|
|
| Normal Rooms | | General | 4 users
AntiStaticCleaningWi, melinda_halliwell_tu, Mistress_SinisterLov, littlegothgirlthatco |
|
|
|
|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 36 guests online !
|
|
|
 |
 |
Forums
You are not logged in | | |
|
|
|
AloneSoul
Fanatic   Posts: 522 Registered: 6/7/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 12/12/2002 at 11:27 AM |
| I'm going to reply to this thread when I get my internet at home fixed. ____________________
 but at least you know, just how much pain there is in living
|
| |
bettie_x
Extreme Fanatic   Posts: 1570 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 12/12/2002 at 01:58 PM |
I'm with ya on that maranda, but I also understand where alone is coming
from too.
I also stand by the belief that tho yes, they are paid and trained for a
high risk job, where saving lives is their JOB...but it's the KIND of
person who follows their disposition to undertake those jobs . It takes a
certain kind of person to be a fireman, a cop, an EMT....you have to have a
desire to help within you. An ability to say to hell with your own saftey
and life for the sake of another...paid or not. Not everyone can do that.
The training is a large part, the job is a large part, but it's the PERSON
that makes them "heroic".
Vollunteer firemen I consider heroic. They AREN'T paid, and there was a
large fire here recently that cost the lives of three unpaid
vollunteers.
I also saw on the news a story of a man who saw a drunk driver careening
towards a woman and her infant on a sidewalk. He was within running
distance, slammed into the woman and her child and knocked thim out of the
way of the car and was killed. He was a total stranger. She didn't even
know his name.
I do agree that there are everyday overlooked heroes....I also think that
tho putting every cop, serviceman, fireman, or emt worker on a pedestal
isn't appropriate, and tho they may not be "heros" in some people's eyes,
the at least deserve respect, and when they do something "above and beyond"
the call of duty should be commended for it.
Just as you shouldn't lump them all together as "heroes" doesn't mean they
all shouldn't be lumped in with "paid savior" and stricken from the "hero"
list.
~waits for alone to get his internet fixed  ____________________
Trapped in time. Surrounded by evil. Low on gas.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic  Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 12/12/2002 at 07:09 PM |
M_J: Try to stay with me on this one and I will try to lay my position out
as clearly as possible... but I have to warn you in advance that we are
moving very solidly into the abstract side of town here. I do not believe
in heroes. I believe that, in order for a hero to exist, that something
very fucked up must have happened for the hero to have averted or acted
courageously at. While other people hear "Act of heroism", I hear
"Somebody, somewhere, wasn't doing their job".
Let's look at your example of the mother who sacrifices her life for her
child by throwing herself into oncoming traffic. By her action, a child's
life is saved... but wouldn't a greater act have been to have saved
everybody involved? And isn't that exactly what most of the drivers on the
road were doing by obeying traffic regulations and being alert? So,
really, everyone who did as they were supposed to be doing averted the
life-threatening situation by behaving... well, normally, and the greater
heroes, therefore, are the majority of the population. So what we have in
this situation are no heroes at all really... only two possible bad guys
(viz. the driver of the car who endangered the child or the child themself
who ran out into the street).
But didn't this mother display extraordinarily reflexes and strength of
character by making her grand sacrifice? On the face of it, it looks that
way... but what did she actually do? She did not stop to think about the
situation because there was no time for thinking. She just reacted. That
means that something indefinable inside of her (junk DNA maybe) caused her
to do something that could be looked at as being heroic. But would she
have made this grand sacrifice if she HAD considered all of the
consequences? We would like to think so, but there is no way of knowing
that. The mother who freezes like a deer in the headlights might have also
made the grand sacrifice if she had NOT stopped to consider the
consequences. Once again, we will never know. What the first mother did
was reflexive, she might very well have consciously decideed to do
something differently and not acted so "heroically" if she were the type to
think things through. (Incidentally, that is what a great deal of disaster
training is about... it teaches you to respond correctly and not stop to
think about what you are doing.)
