PDA

View Full Version : Happy Moral Narcissism Day!


Ivhon
09-11-2010, 09:44 AM
Don't forget to get your handsomely engraved "Never Forget" souveni....err...memorial plates. Remember - the Franklin Mint places a strict limit of five plates per customer.

But wait! If you call in the next 15 minutes we'll send you this powerful "Never Forget" t-shirt ABSOLUTELY FREE!! With stunning symbolic digital images of the American Flag, the proud American Eagle and the twin towers standing tall, this testament to the greatest tragedy to befall this or any nation will be sure to advert....err...remind everyone you see that for YOU, 9/11 will always be just like yesterday....

Order now! Operators are standing by!

Sinistrum
09-11-2010, 01:21 PM
This is an incredibly shitty thing for you to post Ivhon. No matter your disdain for those who take advantage of things like 9-11 for their own gain, its still a day in which 3000 people died. You might as well have found one of their head stones and taken a piss on it. Show some goddamn respect. What you've posted here makes you no better than the people you are criticizing because all your doing is using it to score cheap political points. And that is the height of moral narcicism.

Jokeslayer
09-11-2010, 02:08 PM
How many wolves are on this t-shirt? If it's not at least two I won't be buying one.

Neilbert
09-11-2010, 02:11 PM
Yes Ivon, don't you realize that we live in a post 9-11 world where everything must be taken seriously, no matter how wrongheaded and idiotic?

Davian93
09-11-2010, 02:39 PM
How many wolves are on this t-shirt? If it's not at least two I won't be buying one.

Without at least 3 wolves, the t-shirt is powerless. Trust me, I bought a 2 wolves t-shirt a few weeks ago and its useless.



http://www.nationalcollectorsmint.com/images/products/10711_lg.jpg

This is my favorite of what Ivhon is referencing.

Tamyrlin
09-11-2010, 02:42 PM
http://www.nationalcollectorsmint.com/images/products/10711_lg.jpg


Real?

Davian93
09-11-2010, 02:57 PM
Yes Tam...Yes it is. You've never seen that infomercial before? It used to be on all the time late at night a few years back.

Pretty sick, isn't it?

Davian93
09-11-2010, 03:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zmRdyRdWyM


Here you go Tam...here's the commercial.

Ivhon
09-11-2010, 05:40 PM
This is an incredibly shitty thing for you to post Ivhon. No matter your disdain for those who take advantage of things like 9-11 for their own gain, its still a day in which 3000 people died. You might as well have found one of their head stones and taken a piss on it. Show some goddamn respect. What you've posted here makes you no better than the people you are criticizing because all your doing is using it to score cheap political points. And that is the height of moral narcicism.

You're very emotional.

Read my post again and tell me where I profane the actual event, the people who died or their families or friends. I took shots at people - from all political spectrums, btw - who live in east bumble***** have zero connection to NYC or anyone living there beyond the 24 hour news cycle and yet feel compelled every year to let the world know how much of a personal tragedy it was in their lives while never saying anything about any other tragedies. Presumably if they are so resonant with tragedy that has no direct impact on their personal lives they would be pouring their hearts out every year in rememberance of Katrina, or the Tsunami, or the Federal building, or God knows an constant outpouring of heartfelt tragedy over the bombs and missiles that destroy buildings and innocent people on a daily basis in the Middle East.

Perhaps you and I simply differ on what constitutes pissing on the tombstones.

Sinistrum
09-11-2010, 06:16 PM
You want to take shots at people like that? Fine. Do it some other day. Otherwise you're not better than any of them because your using today to your advantage to push your political agenda without any thought to those afore mentioned victims or their families. That is where you profaned their memory and their pain. Its not about what you said, but when you decided to say it. This, like Pearl Harbor day or MLK day, or Presidents Day before it, should be a national day of remembrance for what this country has had to sacrifice to get where it is today. It should not be taken advantage of by political hacks to give them an opportunity to snipe at their enemies. And yes Ivhon, I'm looking directly at you when I say that.

