Why do so many people read this and write off McCandless as a

>He lived his ideals to the fullest and expressed no regrets or resentment.
That's just it: you can do all that and still be a naive edgy kid. I haven't read the book but come on.

>>9630755
>lived his ideals and...
That's why people think hes a naive and edgy child

He went into the wilderness without even having a map. Hubris!

Even savage peoples do not wander blindly into unexplored territory.

an experienced outdoorsman wouldn't get caught in winter with no prepared food. he had even killed a moose and could have preserved and stockpiled the meat in a variety of ways.

that being said, I don't really look down on him. I went on similar adventures when I was young and there are a few instances where I could have died from stupid mistakes. that's the point of adventure, it's a mix of good and bad experiences and there's risk.

>>9630755
>naive
he died from being neither prepared nor knowledgeable

>edgy
he wanted to live an extreme life. he got what he wanted (for a short amount of time)

>>9630755
Why the fuck has the cover spoiled the whole fucking story?

>>9630842
somebody buying a non-fiction book of that sort is likely already going to know that he fucking died.

>>9630842
Believe it or not, that's what good journalism does.

>>9630842
have you heard of a play called romeo and juliet?

>>9630755
He basically was a naive edgy kid. The ideals he espoused and the way he acted on them are reflections of his naivete and edginess.

>>9630755
>thisisbait.jpg

Why are you idiots all falling for it?

Apparently this also blew the sales of the Grizzly Man book out of the water, because people were more ready to believe this guy wasn't an idiot because he didn't get eaten by bears. But dead is still dead.

His sister wrote a book about him recently. She says he was misunderstood by basically everyone, and that the difficulty of their home life pushed him to an extreme.

It was an unrelentingly abusive home that devastated him emotionally, apparently.

>>9631638
There was a book? I just saw the Herzog documentary.

he's a foolish but likeable kid who made mistakes but still had some good experiences
he's not a hero to emulate but that doesn't mean that his story isn't interesting

>>9630755
>He lived his ideals to the fullest
What 'ideals'? 'I don;t want a job, maaaaaaan' is not an ideal, it is a repudiation of responsibility. He refused to grow up. OK, he didn't want to sit in an office - become a mechanic or a driver or a carpenter or something.
>He also probably died of a toxin that was unknown at the time and might have just as well killed an experienced outdoorsman.
Bullshit. That narrative was invented to make people lurve him. The moron starved to death 15 miles from a highway because he didn't bother to get a map or to scout his surroundings. He killed a 1500 lbs moose and got a meal or two out of it because he didn't know how to butcher or preserve it, A moose that size could provide basic protein for a family of 6 for a year!
Know why people with sense feel bad for his family but use McCandless as a cautionary tale?
Every year tens of thousands of young men think like McCandless did. 99.9% of them do NOT have the trust fund, etc., he had. They *don't* die because they grow and learn sensibly. Join the military; join the peace corps; apprentice as a park ranger or river guide or a million other things where you are *trained* to survive in the wilderness, *learn* how to be self-sufficient, and develop the skills to not just be independent but to save others.
Every year hundreds of men wander into Alaska to test themselves - McCandless is one of the rare ones to be too stupid to survive it. That isn't brave, that's sad.

>>9631701
/thread

>>9631701
We are reaching levels of projection so high they shouldn't be possibru

>>9631725
what facts did the post get wrong?

>>9631725
So you're saying that going into territory you don't know very well without a map or adequate supplies and starving to death amid hunger hallucinations because you don't know how to preserve the meat you procure from the game you hunt is a smart thing to do?
What the fuck is your post even supposed to mean?
Fucker was an idiot. If he hadn't been then he wouldn't have done the shit that he did. He wouldn't have put his friends and family through what he put them through.

>>9631701

This smacks of conservative talk radio, a tasteless scewering of some poor bastard transmuted into a symbol of barely conscious self loathing.

File: 1448556695470.gif (2MB, 245x246px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 245x246px

>>9631736
>Thinking that doing things that you aren't materially or intellectually prepared to do makes you an idiot
>Conservative talk radio
I mean, maybe that's the sort of sentiment that a CTR hose might express, but it's also the sort of sentiment that most people who have spent five minutes in the woods would express.