So the people who are lauded as heroes are, very often, just people who
respond quickly without thinking. Not always the best way to do things,
but when someone else screws a situation up and creates the catastrophe,
the non-thinkers are lucky enough to come in handy. Are they more
worthwhile people than the considerers? Remember, they are just born with
something in them that causes them to respond reflexively. So what we are
saying is that a specific combination of genes or conditioning makes a
person better than someone who was not born with that combination of genes.
Sounds like fuel for a eugenic argument to me and I want no part of it.
But, as I said in my previous post, the people I am most impressed with are
the ones who do not deal with instantaneous disasters. There is no luck
involved when deciding to avoid temptation and do the right thing... it
takes consideration and the ability to decide right from wrong (unlike
racing into a burning building which only takes the ability to shut off
your brain and react). Once again though, if I call these people "heroes",
I am implying that they are exceptional for doing what they are supposed to
do. It follows then that the majority do NOT do what they are supposed to
do. I would like to believe that the bad guys are in the minority and most
human beings are capable of acting nobly but calling a select few "heroes"
implies the precise opposite. Are you still with me?
I never said that people who save lives are not to be commended, but I also
said that anyone who does their job is to be commended. I get very tired
of hearing about the imaginary überclass of "heroes" (as if the rest of us
who hold society together by doing the right thing in a quiet and
unappreciated way are insignificant). I do not need any heroes. I dream
of a world in which people do what they are supposed to do and do not
create conditions in which anyone needs a hero to swoop in to the rescue...
but I also recognise that some people DO need their heroes to worship.
Just don't expect me to build a float in that parade. I am
your faithful friend,
~Monolycus.
|
| |
AloneSoul
Fanatic Posts: 522 Registered: 6/7/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 18/12/2002 at 02:15 PM |
I’ve made this debate before and I’ve come to only one plausible
conclusion...opinions vary from person to person. Everyone here knows that
I am for the war. Also, everyone knows my views about the “threats” which
we face, if we don’t act against countries that could even be possibly
financing terrorist *close but not quite a witch hunt* then we’ll be
subjected to another 9/11...which puts the whole “it’s not really that much
of a global threat” opinion to rest...in my opinion.
Bush, I may not like him but he’s doing better than I expected. Sure, he’s
using 9/11 as leverage to invade the Middle East but you’ve got a mad man
with power and a army to back him up who may be financing terrorist
organizations. The war is un-winnable but if we can take down some of the
major terrorist organizations then we stand a better chance from future
disasters. Political dissidents will always be in our global society, it’s
a factor which we need to prevent the “Iron Fist” scenario...so long as it
doesn’t turn into a violent, fanatical faction bent on total monarchy and
genocide.
It is true, our mainstream society is back in it’s self-absorbent, gilded
banality. Most of society doesn’t give a damn and has already forgotten
about what politics is doing at the current time in the name of “our
safety.”
To quote Summerset...
“People just want eat cheeseburgers and play the lotto.”
Now, patriotism is conformity....to me that’s ridiculous, you can twist the
bounds of conformity to whatever you believe it’s best suited to...EX:
Marketing “rebellious punk persona” to “teenie boobers” will make rebellion
to become conformity itself.
Remember, terrorism is murder, genocide: Hitler was a terrorist with
dictatorial powers.
Patriots founded the ideals of freedom upon this great country which we
call America. ____________________
SRC="http://www.rpgclassics.com/shrines/snes/ff6/images/characters/kefka.gi
f">
size=1> but at least you know, just how much pain there is in living
|
| |
Schizo
Extreme Fanatic  Posts: 897 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 24/12/2002 at 12:55 PM |
Just here to add my two cents worth to a worn out debate.
Anonymous, one thing you said (well, ok, not just one thing, but I'll just
mention this one) really bothered me. You spoke in a way that expressed
your feeling that people who think they're more right than another are part
of the terrorism problem.
Do you really think that no one should think they're more right than
someone else? Or am I misinterpreting you? Because I know I'm more right
than some people. When I interrupt my activities to take care of my baby
daughter, I'm more right than someone who neglects their children. When I
choose to live in a way that makes my boyfriend feel secure and happy and
at peace, I am more right than someone who deliberately does things to make
their siginificant others miserable.