Ivhon
09-11-2010, 06:32 PM
You want to take shots at people like that? Fine. Do it some other day. Otherwise you're not better than any of them because your using today to your advantage to push your political agenda without any thought to those afore mentioned victims or their families. That is where you profaned their memory and their pain. Its not about what you said, but when you decided to say it. This, like Pearl Harbor day or MLK day, or Presidents Day before it, should be a national day of remembrance for what this country has had to sacrifice to get where it is today. It should not be taken advantage of by political hacks to give them an opportunity to snipe at their enemies. And yes Ivhon, I'm looking directly at you when I say that.

Preach the Gospel, Brother!

We will have to simply disagree here. I will say that I am sorry that my being offended offended you and leave it there.

Neilbert
09-11-2010, 07:06 PM
This, like Pearl Harbor day or MLK day, or Presidents Day before it, should be a national day of remembrance for what this country has had to sacrifice to get where it is today. It should not be taken advantage of by political hacks to give them an opportunity to snipe at their enemies.

I love this sentence pairing.

Dragon Thief
09-11-2010, 07:54 PM
Ivhon's got the right of it here, IMNSHO. People have to be able to separate the idiots who abuse 9/11 from the day itself. And complaining about those people doesn't lessen Ivhon's respect for the event any more than a cop who pulls a speeder over today would. And 90% of America who acts patriotic today is fake anyways, it's the patriotic equivalent of organized religion for a day.

nameless
09-11-2010, 09:14 PM
Seriously. The collapse of the towers was just as tragic yesterday and it will be just as tragic tomorrow.

Davian93
09-11-2010, 10:19 PM
This is an incredibly shitty thing for you to post Ivhon. No matter your disdain for those who take advantage of things like 9-11 for their own gain, its still a day in which 3000 people died. You might as well have found one of their head stones and taken a piss on it. Show some goddamn respect. What you've posted here makes you no better than the people you are criticizing because all your doing is using it to score cheap political points. And that is the height of moral narcicism.


How is his post a "political point"?


BTW, your faux outrage is a bit over the top.

GonzoTheGreat
09-12-2010, 04:44 AM
Sinistrum, you want to see a difference between what Ivhon wrote and really showing disdain?

A grand total of one (count them, 1) person died in those attacks. All the others are irrelevant. You may wonder how I reach that count?
Well, first of all, it happened on US soil. Second, the US courts have decided that according to US law, non-US citizens are not persons as the US Constitution meeans the term (http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/where-at-least-i-know-im-free-part.html). Now, as you know, I am a Dutch citizen, not an American one. So, for me, only humans from the Netherlands would deserve the honorific "person".

Don't like that? Quite a nice, liberal, sentiment. Think it is cheapening the deaths of all those victims? You are damn right about that. But that is what the American voters, and particularly the right wing (the majority, I admit) have decided: they have chosen to side with the terrorists and oppose liberty and justice for all. That is the real legacy of 9/11.

Jokeslayer
09-12-2010, 05:24 AM
sacrifice

No.

GonzoTheGreat
09-12-2010, 08:41 AM
A bonus question to the story in the link of my previous post:
Which other countries should be allowed to get away with "national security is involved, so human rights do not matter", and for which countries would you consider that unacceptable?

I would say that no country at all has the right to ignore the "right not to be tortured", the "right not to be kidnapped" and the "right to be heard in court when the government has wronged you".
But, referring to 9/11 and the memories of the victims thereof, lots of countries are now saying that the Western freedoms are less important than letting the government do whatever it wants to do in secret.

Neilbert
09-12-2010, 12:57 PM
This, like Pearl Harbor day or MLK day, or Presidents Day before it, should be a national day of remembrance for what this country has had to sacrifice to get where it is today.

No.

Africans Native Americans immigrants and the poor? Honor and decency?

Jokeslayer
09-12-2010, 02:42 PM
Africans Native Americans immigrants and the poor? Honor and decency?

What?

EDIT: Oh, that's a list of things that have been sacrificed, is it? I have no idea what that has to do with my point but OK.

Sinistrum
09-12-2010, 02:50 PM
And complaining about those people doesn't lessen Ivhon's respect for the event any more than a cop who pulls a speeder over today would.

On the day he did it given the tone he did it with, it absolutely shows a lessened respect for the dead. You don't get up on your soap box for a negative political rant in the middle of a memorial service and not come off as an asshole. That applies to Ivhon just as much as it applies to those he is complaining about.

How is his post a "political point"?