>>9631736
*skewering
Or, try this instead: your armchair attempts at conjecture about my interior emotional state are not just wildly incorrect but unrelated to the topic at hand. Your refusal to discuss the actual topic in favor of passive-aggressive ad hominems on me are because you irrationally idolize McCandless out of a sense of personal failure because you mistake his rashness for physical courage.
See? When you talk about 'maybe anon is thinking Y' instead of the topic nothing moves forward.

>>9631736
>"Anon is right, and I hate him for it"

FTFY

File: what did you just say.gif (1MB, 236x161px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 236x161px

>>9631736
anon
>"That guy who died? He was foolish"
you
>"Gosh, anon, why do you hate yourself?!"

>>9630755
>Why do so many people read this and write off McCandless as a naive edgy kid
Because he is one, seriously, this is something an edgy teenager does.
>Having a Job sucks, I'm going to live in the wilderness
>Wow, I'm so smart for coming up with this idea, I'm not going to even plan this or anything
>I'm glad I ain't one of those suckers working everyday just to put meat on the table
>*dies of starvation*

>>9631732
In fact, what he did was so stupid, and the reasons for doing it even dumber, that I suspect me might have been suffering from mental issues. The while "doing away with worldly goods" thing is extremely common in people suffering from psychosis.

>>9631701
>'I don;t want a job, maaaaaaan' is not an ideal
the fact that you try to put it as a joke dont invalidate the fact that can be an ideal. (a shitty ideal if you want)

>it is a repudiation of responsibility.
you mix up working with responsability.

> he didn't want to sit in an office - become a mechanic or a driver or a carpenter or something.
your ultradowntoearth approaching to life makes you incompatible to just slightly understand the emotion that guide this kind of thinking. (of McCandless)

File: 1458417781366.png (257KB, 582x395px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 582x395px

>>9631801
>Be 1992
>Lost in woods
>Kill moose
>Cook some meat
>Realize I don't have a fridge
>fuck.jpg
>Meat goes bad
>Kill some squirrels and birds
>Squirrel and bird doesn't sit well with me
>Start tripping balls
>Die of starvation
>At least I didn't have a job

File: 1458418049973.png (214KB, 1152x1728px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1152x1728px

>>9631811
>the fact that you try to put it as a joke dont invalidate the fact that can be an ideal. (a shitty ideal if you want)
That actually isn't an ideal--not unless you're willing to try to convince me that Turbo Luxury Autocommunism is possible.
>you mix up working with responsability.
Work *is* a form of responsibility.
>your ultradowntoearth approaching to life makes you incompatible to just slightly understand the emotion that guide this kind of thinking. (of McCandless)
Half the words in this sentence don't make sense in the contexts in which you've used them.

>>9631818
>not unless you're willing to try to convince me that Turbo Luxury Autocommunism is possible.

Not him, but legit loads of people believe this exact thing. Just the other day I had a friend go all weak in the knees as he described how a post-scarcity society would automatically be a kind and enlightened one.

Everyone defending this guy's 'ideal' and actions ITT should follow his example.

>>9631823
Yeah, I know, that's why I want him to convince me that there's a reason to think it's possible. I'm assuming that either he's one of these Kurzweilesque Singularitarians, or that he hasn't given anything ITT much thought.

>>9631827
Well, at least the Singularity is out of fashion. Especially now that the writers more inclined to Turbo Luxury Autocommunism are heavily critical of it. And their new pony is identity politics in science fiction and fantasy.

>>9631830
What are you on about? I really don't care.

>>9631818
>That actually isn't an ideal--not unless you're willing to try to convince me that Turbo Luxury Autocommunism is possible.
i dont want to convince you of nothing. is not my ideal. i just tell you that can be one. use your imagination.

>Work *is* a form of responsibility.
not the only one. repudiation of work is not repudiation of responsability itself.

>Half the words in this sentence don't make sense in the contexts in which you've used them.
what you mean?. im not good with english, do you refer to the syntactic form of my sentence?.
you give practical responses to impractical people. ( i suppose you think this dont exist, the impractical people)

>>9630808
>an experienced outdoorsman wouldn't get caught in winter with no prepared food
He didn't. Dude died in August. He was doing okay on food but was immobilized, delirious, and vomiting due to the illness from the aforementioned poison.

