On Cowards and Heroes

[quip]

Well, that's alright. It's what I expect from an unstable socialist... :chuckle:

Lol. :drum:
T'is about time you dislodged that stick and used it properly!

 

[Gary K]

Lol. :drum:
T'is about time you dislodged that stick and used it properly!

Unfortunately for you, we all know ok doser isn't a socialist.

 

[eider]

I'll come back to this later to support my statement that most of the victims in the Umpqua shooting (as well as the Colorado movie theater shooting) acted cowardly

I plan to use dictionary definitions! :banana:

and logical analysis!! :banana::banana:



i expect my opponents will use emotion :darwinsm:



go ahead and start if you like, i have a test looming and a paper to write, but i will be back

Bet you would have run and hid yerself.

 

[ok doser]

Bet you would have run and hid yerself.

and if i did, would you agree that that was cowardly?

 

[quip]

and if i did, would you agree that that was cowardly?

Yep. A good bet on both counts.

 

[ok doser]

Yep. A good bet on both counts.

Then you agree with my OP

Outstanding! :thumb:

 

[quip]

Then you agree with my OP

Outstanding! :thumb:

In part.

 

[ok doser]

A common theme from those who opposed me - you weren't there, you've never been in that situation, you have no right to judge if you haven't been in their shoes. And yet, to a man, they all tossed that aside when it came to judging the actions of the hero

You weren't there. You don't know how it all went down ...

Neither were you, yet you feel qualified to give your opinion

In the second case we have the hero Mintz (and he is a hero) ...

You weren't there. You don't know how it all went down ...

by your own criteria, you have no justification for calling him a hero

 

[ok doser]

The person who attempted to reason with him was a woman.
The student who begged for her life was a woman.
The student in the wheelchair was a woman.

typical double standard feminist

the fact that they are/were women is irrelevant

 

[quip]

A common theme from those who opposed me - you weren't there, you've never been in that situation, you have no right to judge if you haven't been in their shoes. And yet, to a man, they all tossed that aside when it came to judging the actions of the hero.

So? We're aware of the heroes actions....at least ostensibly. We don't know the specific actions of each non-hero... "we weren't there".

by your own criteria, you have no justification for calling him a hero

They need none. By second-hand reports, his action warrants the tag of hero. If by later evidence it reveals otherwise.... that would change.

Who cares anyway?

 

[annabenedetti]

So? We're aware of the heroes actions....at least ostensibly. We don't know the specific actions of each non-hero... "we weren't there".



They need none. By second-hand reports, his action warrants the tag of hero. If by later evidence it reveals otherwise.... that would change.

:up:

Who cares anyway?

The guy who keeps pretending he didn't call victims cowards.

 

[ok doser]

:up:



The guy who keeps pretending he didn't call victims cowards.

Not all of them

Only the ones who acted cowardly

Sorry that triggers you

 

[quip]

Not all of them

Only the ones who acted cowardly

Sorry that triggers you

How would you know which one's "acted cowardly" and which one's didn't?

In your mind* how do you differentiate between the two?

*doser-mania

 

[ok doser]

How would you know which one's "acted cowardly" and which one's didn't?

In your mind* how do you differentiate between the two?

*doser-mania

Fell free to start at the beginning

 

[ok doser]

So? We're aware of the heroes actions....at least ostensibly.

not first hand - you weren't there

we're aware of Mintz's actions from his descriptions and from those who were there and who saw him - first and second hand accounts

We don't know the specific actions of each non-hero... "we weren't there".

sure we do, from those who were there - first and second hand accounts, same as Mintz, no different


You do realize that there were survivors in the classroom, right?

 

[chair]

Fear and panic under threat are natural responses. That's why soldiers need intense training- to overcome the natural tendency to turn and run. There may be room for calling soldiers who turn and run "cowards", but it is a ridiculous label to slap on civilians.

 

[ok doser]

Fear and panic under threat are natural responses. That's why soldiers need intense training- to overcome the natural tendency to turn and run. There may be room for calling soldiers who turn and run "cowards", but it is a ridiculous label to slap on civilians.

should the same logic apply to those whose actions are heroic?

 

[ok doser]

Fear and panic under threat are natural responses. That's why soldiers need intense training- to overcome the natural tendency to turn and run. There may be room for calling soldiers who turn and run "cowards", but it is a ridiculous label to slap on civilians.

are there any actions taken by civilians which would not be ridiculous to label as cowardly?

 

[ok doser]

Fear and panic under threat are natural responses. That's why soldiers need intense training- to overcome the natural tendency to turn and run. There may be room for calling soldiers who turn and run "cowards", but it is a ridiculous label to slap on civilians.

it almost sounds as if you're arguing that the default for non-military is cowardly but we shouldn't call it that

 

[chair]

it almost sounds as if you're arguing that the default for non-military is cowardly but we shouldn't call it that

I am not using the terms "cowardly". That's your hang-up. Fear is normal. Self-preservation is normal. Why do you have this great need to label people?