If I did not think some things are more right than others, I would not be
able to make judgements on how to live my life.
So often people express a ridiculous degree of tolerance which I don't
believe anyone can really live out. It is fashionable to "look at things
from someone else's point of view". OK. I can do that. I can look at
9-11 from the terrorists point of view, and it is still wrong. Like it or
not, there are things that are wrong. And the very same people who try to
justify the acts of terrorists are the same people who will complain there
heads off if anyone does anything hurtful to them. It's a double
standard.
I'm not saying that America is right to just go and wipe out all these
countries that are involved with terrorist networks. Doubtless a huge
amount of self-interest is involved in the politics of the War Against
Terrorism. I don't feel that I am qualified to say what should or not be
done in this situation. Certainly terrorism should not just be allowed to
run rampant.
Monolycus, I kind of think that you are splitting hairs on this whole
heroism thing. I see your point - just doing the right thing is a kind of
heroism in itself, howbeit unrecognized by most. Yet, there is something
about certain acts that is special. I DO believe that those who take up a
dangerous profession for the motive of helping others is displaying a
heroism that is, in the words of the old cliche, "above and beyond the call
of duty." Yes, if everyone did what they were supposed to, most acts of
heroism would be unneeded. But, because the world is filled with
irresponsible people, someone must be there to rescue the innocent from the
results of irresponsible actions. Yes, maybe these people have the sort of
hunger for danger that attracts them to that line of work. Maybe they have
the sort of nerves that could send them into a burning building. But they
could just have well used those traits to become an X-games athlete, or a
violent criminal, or anything else dangerous. But they didn't. They used
their traits to help others. And while a nurturing type may use their
abilities to become a nurse, or a child-care provider, or something else
that helps people, they generally don't run the risk of losing their lives
or getting seriously injured in their career. In my book, anyone who does
something they don't have to, with the intent to help other, while risking
things that are valuable, is a hero.
But I realize, Monolycus, that you don't mean to diminish the honor due to
these people. I think you are instead trying to give honor to the less
obvious people, the ones who no one notices, the ones who give up their
lives, not in rescue to death, but in service and responsibility, to
prevent the risk of untimely death or loss. But I think, in your
dictionary, the word "hero" has either a universal meaning, or no meaning
at all.
By calling, say, a firefighter, a hero, and not a teacher, I do not mean to
diminish the teacher. Just that, in my dictionary, the word hero means
someone who does something extraordinary, even dangerous, for the good of
another. That's just my definition.
As for America and patriotism, I love my country. That doesn't mean that I
agree with everything that's done in or by my country. In fact, I disagree
with a lot. But I love my country, and because I love it, I want to see it
strong, and healthy, and safe. It hurts me to see things like racism, or
loss of freedom, infecting it. It hurts me to watch it do things that make
other countries label it as arrogant and greedy. But just because it has
these flaws, doesn't mean that I think anyone is justified in attacking our
citizens in acts of terrorism.
Anyway, I think I'm starting to ramble. I'm boring myself. Sayonara!
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 27/12/2002 at 02:17 PM |
These discussions seem to rapidly turn into endless feedback loops.
Someone will say "A", another person will respond with "B". The first
person will retort by saying "A" again, and the second person will again
respond with "B". Nobody wants to amend their initial opinions with
anything that anyone else has to contribute and the beat goes on. Not
exactly a discussion, but if the game is to defend your position by
chanting it like a mantra, then I can play that as well.
For the record, I do not think I am putting too fine a point on my
definition. I do not need heroes. I do not need to put someone on a
pedestal because they did or are doing their job. I do feel that singling
out one profession as "heroic" diminishes the contributions made by
everyone else. I do feel that the manufacture of heroes in a society is
symptomatic of serious problems within that society. I am perfectly aware
that no matter how I feel about the situation, other people are going to
continue their hero worship. Knock yourselves out, but I will remain
unimpressed. Your lives will continue unabated if I don't join the
cheering throngs. I think it is sad that you need your heroes just as you
think it is sad that I don't. We'll all live.