>>9631841
>i just tell you that can be one. use your imagination.
This is such a vapid proposition.
>not the only one
Yes, which is why I used the word "a" and not "the only" in my post.
>what you mean?. im not good with english, do you refer to the syntactic form of my sentence?.
>you give practical responses to impractical people. ( i suppose you think this dont exist, the impractical people)
Your English is terrible, it has a lot to do with your vocabulary and your sentence structure.
"Impractical people?" This guy was an impractical person, that's why he got himself killed. His ideal was retarded. He was an idiot. There is no good reason to glorify this fucker as if he were some latter-day Thoreau or John the Baptist. He wasn't. He was a trust fund kid who got out of his depth in the wilderness. Anyone who aspires to be like him is aspiring to be like the one version of this kind of role model who ends up fucking dead because of stupidity. John the Baptist ends up dead because someone kills him; Thoreau survives his time at Walden (and even this wasn't the endeavor that it's made out to be); Christ comes back from the desert after 40 days and 40 nights and dies at the hands of the Jews; McCandless dies shitting his guts out in a broken-down bus because he didn't have a fucking map. Why the fuck is this an ideal worth respecting? Why, when there are a million better articulations of the same basic idea ("Be yourself, disregard the standards of society, appreciate the sublime power of nature, be a good person," blah blah blah, it's not a complex concept which is why it's appealing to people like you, who clearly aren't capable of thinking things through if you think what he did was wise).
Go get lost in Alaska, you fucking crybaby.

>>9631840
Oh, I'm sorry, I was assuming that you would actually be familiar with the shit you are mentioning in your posts, and would also have the desire to talk about them, given that you're doing that exact thing.

But I guess you're just being contrarian for its own sake.

>>9631845
>He was doing okay on food
No he wasn't, his body wasn't processing the small game that he was catching properly.

>>9631848
I'm trying to talk about the subject of this thread, I'm not interested in going off into a tangent about the Singularity just so that you can talk about the current sad state of SFF.

>>9631857
Don't flatter yourself. The subject matter of this thread is "mentally disturbed person died in the wilderness, the end". The OP is an obvious bait/trollpost. How many different ways do you want to hash out to say the same thing?

>>9631701
Yeah, this is pretty much right. People on /lit/ just gotta grow up and realize it

However, though, I find the obsession with McCandless and media sensation made out of him somewhat cruel, because the only good thing you could get out of it is, "Look how stupid this guy and his idealism is!" I mean clearly idealism is bad when it's not mixed with having some common sense, and when it's too excessive, but it's just in general a pretty cynical message and gives an unfair portrayal of anyone too "weird", especially because this book is apparently popular in high school curriculums now.

Basically, the way I see it is that this story is just one big circlejerky way to tell people, "See, buddy, you better conform! look how idiotic idealism is and how weak-willed anyone is if they try to get away from the benefits of civilization! you couldn't live a day without us!"

>>9631847

this is your post
>I don;t want a job, maaaaaaan' is not an ideal, it is a repudiation of responsibility

>His ideal was retarded
now you accept is an ideal.

what you do with an impractical person?. you think they exists?.
i insist, your ultradowntoearth approach to life dont let you understand this kind of thinking.

>>9631701
>I don;t want a job, maaaaaaan' is not an ideal
Makes sense, then, that he had several jobs throughout his journey that were described in detail in the book. He wasn't averse to labor, he just wanted to live minimalistically. When he really needed money, he did everything from farmwork to flipping patties.
>That narrative was invented to make people lurve him
How can one not read the book and have opinions this strong? Almost forgot where I was for a minute.
>99.9% of them do NOT have the trust fund, etc., he had
The one he gave away to charity?
>>9631786
>Having a Job sucks, I'm going to live in the wilderness
He was intending to come back and settle back into his farmhand job in South Dakota at the end of the summer. Read the book.
>>9631813
>At least I didn't have a job
Read the fucking book.

Just to be clear, I don't think the kid was an exemplar of anything worthwhile or a martyr. It was certainly stupid of him to go without a map or understanding of the seasonal geography. But y'all are fucking idiots and shouldn't be talking about a book you clearly only read the sparknotes of when you were 15 at best.