Because simply put, its nothing short of a negative campaign add. There is nothing positive about it what so ever. Its snarky, condescending, and demeaning to the people he is talking about. And while those people may deserve it, something like this shouldn't be posted as the ONLY thread remembering 9-11 on 9-11. That's all he commented about and that's all most of you have commented about. Not a single word for the dead, not a single sign of respect, nada. And if that is all most of you have in the way of remembrance of 9-11, then the lot of need to take a look in the mirror about who is truly taking advantage of the tragedy for their own gain.

BTW, your faux outrage is a bit over the top.

Yanno you're right. Despite the fact that I was in D.C. on 9-11, could see the smoke from the Pentagon from my dorm room, was terrified for most of the day because I had no clue what was going on for most of it or where the terrorists would strike next, had military convoys crawling all over the area around my campus, and had to hold my then girlfriend at the time as she sobbed her heart out as she watched the South Tower collapse with her uncle in it, I'm totally overreacting to the collective callousness, inattentiveness, and frankly bitterness shown in remembrance of the date.

Gonzo, the only thing I have to say to you is piss off. You, above anyone else here, have nothing to contribute to this discussion. So why don't you go back to your celebration of the anniversary of the U.S. "getting what it deserves" and leave those of us who are actually decent people to the adult discussions involving reality.

EDIT: Oh, that's a list of things that have been sacrificed, is it? I have no idea what that has to do with my point but OK.

Wait, you had a point? I thought you were just being childishly contrarian.

nameless
09-12-2010, 03:27 PM
Now may not be the time for an extended debate on the relative merits of being emotionally invested in the symbolic or the concrete, but since I've noticed that you tend to lean towards the "symbolic" end of the spectrum I think it may be worth pointing out that symbols are highly personal and subjective, and just cause someone doesn't share yours does not mean they don't care about the same concretes you care about. Solar anniversaries, for example, may not mean so much to them, which isn't to say they don't care about the very real suffering of the 3000 victims or the grieving families that survive them.

@Gonzo: extraordinary rendition and torture and all that other crap existed before 9/11/01. Yes, our president at the time extended the practices, but he did that because he learned to do it from his spook father, who had himself been president and before that vice president and got involved in all kinds of shadowy atrocities. You resent the things our leadership did in the name of security after the attacks? So do a lot of us. You want to look down on all the frightened American people who continued to trust in their leaders because they felt they had no one else to turn to? That's your perogative, but unless you've never trusted someone who didn't deserve it or made a bad decision when you were afraid, it might behoove you to show a little more compassion.

GonzoTheGreat
09-12-2010, 04:30 PM
nameless, I admit that my own government supported the US government at the time, and that means that I also share the responsibility. I don't like it, but I admit that I have some part of the blame for those renditions, torture and so forth (and the war in Iraq, the backing of the Islamic fanatic in Afghanistan*, and so forth). But, unlike a very large number of Americans (and a proportionally speaking only slightly smaller number of Dutchmen), I've never voted for a politician who I knew supported these things.
My support has always been only by implication. Those who voted for a Republican, at the very least from the 2002 elections onward, did so explictly supporting torture and in opposition to human rights. And from now on, and possibly earlier already, if you vote Democrat, the same is true.

Sinistrum, I do not think your former girlfriend's uncle deserved what he got. But neither do I think that the innocent Muslim men who were tortured by the US government deserved that fate, even though they share some of the faith of the ones that (probably) were guilty of 9/11.
American soldiers carried out the Abu Ghraib atrocities. If that is not sufficient cause to torture any American at all, then why would an even vaguer similarity be enough when it comes to other people?

Another example of this Republican "we can lump them in the same group, therefor they are all guilty" attitude is the current Mosque mess. There a Sufi Muslim is held responsible for what was done by a bunch of Wahhabite Sunni Muslim fanatics. That's like holding an Amish responsible for the actions of Slobodan Milosevich.

* Against other Islamic fanatics, but that doesn't make a really noticeable difference for school girls who get burned to death for wanting to learn.

Davian93
09-12-2010, 05:45 PM
Yanno you're right. Despite the fact that I was in D.C. on 9-11, could see the smoke from the Pentagon from my dorm room, was terrified for most of the day because I had no clue what was going on for most of it or where the terrorists would strike next, had military convoys crawling all over the area around my campus, and had to hold my then girlfriend at the time as she sobbed her heart out as she watched the South Tower collapse with her uncle in it, I'm totally overreacting to the collective callousness, inattentiveness, and frankly bitterness shown in remembrance of the date.