~Monolycus.
|
| |
Schizo
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 897 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 27/12/2002 at 03:21 PM |
I don't think it's sad that you don't believe in heroes. Neither do I
worship heroes. I just think they exist; that there is a certain
definition to the word. And I do respect heroes. I respect many
people.
And I don't think it belittles anyone to say "this person is a hero, and
this one isn't." No more than saying "this person is tall, and this one
isn't." It's a description, not a value judgement.
According to your definition of the word, heroes do not exist. According
to my definition, they do. That's it. No insults (or worship) intended.
A question: if someone whose natural reaction is to run and hide and be
safe rescues someone from a burning building, against all their urges,
would that quailfy as heroism in your book? Or at least exceptional, since
you don't seem to like the word? Something as much above the accepted
level of responsibility as the stupidity that caused the fire is below it?
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 27/12/2002 at 06:04 PM |
Schizo: Of course, I am not trying to start a fight here, but... you have
GOT to be kidding me. Calling someone a hero is NOTHING if not a value
statement. Calling someone tall is also a value statement (or entirely
meaningless) unless it is used in reference to an objective parameter (zum
Beispiel: "This person is tall compared to this fire hydrant.") It is not
a neutral statement to simply refer to physical characteristics, much less
to judge a person on the entirely subjective qualities of their character.
Any qualitative statement is a value statement (z.B.: "This pencil is
yellow."), and even many quantitative statements are values (z.B.:"This
group is composed of three members.") There is absolutely no way that
calling one person a hero and another person a non-hero can be construed to
be a neutral assessment.
To answer the question you posed: I would call it happenstance if someone
rescued a person from a burning building even against their predisposition.
My question is why there is a need to call it anything other than that.
It is simply elitist to believe that some people are naturally more
"heroic" than others; many people pursue "dangerous" careers not because of
their virtues, but because of their pathologies. Some photographers for
National Geographic were discovered to have faulty adrenal glands which
caused them to race into erupting volcanoes with their cameras. Are they
heroes? No, they are physically unbalanced. Audie Murphy was decorated
with the Congressional Medal of Honour for ridiculously suicidal "bravery"
in World War II... he was subsequently diagnosed with a pronounced death
wish and was unable to function in peacetime society. Is he a hero? No,
he was psychologically unbalanced. I think the vast majority of
firefighters are lunkheads who are incapable of higher thought and do not
thrive on "danger" as much as the glamour of a high profile job. Does this
make them heroes? Some think so. I do not. I also do not think that
babies are cute or that human beings are divine creatures, but there are
many people who would disagree with me. Both my opinions and those that
run contrary to mine ARE value judgements and can be nothing more than
that... Unless, of course, you can break down "heroism" into its
constituent elements and bottle it.
~M.
|
| |
bettie_x
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 1570 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 27/12/2002 at 09:17 PM |
"I think the vast majority of firefighters are lunkheads who are incapable
of higher thought and do not thrive on "danger" as much as the glamour of a
high profile job."
I am curious to know how many fire fighters you actually know
personally.
As for me I know a few personally, and have met several in my life. The
ones that I've only met were always curteous and kind.
One I know very well, as he has been dating my best friend for a couple of
years. He was just certified as a vollunteer firefighter and EMT.
Incapable of higher thought? I've had some pretty good goddamned
conversations with this "lunkhead" and his vollunteer "job" is far from
glamourous....you start for FREE...and if you persue it as a career it pays
poorly, city budget cuts often deal them a hard blow, it's sweaty, dirty,
and dangerous, and you're only ever on the news if you DIE.
Glamour my ass. So why does he do it? Because he wants to make a
difference, because he cares about lives being saved. Because our
relatively small town NEEDS them.