>>9631736
You can tell you're right from all the angry replies you're getting

>>9631811
>the fact that you try to put it as a joke dont invalidate the fact that can be an ideal
>you try to put it as a joke dont invalidate
>dont invalidate
Your grammar is as atrocious as your thinking.
>you mix up working with responsability.
False. His refusal to prepare, plan, prioritize, communicate, etc. all show a pattern of irresponsible behavior. His revulsion at the idea of a white collar job was part and parcel of his immaturity and irresponsibility.
>your ultradowntoearth approaching to life makes you incompatible to just slightly understand the emotion that guide this kind of thinking.
If I have accurately parsed your meaning for this sub-literate statement which I cannot call 'a sentence' then yo are incorrect. I have children under the age of reason so I completely understand that McCandless was driven by simplistic, childlike emotions rather than reason. That is, in fact, my point.

>>9631841
> i just tell you that can be one.
one what? fool who starves to death?

>>9631910
believe me in this. your children will hate you in a couple of years. (if they dont hate you now)

>>9631845
the 'poison' theory was debunked long ago. he had insufficient calories, the end. Small game can be too lean for long-term food as well. If he knew basic skills, he would have known that. If he had had a basic map he could have walked out in just a few hours even weakened.
If he had had even rudimentary survival skills he could have preserved more food,.
Etc.

>>9631891
I wrote this
>>9631701
I did *NOT* write this
>>9631891
There are 18 posters in this thread besides you.
more than one of us thinks you're incorrect.

>>9631900
Occasional labor != a job.
>How can one not read the book and have opinions this strong?
I've read the book. Try again.
>The one he gave away to charity?
Beside the point
Know what you call a guy who wanders around doing work when he needs to eat? A hobo.

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/122167113/

>>9631922
LOL!
Your predictions are and poor as your analysis, spelling, and grammar.

>>9631927
A thin person can survive a month with no food at all. Point me to the source, though, don't keep this debunking to yourself.

>>9631940
>Occasional labor != a job
No, it doesn't equal a career. It precisely equals a job. And he didn't just do a couple of days' labor when he was super hungry, he spent months at a time in one place saving up to get back on the road again. Which you would know if you read the book.
>>9631940
>Beside the point
What was the point again? He never used the trust fund, so I don't see how it's relevant in comparing him to other similar kids. Seems like you're trying to poison the well at best, and babbling incoherently at worst.

>>9631945
youll see.

>>9631947
>A thin person can survive a month with no food at all.
And McCandless dies after 4 months, making this statement ridiculous especially in the face of rabbit starvation.
>Point me to the source
The autopsy; a full toxicology screen was done because he died on public land. No toxins discovered. The University of Alaska tested the seeds and peas he ate to see if a warning for other campers should be issued; they confirmed that the plants he ate weren't toxic.
Krakauer's wild hypothesis reflects his poor research. Krakauer himself acknowledges that the potato seeds didn't poison him if you'd bother to read.

>>9631958
The point was 'people with no access to a trust fund e develop the basic skills he never gained. His lack of those skills caused his death. With a trust fund he had no excuse for NOT gaining those skills beforehand'.
Communications major, then?

It's because the Internet is full of people who wish they had the balls to live freely and do what they despite the struggle of it. The truth is, McCandless lived his life on his own terms and died happy because of it. It wasn't about living a long life, rather a fulfilled one. People on 4chan live unhappy lives and will die begrudging and sad, despite probably living longer and techincally more comfortable lives than McCandless.

>>9631959
>5 sons, oldest grown and successful, 3 more in late teens
>Just had my Tuesday morning breakfast with oldest 3 hours ago to catch up
You have a lot of grown children, anon?

ITT: Nerds that think they'll survive for even a few days out in the wild.

>>9631701
What's an ideal?
>you have a responsibility to keep yourself alive
spooky

>>9631973
He died happy because that's a symptom of starvation. It's literally the same thing as saying a guy who froze to death died feeling warm. Yeah, he did. Doesn't change the fact that he froze to death.

>>9631968
>And McCandless dies after 4 months, making this statement ridiculous
He didn't eat nothing for those 4 months. He did pretty damned well for a time if his notebooks are at all reliable. He only began having trouble, quite abruptly, in the last few weeks of his life. As for the rest of your post, all of that information is outdated. The toxin theory has for a long time been that the seeds he ate contained an undocumented toxin that wouldn't have been looked for at the time of the original investigation. Here's Krakauer's latest take on it afaik: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/chris-mccandless-died-update

And at least read it before you start attacking it on the basis that Krakauer wrote it. Because we all know that's what you were planning to do, don't we? If he's biased, prove it by defeating the actual argument. And this time, provide a source.

