Rhetorical Analysis Of Mount Everest

820 Words4 Pages
I recently sat down and read Philp Hoarse inadequate “article” on why we shouldn’t be allowed to climb the tallest mountain in the world, Mount Everest. Philp’s naïve notions have caused me to take serious offense to this as I am engrossed in the world of extreme sports. He says our desire to explore and feel like we belong in this world, is it really not up to par? Firstly, Hoare clearly does not understand the courage and willingness to attempt to do such amazing things such as climb Everest as he says in his shoddy attempt at writing “stuck a flag”. This clearly shows his ignorance to human fulfilment of accomplishing great things if we hadn’t “stuck a flag” we wouldn’t have put a man on the moon, discovered the Americas and uncovered the once opaque ocean’s secrets and wonders. Surely, Philip can’t be unaware of brilliant human discoveries and accomplishments throughout history and how far we have come as not only a society, but as a species. In addition to the idea that Hoare is of the highest ignorance to this subject he does not understand how hard it is to ascend or descend Everest with a heavy burden as he says “we don’t even take our dead away with us. While Philip is…show more content…
He refers to this as “our taxonomy of nature”, this is false as we aren’t in control of nature for instance Antarctica, there is a treaty in place that no country can claim any part of Antarctica as their own or extract any resources in the area. Another example is Denmark they have 406 islands but over 320 of them are uninhabited this further proves that we don’t own nature as Denmark could easily take them and “plunder” them but they don’t because they know they don’t own nature. But the sheer irony in all of this is that we don’t own nature, nature actually owns
Open Document