 said.  

I'm all for adventure, but when they have to call out EMT's with helicopters to pull some pansy-assed yuppies off of some mountain or out of a hole that they've dug themselves into, the yuppies should get the invoice for EVERY PENNY spent saving their pansy asses.

Quoted: I'm all for adventure, but when they have to call out EMT's with helicopters to pull some pansy-assed yuppies off of some mountain or out of a hole that they've dug themselves into, the yuppies should get the invoice for EVERY PENNY spent saving their pansy asses.

Fuckin a!