File: chris-mccandless_sos_lancastria.jpg (35KB, 244x375px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 244x375px

>>9631973
>died happy
pic related
protip: the agony of death by starvation leaves no one 'happy'.
Want to know what is funny?
it is relatively simple to live life "on your own terms". I'd say 90%+ of everyone does. Want to perfectly simplify your life?
Be a contemplative monk or nun.
Or the many other paths that allow you to be very, very simple.
Want to go live rough? Sure!
here's a tip - learn the basics of food gathering, preservation, hunting, etc., take a map, tell people where you are going.
Want to go prove yourself in Alaska?
Web search "Alaska homesteading" and got get a cheap bit of land in the middle of nowhere and live there. Easy as pie. You can get water access lots in the remote interior for less than a semester at a land grant university. Go build a cabin, hunt, trap, fish, and live how you like.

But, and this is important, if you don't have the basic skills, don't do minimal preparation, and don't plan ahead you might die.
If you die because of your personal ignorance and laziness then you won't be a hero.

>>9631994
An archetype; something or person seen as perfect

>>9631970
Biochem major, if you're talking about me. McCandless was in History/Anthropology. I still don't see what a trust fund has to do with it. Because he grew up wealthy, he should have been more prepared? But if all the other kids are also prepared, it seems like wealth has nothing to do with your ability to obtain those skills. No one said he was unprepared because he was poor, so if it's not poisoning the well then it looks like a strawman. I'm gonna stick to my "incoherent babbling" theory for now, though.

>>9631997
>"I don't know what rabbit starvation is"
FTFY
>"I also didn't read that the University of Alaska proved Krakauer's theories false"
FTFY, too

>>9632008
So "I don't want a job, maaaaaaan' is not an ideal" is an empirical claim?

>>9632018
>I don't know what rabbit starvation is
I know it's poorly documented
>I also didn't read that the University of Alaska proved Krakauer's theories false
I know you didn't read the article since it's from 2015 and not espousing the same toxin debunked by the U of A.

>>9631922
If I have children in a couple of years then I'll be astounded by how much biological success I've had.

>>9631872
>The subject matter of this thread is "mentally disturbed person died in the wilderness, the end". The OP is an obvious bait/trollpost. How many different ways do you want to hash out to say the same thing?
Why do you think I want you to stop replying to me?

>>9631997
>He did pretty damned well for a time if his notebooks are at all reliable. He only began having trouble, quite abruptly, in the last few weeks of his life.
vs.
>'his body only weighed 30 kg when found'

>>9632054
Because you want to have the last word. If you didn't want to discuss, you simply wouldn't discuss. And because you want it so much, for no real reason, I'm less inclined to give it to you.

>>9632040
You mean the article that admits that the effect in question is really only a threat to people suffering from 'acute hunger and malnutrition'? That article?

>>9632074
Gee I wonder if he would have lost a buncha weight during those last few weeks and decomposed over the month it took to find him

>>9632079
Look you fucker, I'm trying to discuss the subject. You want to have a conversation with me about the fucking Singularity or something because I made an offhand comment about Communism. I don't care about having the last word, I care about the fact that you can't get through your skull that I'm trying to discuss the matter at hand.
>The OP is an obvious bait/trollpost. How many different ways do you want to hash out to say the same thing?
How about you leave the thread if you really think this? You fucking idiot.

>>9632082
Nope, I mean this one: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/chris-mccandless-died-update which says nothing of the sort. Jesus you're bad at this.

>>9631845
>He was doing okay on food b
Is that why his writings say he was dying of starvation?
Also, here's the thing
>Man with no training, barely any skills, completely inadequate equipment, no backup plan, no map, no compass, no communications, and no notice goes off to live alone in the wilderness. In 4 months he's dead.
Guess what? Whether he starved to death or ate poisonous food is actually immaterial - the ultimate cause of death was stupidity. If he's just *walked around" looking along the river he could have gotten out a month before he died (when he was trying to leave before anyone claims he was being poisoned. You know - because he was hungry and shit?) if he had just - walked the river to know his surroundings. Or had a map.