My dad was also a vollunteer firefighter when I was very young. He's not
danger hungry, attention hungry, and definitely not "glamourous"....and tho
more what I would call a simple man (ie: not "simple" like short bus
simple, but just happy to be who he was, where he was, and enjoy a good
life and hard work) and definitely NOT a "lunkhead" who is incapapble of
higher thought. My dad is pretty goddamned intelligent and can hold a hell
of a conversation when he wants to. He too took the vollunteer job in
addition to his regular city job because we needed firefighters. He only
fought about three fires that I remember....and it was terrifying to me as
a little kid to be driving home, see a fire, and know my daddy was there.
He stopped because it worried us.
Some of them ARE lunkheads, just like 99% of the general non-lifesaving
population...and most probably are not, not so much different than all us
internet intellects.
Do I take offense? Ya! I don't like people I care about being lumped in
with others than I would myself. And I'll think about that the next time I
have to have those "adrenal glandular endowed idiots" pull me out of a
crushed car like they did when I was 18, stunned but not terribly injured,
the comfort I recieved from them in the ambulance to the hospital complete
with stuffed platypus animal....and the look on my dad's ex-firefighter
face when they called him and he left work to the accident scene,
remembering how he'd had to do that himself years ago and never imagining
one of those victims would be his own daughter.
Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe I'm being harsh, and maybe it's because I
spent $160 for a stylist to completely destroy my hair to the point I can't
run a brush through it, but I truly think that it's because I know those
people, and I care about them.
My dad is my hero, working his way out of childhood poverty to have a good
family, a good life, and a good heart, and someday (tho hopefully not)
James will be someone ELSE'S hero for a day....even tho it's for FREE. ____________________
Trapped in time. Surrounded by evil. Low on gas.
|
| |
Domkitten
Fanatic  Posts: 470 Registered: 23/9/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 27/12/2002 at 10:35 PM |
Well this will, alas, create a loop, but Monolycus I have to agree with
you. Saying that any person is a hero is very much a value judgement.
Unfortunately there are many people in the world who hold excatly the same
types of values and concur with the judgement so you have "heros".
bettie-x, I'm not sure that your hair played that much into being upset
about what Mono was saying. However think about it for a second. You
respect the firefighters you know because you know them. You can say "they
do something I would never want to do" that makes them heroic to you. Also,
your Father is among thos VFF's, for many of us it is difficult to
dissassociate our parents with heroism. This does not mean your father or
VFF's are not great people, but that they are your hero's doesn't mean they
are hero's world over.
To take this even further there are many people on the other side of the
fence who see the handful of men who took it upon themselves to drive
planes full of people into buildings, a few septembers ago, as heros. That
fact alone should make it obvious just how dangerous the word "hero" is.
I don't believe in heros myself. I think "heroism" is very dangerous. You
can make anyone a hero. Neo-Nazi's make Hitler a Hero and Martyer.
Extermist Islamists make Bin Laden into a hero. My brothers and sisters
make my mother into a hero. Whether or not you believe they exist you have
to agree that defining a person as a hero has allot more to do with your
beliefs than any actual heroism on the part of the person so named.
I may be wrong, but I believe that was the point that Monolycus was trying
to make. That or I'm breeding my own form of hertical thought. ____________________
It's like kegel exercises for your throat.~Monolycus
|
| |
bettie_x
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 1570 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 27/12/2002 at 11:20 PM |
K babe, I get you, but I also said WAAAY up there that yes, I agree, that
putting a mass group of people because of their profession on a pedestal is
as stupid as saying they're all "lunkheads". My dad wasn't always my hero,
and not everyone "heroizes" their parents (especially nowadays). But as an
adult, looking back at his childhood, a poor as dirt farm boy with a messed
up family, growing into a responsible hard working adult, all that he did
for us to give us a good home, a good life, and good memories...and even
NOW when he still "babies" us because in his heart we'll always be his
"little girls" I realise how lucky I am to have a "hero" for a father. Not
because he was a VFF, but because he worked harder than the average person
to beat the odds and not end up like the rest of his family.