Ivhon calling out idiots that are profiting on a tragedy annoys you? You'd think, based on the above, that you'd agree with him on that.


BTW, I deployed about 3 weeks after 9/11 as a direct result of it.

Ivhon
09-12-2010, 06:37 PM
For the record. I watched the Towers collapse on two high school/college room-mates and 2 other friends.

You know. Just in case you really are - as it sounds - trying to assert moral supremacy based on your experience of that day.

You don't have it. Neither do I.

My points are valid. You may not agree with them - probably because they come from me. But that does not negate their validity. I did not - and would not - intentionally disrespect anyone's loss on that day.

As I said, Im sorry that commenting on the thing about this day that offends me is offensive to you. You can disagree all you want, but I feel that your erroneous assumptions as to my motivations for posting and the resulting ad hominems are unwarranted.

Davian93
09-12-2010, 06:57 PM
Here's an interesting perspective on it:

"First a moment of silence for those who were killed 9 years ago today. But it is unfortunate that 9/11 has become highly politicized and a day of hatred. The biggest news stories of the past week have been about people who want to burn Korans and whether some people should be allowed to build a mosque on private property near the existing mosque and strip joints in the holy New York financial district.

Consider that 9/11 is not that unique a day. Veterans Day--originally Armistice Day on 11/11--was never a day to hate people who used poison gas during WWI. Memorial Day, now mostly for picnics, but originally proclaimed as Decoration Day by Abraham Lincoln was a day of respect to put flowers on the graves of fallen soldiers. It generally doesn't bring up the subject of slavery although the "peculiar institution" does have something to do with it. A closer analogy is Pearl Harbor Day, when 2403 Americans died (vs. 2671 Americans and 327 from other countries on 9/11). But 9 years afterwards it was hardly a focal point of anti-Japanese hatred despite President Roosevelt saying it was "A date that will live in infamy." Perhaps the closest analogy is 4/19. What? You have forgotten already? April 19, 1995 was the day mass murderer Timothy McVeigh and his co-conspirator set off a bomb that killed 168 people and damaged 324 buildings in Oklahoma City. He bitterly hated the federal government and would now be considered a member of the tea party movement. He was a white Christian Republican but 4/19 rarely inspires hatred of these groups. Odd."

Source: www.Electoral-Vote.com

Verin Mathwin
09-12-2010, 07:00 PM
9/11 is a day just as any other. If it is offensive for Ivhon to say what he did on 9/11 then it should be offensive for him to say it on any other day. The day on which he said what he did does not change his intent, and his intent was not to disrespect the victims/families involved in 9/11. You are being a little ridiculous Sinistrum.

Sinistrum
09-12-2010, 07:39 PM
Ivhon calling out idiots that are profiting on a tragedy annoys you? You'd think, based on the above, that you'd agree with him on that.

My points are valid. You may not agree with them - probably because they come from me. But that does not negate their validity.

For the record, I do agree with him. But that has never been my point. My point is him attacking them on the day he did so in the manner he did so was irreverent of the day in question. It doesn't matter if he is right or not to me. Ivhon's intent also doesn't matter either. His comments were still an inappropriate way to mark 9-11.

9/11 is a day just as any other.

To you it is. Its always easy to rationalize something away when it didn't personally affect you. Especially when that something is inconvenient to your world view. I can only hope that it won't take something similar happening to your country to change your mind but I suspect fate will not be so kind, especially in light of your country's current immigration policies.

You know. Just in case you really are - as it sounds - trying to assert moral supremacy based on your experience of that day.

No I'm not attempting to assert the moral high ground based upon my experiences. But people, including you, seem to think I'm overreacting and have indicated so by impling that I don't have any personal connection to the events in question. My anecdote was told with the purpose of refuting that. I am, however, claiming the moral high ground because I appear to be the ONLY one on this board treating the date with the kind of reverence it deserves.

Firseal
09-12-2010, 07:41 PM
This is an incredibly shitty thing for you to post Ivhon. No matter your disdain for those who take advantage of things like 9-11 for their own gain, its still a day in which 3000 people died. You might as well have found one of their head stones and taken a piss on it. Show some goddamn respect. What you've posted here makes you no better than the people you are criticizing because all your doing is using it to score cheap political points. And that is the height of moral narcicism.