>>9632086
No, you're not trying to discuss the matter at hand. That's exactly what you haven't been doing for a while, now. You're here to be a cunt. And I'm pointing that out to you. No need to be triggered. I mean, you're here shitposting in a thread about a book you never read. Don't try to dress that up as anything more than it is.

And the Singularity or the concept of a post-scarcity society have literally nothing to do with communism.

>>9631847
>Thoreau survives his time at Walden
Of course he did. Besides frequent visitors he was so close to civilization he had his laundry done very week.

>>9632095
>Is that why his writings say he was dying of starvation?
No, that would be the poisoning that rendered him bedridden for his last few weeks.
>Guess what? Whether he starved to death or ate poisonous food is actually immaterial - the ultimate cause of death was stupidity. If he's just *walked around" looking along the river he could have gotten out a month before he died (when he was trying to leave before anyone claims he was being poisoned.
Certainly. I don't like being an apologist for McCandless, but these ignorant fucks are insistent upon getting pretty much everything about him wrong. They just want to cover their asses since they've been caught out not actually having read the book, which is the cancer that's killing /lit/.

File: 1291066357709.jpg (78KB, 450x319px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 450x319px

All right, you think I want the last word? I'll prove to you that I don't: this is my last response to your inane off-topic gibberish.
>shitposting
yes, anyone who calls McCandless a retard is just shitposting. He was actually a poetic genius and a prophet. You got me.

>>9632101
>(and even this wasn't the endeavor that it's made out to be)

>>9632103
You're shitposting because you're rude and pointlessly contrarian, constantly repeating the same angry shit to the same people. McCandless was a poor, dumb guy who wasn't all there in the noggin'.

>>9632083
>In July McCandless attempted to return but was stopped by a river. The motives for his return included hunger
So a month before his death, well before he was poisoned (or not) he was horrified he couldn't walk out and was trying to because of hunger....

>>9632088
(making my point)
The article fails to mention that the condition discussed really only is a threat to someone already starving to death.
Which I was mocking....

Why the fuck does everybody care so much about this guy? Sure, I get it was a big news story and a very popular book that has become required reading in schools, but why? It is an interesting story and I am glad to have read the book, but I don't want to waste my time arguing about if what McCandless did was right or wrong. He made his choice and he had to live and die with the consequences. I'm not going to make fun of the guy or call him a retard, he went out and did something that caused his death, what does that matter to me? A hundred people do that every day. Do people care just because the story is so interesting? Is it really because (as some in this thread have claimed) people are projecting their own want to go into the wild? To be honest he didn't hurt anyone (except his family) so why do people get so worked up about this?

>>9630763
This.

>>9632128
I read an article about him one time a few months back. I hadn't even thought of it until I saw this thread.

>>9632101
Are there honestly still people that believe Walden was actually some great exploration of nature? For gods sake, he was like a mile or two from town, he literally would frequently go to town. It's basically the story of some guy moving into a real nice location (isolated, but not too far from the important stuff) and telling everybody about it. It's a good book, but it's not a good reason to run out into the woods without a plan.

>>9632102
He tries to leave in July die to extreme hunger and fails due to ignorance and stupidity.
It is actually no matter if he was poisoned (the condition that supposedly poisoned him - well, the *third claim* that he might have been poisoned, after the first two claims were proven wrong and is a condition that only is a threat to someone starving to death) because he would have starved to death shortly, anyway. And if, by some miracle, mana had fallen from the heavens Winter would have killed him.
>They just want to cover their asses since they've been caught out not actually having read the book
Or maybe they read the book and then also read that the theory of poisoning *in the book* was proven false? And that the follow up theory of poisoning from the *book's author* was ALSO proven false? And then didn't hear of the author's third claim because they aren't groupies to a dead fool?
That seems more likely, doesn;t it?

>>9632123
Just lol at being this desperate to save your ass. Okay smart guy, show me a source that does say that.

>>9632133
Honestly that's how I felt after reading the book. I thought about for about the same amount of time I think about every book after I finished it and then moved on to read something else. I never got angry at McCandless and I never felt the need to drop my whole life and wander into the woods. It's a good story and I respect McCandless's choice, but I dont think it was the right one.

>>9632149
>It's a good story
If I wanted a good story about a person like McCandless I'd read that book by Steinbeck about the retard and his handler.
>and I respect McCandless's choice, but I dont think it was the right one.
So why do you respect it?