I've met asshole cops and asshole firemen....but I've also met wonderful
cops (ie: offering my friend and I a ride home when I couldn't get ahold of
my husband to pick us up from the bar, and then waiting with us until I did
and he showed up) and firefighters (ie: pulling my stunned ass out of a
smoke filled car when some dipshit passed a schoolbus speeding and hit me
head on). It doesn't make them all assholes, it doesn't make them all
heroes, but their profession alone doesn't eliminate them from the right to
be someone's "hero" just because they're paid/trained to do it. But I've
said this before...hmmm. Deja vu.
I do get mono's point, 100% I get his point. I stopped getting it when he
referred to them all as idiots. Up to that one single point, I get it.
Totally. I don't agree 100%, what fun would a discussion be if everyone
agreed? But I got it.
"Hero worship" IS dangerous. I'd rather see more ROLEMODELS than heroes,
personally. I don't NEED a hero, but I hold close to me the ones that are
in my eyes.
As for the WWII "hero" that was crazy and couldn't lead a civillian
life....was there any study as to what his life was like BEFORE the war?
Take a walk down the street of any major city near a VFW center...there are
"heroes" and non heroes alike that found civillian life impossible after a
war. I know a few veterans as well, all who've made lives for themselves
after the wars they were in, and ALL of them had their "moments" and people
that knew them beforehand even say that they just were never the same..in a
bad way.
____________________
Trapped in time. Surrounded by evil. Low on gas.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 27/12/2002 at 11:41 PM |
Bettie: Yeah, I thought that might get a bite when I wrote it. Anyway, to
answer your question, I have personally known three firefighters in my life
(Although I do not speak with any of them anymore for various reasons) and
they were perfectly nice people. I've only had one occasion to complain
about anyone in that profession (although they were volunteer EMTs and not
firefighters per se) and don't have an axe to grind about them as a general
rule.
Sorry that you are offended, but this is the way the cookie bounces. I am
mortally offended about a lot of people's opinions very often myself, so I
empathise. Still, it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'm not trying
to win any converts here or I'd keep my tone more saccharine and
conciliatory; I'm just laying out my position to be taken or left. We
don't share a view here, and (as always) I respect that. I'm surprised
that you didn't jump on me for saying that I didn't think that babies were
cute either (I think they are hideous, mewling little monsters), but there
is still plenty of time for someone to pick up on that thread.
Anyway, hope that your hair gets fixed. $160 is a lot to pay and they
should be held responsible for it.
Domkitten: Why is it that when someone tries to make a point, they always
bring up Adolf Hitler? Is it that, sixty years after his death, there is
still a public relations reason to cite him over any other political
figure, or is it that people are incapable of seeing the world in any other
way than in the most simplistic shades of black-and-white? Try using
Stalin next time. He was easily twice the monster that Hitler was and he
is not cited to the point of becoming a cartoon cliché yet. (Wait a
minute... Monolycus just said that Hitler might have been a human being and
not a two dimensional cartoon boogieman! There's the springboard for the
next round of indignant protests!) I am
as indignant as the next guy.
~M.
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 27/12/2002 at 11:47 PM |
(By the way, I wasn't kiding about your hair, Bettie. I really do think
that you should go back and demand that they fix it. I can understand
something like that putting you in a bad mood. I've been eating a great
big bowl of bitch flakes myself, so I might be coming across a bit more
harshly than I ordinarily would. ~M.)
|
| |
Domkitten
Fanatic Posts: 470 Registered: 23/9/2002 Status: Offline
|
posted on 28/12/2002 at 12:20 AM |
| Sorry Mono, I thought at some point in this forum I had read something
about Hitler, I suppose I should have gone with someone like maybe Genghis
Khan, Julius Ceaser, or Napoliean, the hero of power hungry midgets. Not be
be confused with Neopolitian, the hero of people who cannot make up their
mind about which kind of icecream to buy. ____________________
It's like kegel exercises for your throat.~Monolycus
|
| |
Schizo
Extreme Fanatic Posts: 897 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 28/12/2002 at 08:09 AM |
OK Monolycus, value judgment was the wrong term. What I meant was that,
just as I don't think being tall is better than being short (or
vice-versa), so I also don't think that being a hero makes you better than
not being a hero.
