Would you dive with someone who wouldn't share air if you were OOA?

[MBH]

Come to the dark side Papa_Bear! We have cookies, and high fill pressures! We can show you how to rescue an entire DIR!, GUE!, TDI!, IANTD!, NACD!, NSS-CDS!, or NEDU! dive team with a single spare double-ender!, and 15' of cave line! You'll learn how to save an entire PADI class with nothing more than a cigarette butt fibers and and a pine needle! I'll also teach you how to kill a man by using only a serrated tri-glide! This will all be classified, and I'll have to kill you after I teach you these skills! I'm sure you understand! You'll be a valuable team member while you're around!

 

[shoredivr]

You'll learn how to save an entire PADI class with nothing more than a cigarette butt fibers and and a pine needle!

*****Voted Best Post This Thread*****

MBH, now THAT's a padi patch I want to have!

(Mops up screen/keyboard)

 

[mempilot]

*****Voted Best Post This Thread*****

MBH, now THAT's a padi patch I want to have!

(Mops up screen/keyboard)

That PADI Specialty course costs $425 + materials. The DVD is $29.99, and you have to supply the cig butts and pine needles.

 

[Papa_Bear]

Sorry I already know how! Introduce them to SDI! :mooner:

 

[redrover]

Good question. You're on to something, I think.

There's another good question to ask those divers who voted "yes", that they would be willing to dive with someone who announced they wouldn't share air under any circumstances....

Question: Were they just trying to assert how self-sufficient they think they are?

Did they neglect to consider that a buddy with such a significant character defect might present other more direct, active hazards during a dive?

For some, maybe it's more about posturing than answering honestly.

Dave C

I asked it here and some good points were raised.

I still say yes I would, I suppose….if it happened. By now I think someone would have mentioned it and doubt anyone here would have forgotten the thread. My guess is it is unlikely. J The question seems entirely hypothetical, rather interesting the intense response to the mere thought of it.

The character deficit? Ok, maybe, and may be a good reason. Somehow I don’t see one odd thing making a character defect universal to the person, nor this one as heinous as so many do. But then, I’m one of a few odd men out here so ergo I think differently than you. Does this one fact imply to you I’ve got serious character deficit?

May present some other hazard? I’d guess there are more folk that do willingly share air have undisclosed hazards than someone honest and direct enough to make me aware a significant understood aspect of the Buddy Agreement is excluded. To me evil would be responding to OOA signal with; No. To me scary would be answering “Oh, I don’t. Sorry, forgot to tell you.”

This; there must be something wrong with a diver who plans to dive as if there is no buddy source of redundant air I find a bit annoying. Could you explain the posturing you suspect…posturing about what?

Oh, BTW, it seems missed that the question was not will you share air and as far as I have read the universal Buddy Agreement is well accepted, particularly about sharing air should the unfortunate circumstance require it.

 

[AlaskaDiver]

This thread finally got some flavor back into it.

Come to the dark side Papa_Bear! We have cookies, and high fill pressures! We can show you how to rescue an entire DIR!, GUE!, TDI!, IANTD!, NACD!, NSS-CDS!, or NEDU! dive team with a single spare double-ender!, and 15' of cave line! You'll learn how to save an entire PADI class with nothing more than a cigarette butt fibers and and a pine needle! I'll also teach you how to kill a man by using only a serrated tri-glide! This will all be classified, and I'll have to kill you after I teach you these skills! I'm sure you understand! You'll be a valuable team member while you're around!

 

[Cacia]

read the universal Buddy Agreement

I missed that memo.

Is this a PADI thing? where did this come from?
All these Universal aggreements I haven't seen make me more and more solo.

 

[dave4868]

This thread finally got some flavor back into it.

Sorry to pee in the onion soup, but I'm going to get fussy here and probably slam the brakes on the fun.... Feel free to skip my post.

I still say yes I would, I suppose….if it happened.

Let's take it a little further than an intellectual exercise.

Did you say "yes", or did you equivocate when you said you "suppose" you'd buddy up with someone who stated they wouldn't save your life when it was so easy to do?

Can you lay out your reasoning why? They're just being honest? You're self-sufficient anyway? Self-sufficiency trumps trust? They're otherwise fun to be with?

The question seems entirely hypothetical, rather interesting the intense response to the mere thought of it.

Potential sociopaths or narcissists can generate intense responses in most people since most people value cooperation, caring and trust.

Remember, in this exercise, no rationale was given for his blanket refusal to share air in an emergency. We can assume he states he's taking care of Number One and you don't matter at crunch time. B'bye loser, I might need this air!

The character deficit? Ok, maybe, and may be a good reason.

Could you please give an example of a good reason for a blanket, unqualified refusal to provide life-saving assistance?

Do you agree with such a justification?

Somehow I don’t see one odd thing making a character defect universal to the person, nor this one as heinous as so many do.