>>9632140
>maybe they read the book
Not likely since they all accused him of just not wanting to work, a ridiculous claim given his pre-Alaskan activities and intent to settle down later.
>Winter would have killed him
He was found in September dumb dumb
>And then didn't hear of the author's third claim because they aren't groupies to a dead fool?
And what if it's true? It only took me a quick google search to find that article, though I already knew of it since I had first read the book after it was published. It's certainly a lot more scientifically rigorous than the other versions of the theory, as this time he made sure to have the seeds tested extensively. And why would they stick to their guns after reading the article? Certainly not due to this:
>a condition that only is a threat to someone starving to death
since nowhere does the article actually say that.

>>9632156

>then why do you respect it
Because I don't give a shit if people do things that are stupid/suicidal/ not thought out. I don't try and control people's actions or thoughts to be more like mine even if they are being irrational. So I guess I respect it because I believe in freedom, even freedom to do stupid shit.

>>9631997
>He did pretty damned well for a time
.......
>Only 6 weeks of good hunting. Has no excess to preserve and cannot preserve it, anyway
>in 5th week kills a moose and loses almost all the meat to lack of skills. Hunting drops off dramatically in Mid June
>Second half of June through July he is getting only jays, woodpeckers, squirrels, and frogs as well as some plants even though he spends all day every day hunting and foraging. Writes of hunger. Mentions how he is now gaunt.
>The animals he talks of are very lean so he is suffering from rabbit starvation from a near total lack of fat in his diet. Tries to leave at end of June, can't. No map, so he doesn't know a crossing is less than a mile away. Never scouted so he didn't find it for himself. Returns to the place he is overhunting and does more of the same.
'Good hunting' for 6 out of 24 weeks isn't great, especially when there is nothing stored after.

>>9632163
>I believe in freedom so I don't caaaare
Hmm.

>>9632142
Coordinator of the Neurolathyrism network Dr. Fernand Lambien as quoted by the New Yorker
>here is the best part
*In the article linked to in the one YOU posted*.
Try again, fool.

>>9632160
> It only took me a quick google search to find that

>>9632170
Pretty fucking much. I have a hard time bringing myself to believe anything, let alone shit that doesn't matter in the slightest to anyone anymore. I kind of just float through life not careing too much about anything because who can be bothered? I just read and write and eat and sleep and post on /lit/. I don't worry about the world around me because I know no matter how hard I try I can't have any real control over it, the only thing I can control is me. So the only thing I worry about is bettering myself.

It's selfish and I know that if the whole world was like me, most likely society would collapse, but it's how I live and that's part of the reason why I don't care how other people live.

>>9632160
He didnt say 'he didn't want to work' he was mocking the general
>"boo-hoo, wage slavery is the worst, boo-hoo"
mentality.

>>9632166
>rabbit starvation
Probably not a real thing. You have to be eating in excess of 300g of protein a day to start suffering from hyperammonemia, which is already 1200 calories itself, not counting the roughly 120 calories in fat lean meat would contain, plus whatever he got from plant matter. Neither enough of a deficit to kill him from starvation in that time nor enough to cause him anything but some dark piss in terms of nitrogen catabolism. Basically, once you get to the point of so-called rabbit starvation, you're not actually starving. He wouldn't even have lost a pound a week at that rate. He was certainly eating less than he should have, but not by enough to kill him in that time without something else going wrong.
>>9632186
If you read the article I posted, you'd know it was accepting that the theory in the article you're quoting is wrong and proposing a new one with peer-reviewed research to back it up this time. What is it gonna take to get you niggers to fucking read?
>>9632195
The point is that I'm not some McCandless worshipper. I just did some research so I wouldn't end up defending an indefensible stance for a hundred fucking posts like some people in here.

File: 1451763928966.jpg (23KB, 446x362px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 446x362px

>>9632199
>but it's how I live and that's part of the reason why I don't care how other people live.
This site is 18+

>>9632218
>Probably not a real thing
Except for the various peer-reviewed dietary studies that document it as real.
>I just did some research so I wouldn't end up defending an indefensible stance
The basic statement that triggered you
>Every year hundreds of men wander into Alaska to test themselves - McCandless is one of the rare ones to be too stupid to survive it. That isn't brave, that's sad.
You're arguing the minutiae of which particular consequence of stupidity led to his death as if it mattered.
It doesn't.
You are writing over and over again
>'you're wrong on this one disputed detail that admittedly has nothing to do with the main point'
and then accusing others of being freaky.
FFS, look at this;
>>9632095
Isn't that you that *agrees* this?
You're like that guy that DEMANDS people like a movie for the right reasons or they are liking it "wrong".