Being a firefighter doesn't make you a hero. Being a soldier doesn't make
you a hero. Doing something for the adrenaline rush doesn't make you a
hero. And just because someone performs what I DO consider heroism doesn't
mean that I need to bow down and award them some sort of god-like statis.
Hey, to me, heroism is a word. Just a word. Not a pedestal. Just a word
with a definition that, in my book, means a person who risks life and limb
for the sake of another person, against their natural urges for
self-preservation. And to that person I say, "good job, thanks."
And of course, the only thing that makes person A a hero and person B not,
may be just sheer opportunity. Which is why it's not heroism that makes
someone special, it's the character traits that make heroism possible.
And I'm not someone that just goes around saying how cute babies are,
either. I've seen an awful lot of hideous kids out there. And even my
baby, who I consider upper-string in the way of looks, can look down-right
repulsive sometimes, especially now that she's got a drippy nose! Babies
and children are like people. (Hell, they ARE people!) There's ugly ones
and there's pretty ones and there's all the range in-between.
Another question Monolycus - do you think anyone should be commended for
anything?
Bettie - my deepest condolences on the hair! Hair stylists terrify me.
Putting something as essential to my looks and as slow to change as my hair
in the hands of a complete stranger - you've got to be kidding me! The few
times I've gone, I've always given VERY detailed instructions, and even
then I'm all tense and nervous until I've seen the final product! I don't
trust those bastards at all!
|
| |
Monolycus
Fanatic Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
|
posted on 28/12/2002 at 12:06 PM |
Okay... I've slept and dealt with the horribles going on in my life for
this moment, so I am feeling a bit less bitchy than I did during this last
round. I probably should have bowed out of this one long before I made the
"feedback loop" comment, but we're still here so I will do my best.
Bettie: "I stopped getting (Mono's point)... when he referred to them all
as idiots."
Actually, I didn't. I made a point of qualifying my statement with "in my
opinion" and "the vast majority" and used the more affectionate and less
scientific term "lunkead" (As you are undoubtably aware, the word "idiot"
has a precise, although archaic, medical definition). But you bring up a
legitimate issue. The sweeping opinion that I voiced is just as logically
erroneous as the sweeping generalizations that I have been speaking
against. I'll have to be more careful about that in future. Of course we
can not nor should not abolish people from having opinions, but you can not
refute a fallacy with a fallacy and I should have been more consistent than
that.
Domkitten: I'm pretty sure that you might have seen that as well... it gets
used often enough. Every time that I see that particular analogy invoked I
tune it out and make a note that the conversation has taken a turn for the
two-dimensional.
Schizo: "...it's not heroism that makes someone special, it's the character
traits that make heroism possible"
I am pretty sure that I agree with that, and it provides a nice segue into
answering your question (viz. "Do you think anyone should be commended for
anything?") Of course I do. I think that anyone who acts nobly and does
their particular job well, whether they are a sewage worker, librarian,
grocery bagger, airline pilot or bomb disposal technician, is worthy of
commendation. I think that it is these people that hold society together.
Nobody wants to be a toll booth operator when they grow up, but these
people need to be there as well, and it takes a very special sort to
sacrifice other dreams to do what must be done. A society can do without
celebrities and athletic competitions, but it can not do without the people
that haul away the garbage.
I am interested in former President Carter... most former presidents go on
to found elitist golfing tournaments ("chasing away the poor and minorities
since 1876") or to be obscenely overpaid to stand at a podium and spout off
at public gatherings every now and again. Carter had absolutely no need to
do the work that he is doing, and yet he has done it anyway. I am sure
that having missed the Nobel nomination in '78 has figured into his
motivations and I am also sure that he is keenly aware that acting nobly
makes him look damned good to posterity... but still, there it is. Selfish
or not, he has acted nobly and deserves the recognition that he gets for
it. I'll draw the line in the sand there... making more of his
accomplishments would not be just. Were he not a former president he would
not have the funding to do what he does, nor would the media pay any
attention if he did... but he has taken advantage of the opportunities that
most of us do not have to do something more noble than his colleagues have
so far done. I'd call that commendable.
~M.
|
| |
|
|
|