This "odd thing" is the deliberate decision to deny easily provided assistance knowing that the other person may well lose their life as a result. This level of character defect is likely to be pervasive and global for this person, IMHO.

Remember, it's an unqualified refusal to save a life. No reasons were given.

This "odd thng" isn't unknown. It shows up all the time in society. It's a "red flag" that many people here have recognized as a probable sign of a pervasive malignancy in this person's character and an unacceptable departure from cooperation, caring and trust.

That's why many have said not only would they not dive with him, they wouldn't associate at all.

It's not surprising that not everybody sees it that way and some feel that, whatever it is, it's inconsequential since their self-sufficiency will protect them from any problems such a person may create. That's fine.

So, the criteria range from social contract to diving hazards to diving self-sufficiency and perhaps other things.

But then, I’m one of a few odd men out here so ergo I think differently than you. Does this one fact imply to you I’ve got serious character deficit?

It's not clear yet what your thinking is. It's easy to state it clearly and unambiguously if you want to take this beyond a mental exercise.

Can you simply state one good reason for a blanket refusal to provide life-saving assistance when it can be done easily and without significant risk?

Can you say whether you share such an attitude or approach?

May present some other hazard?

This is just an opinion of course, but I'd say there's a significant likelihood that this deeply flawed person could create any number of hazards for their "buddy" as they take care of "Numero Uno".

I’d guess there are more folk that do willingly share air have undisclosed hazards than someone honest and direct enough to make me aware a significant understood aspect of the Buddy Agreement is excluded.

We need to understand his reasons for refusal first, I'd say. This exercise did not supply any rationale for his blanket refusal to provide lifesaving assistance in the form of sharing air.

This may come down to views about human nature and what constitutes an unacceptable departure from cooperation, caring and trust in general relationships, let alone in a dive buddy relationship.

My buddies have always been people who share a value in cooperation, caring and trust, so they present NO hazards related to that. Normal hazards from mistakes and other circumstances are infrequent and easily managed.

To me evil would be responding to OOA signal with; No. To me scary would be answering “Oh, I don’t. Sorry, forgot to tell you.”

The point is that such an attitude or decision (refusal to share air in an emergency) is probably extremely rare. It's bizarre, problematic and a red-flag.

This; there must be something wrong with a diver who plans to dive as if there is no buddy source of redundant air I find a bit annoying.

I didn't hear that issue raised by anyone.

To the contrary, some people have pointed out that such self-sufficiency is a good thing. I totally agree. I always have an al30 pony on all my dives, whether they are solo or with a buddy. I plan to be self-sufficient.

However, this flawed diver may present unknown hazards that self-sufficiency won't surmount. And then there's the trust factor. Can you really be sure he won't violate your interests in other ways?

Could you explain the posturing you suspect…posturing about what?

My comment about posturing was related to what I said that some people might be asserting their self-sufficiency rather than being honest. See context below,

There's another good question to ask those divers who voted "yes", that they would be willing to dive with someone who announced they wouldn't share air under any circumstances....

Question: Were they just trying to assert how self-sufficient they think they are?

Did they neglect to consider that a buddy with such a significant character defect might present other more direct, active hazards during a dive?

For some, maybe it's more about posturing than answering honestly.

Oh, BTW, it seems missed that the question was not will you share air and as far as I have read the universal Buddy Agreement is well accepted, particularly about sharing air should the unfortunate circumstance require it.

I don't think I understand your point.

What question was missed? The question of "will you share air with a dive buddy who refuses to share air with you?"

This thread is about diving with the jerk not about whether one has to be a jerk in return.

Please clarify, if you will.

Dave C

 

[Cacia]

Potential sociopaths or narcissists can generate intense responses in most people since most people value cooperation, caring and trust.

oh god, now we have gone from being strokes to being sociopaths.

So...if you are a solo diver, why would you really care if they would or would not share?

They are just there, not really in your contigencies, unless it works out that way. (if they show up with a knife and cut me free, I'd feel *lucky* as opposed to they fulfilled their contract)

 

[Gombessa]

I wonder how many of the consistent 11% of "yes" divers here answered on the basis of being solo divers.

I can see how a solo diver doesn't really "lose" a resource by diving with an unhelpful buddy, but are you really diving "with" such a buddy? What if they specifically asked to buddy with you prior to the dive, but made it clear that "btw, my air is my air, you ain't getting any of it if you have a problem."? How many at that point would still dive as a buddy with the guy?

If they show up with a knife and cut me free, I'd feel *lucky* as opposed to they fulfilled their contract

The way I see it, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'd still feel tremendously lucky if saved by a buddy who signed a physical "I'm obligated to save your butt" contract, just as I'd hardly have neutral feelings towards a random, nonobligated diver who saw I was clearly in trouble, pointed and laughed, swung his octo around to taunt me, and then waved goodbye.