>>9632296
>Except for the various peer-reviewed dietary studies that document it as real.
Find one, buckaroo

File: Ted.jpg (72KB, 600x682px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x682px

>>9632313
See?
More of the same.
>"Sure, I agree that McCandless was a tool and died of stupidity, but I am going to prove a point about something tangential because muh intellect."
Try 'A Review of Issues of Dietary Protein Intake in Humans', Bilsborough, Mann, 2006.
>Dangers of excessive protein, defined as when protein constitutes > 35% of total energy intake, include hyperaminoacidemia, hyperammonemia, hyperinsulinemia nausea, diarrhea, and even death (the "rabbit starvation syndrome")

>>9632570
I don't give a shit about your ad hominems.
>n=1
Try again.

File: noam.jpg (6KB, 194x259px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 194x259px

>>9632645
you write
>>9632313
>Find one
>>9632570
One is found
and now you whine
>>9632645
>n=1
You keep proving the point - this isn't about
>Was McCandless a fool?
it is about you trying to prove you are smart.
You're failing

>>9632678
n=1 isn't in reference to the number of studies you found, it's in reference to the number of subjects in the study. Did you even read the paper? It was on one guy, and the writers gave the caveat that even if the results weren't anomalous (which of course they easily could be given the single data point), they didn't do the test long enough for him to have adapted to the diet anyway. I'm not jusy complaining for the sake of it, and it's not my fault your scientific illiteracy makes you see it that way.

File: hysterical laugh.gif (236KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 200x200px

>>9632705
...you didn't read the references and citations, did you? You probably went to PubMed rather than a research dB and just read the abstract, not the peer reviewed papers that *it* cites, which includes a catalog of peer- reviewed articles on protein poisoning, aka 'rabbit starvation', in support of their core assumptions.
Right?
Right.
Again, your only point is
>'you are reaching the right conclusions, but I don't like how! You *HAVE TO ADMIT HE WAS POISONED* or else your critiques of how he was ill-prepared, under-equipped, unskilled, untrained, and reckless are *MEANINGLESS*!
which is funny, but now I starting to think you're mental.
If he's had skills or training?
>wouldn't have died
Proper equipment?
>wouldn't have died
Map and compass?
>wouldn't have died
Properly scouted the area?
>wouldn't have died
Meanwhile here you are
>"it was poison; it was poison; it was poison; it was poison; it was poison; it was poison; it was poison; it was poison; it was poison; it was poison; it was poison"
That was already admitted as a possibility that doesn't matter, so now you;re
>no such thing as rabbit starvation; no such thing as rabbit starvation; no such thing as rabbit starvation; no such thing as rabbit starvation; no such thing as rabbit starvation; no such thing as rabbit starvation; no such thing as rabbit starvation
Also irrelevant. Whether you believe it or not, whether it is true or not, the core critique
>Dumbass dies of ignorance and laziness
remains correct *as you admit*
So why do you care?
Oh. Yeah.
Your ego.

>>9632705
>>9632742

Both of you stop it, get off the fucking internet for today, and go outside. Now.

This is embarrassing and a huge waste of time.

File: where-do-you-think-we-are-o.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>9632747

>>9632742
>You probably went to PubMed rather than a research dB and just read the abstract
Where is the info I relayed in the abstract?
>not the peer reviewed papers that *it* cites, which includes a catalog of peer- reviewed articles on protein poisoning, aka 'rabbit starvation', in support of their core assumptions
It does not. This: A high-protein meal exceeds anabolic and catabolic capacities in rats
adapted to a normal protein diet. this: The effect on human beings of a twelve months exclusive meat diet. and this: Prolonged meat diets with a study of kidney function
and ketosis. are probably the best you'll find, and the latter two are irrelevant due to the presence of fat in the diets. The first only looks at the results of a single meal and so is similarly irrelevant. Let me know if you see anything I didn't, though.
>So why do you care?
>Oh. Yeah.
>Your ego.
No u

>>9632747

This is true and they should listen.