I call bull.

There are thousands of events through everyone's heritage which have been abused for various reasons. (A very smart man calls them Chosen Tragedies. Look up the philosophy - and what it leads to) Including political and economical motivations, which are the two abuses which have been tainting what should be a solemn day for years (and given it's only been solemn for nine years, that's horrific) and you have people who have every right to be angry that 9/11 is a self-righteous bumpersticker. Or a T-Shirt. Or a reason to slander their enemies. A battle cry against innocents.

This solemn, reverent day of yours? Has been and is being used as all these things.

It was a horrible day. The sheer number of ways it has been exploited since make it a bleeding Greek Tragedy. Ivhon's not out of line, calling people on their false superiority they get for $19.99, plus shipping, handling, and vile hubris. Ivhon's actually on the perfect point; these things deserve to be shown for the attainted, loathesome rot they are. You want to remember the sacrifice of 9/11? Then by god take a torch to those who serve to cheapen it, or turn it into a weapon of aggrandizement; a base lever of moral supremacy; a dark joke assuring themselves they are right and good and pure because several of their countrymen died in fire.

Lastly, if your concept of 9/11 is to rage against the horrors it brought, then look no further than those who would draw lines in the sand through cheap advertising drek and fucked up false tears. They are every bit as abhorrent as the folks we normally spend our venom on.

Uno
09-12-2010, 08:10 PM
Well, it's a question of tone, isn't it? I understand what Ivhon's going for here, but I don't think the heading "Happy Moral Narcissism Day!" is the most fortunate, and at first glance it's not actually that clear whether Ivhon was mocking commemoration of the attacks or their vulgar exploitation for commercial and political purposes.

My first reaction to the post was along the lines of "here we go again.."

Ivhon
09-12-2010, 08:35 PM
Again, I apologize if it came across wrong.

I was being glib - as I am wont to do - and I can see how the tone might come across wrong if you don't know where I am coming from.

Uno
09-12-2010, 08:50 PM
Again, I apologize if it came across wrong.

I was being glib - as I am wont to do - and I can see how the tone might come across wrong if you don't know where I am coming from.

Quite. Let's stop arguing about this misunderstanding.

I realize the unlikelihood of this happening.

Davian93
09-12-2010, 08:52 PM
Again, I apologize if it came across wrong.

I was being glib - as I am wont to do - and I can see how the tone might come across wrong if you don't know where I am coming from.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fgNunUORMWA/TH_7b-zbKDI/AAAAAAAABG4/F62G2ZI_pPQ/s320/tom+cruise+glib.jpg

What being glib MIGHT look like...

GonzoTheGreat
09-13-2010, 03:44 AM
I am, however, claiming the moral high ground because I appear to be the ONLY one on this board treating the date with the kind of reverence it deserves.Let me see what reverence it deserves, according to you.

It was used to get people to support a bunch of drug producing Muslim fundamentalist warlords against a bunch of non-drug-producing Muslim fundamentalist idiots, and you are okay with that. Apparently supporting Islamic extremists is showing the victims of other Islamic extremists the reverence they deserve.

It was used to get people to support an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, apart from being on the hit list of the organisation which (supposedly) carried out 9/11. Apparently you think that fighting the enemies of the killers shows reverence for the victims.

It was used to justify ignoring laws, justice and human rights. Apparently you think that the memory of those lost is best served by tying it to atrocities like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

It was used to justify supporting Musharraf, who had overthrown democracy in Pakistan, against those who wished for freedom, because nominally Musharraf, his army and his secret services helped against the Taliban. In reality, the Taliban got lots of help from the Pakistani to kill Americans, and the US government knew this. But, so as to revere the memory of those who died in Afghanistan, this truth was declared "secret", and US troops kept getting killed by weapons bought with money the USA gave which was supposedly meant to prevent such weapons from reaching the battle lines.

It is used to fight against freedom of religion in the USA. Specifically, it is being used to prevent someone who almost certainly would be considered a heretic by OBL from building a mosque on his own land.

That is all fine and dandy with you.

But using the memory of those who fell on 9/11 to protest against any of these blatant attacks on American freedom and American security is, of course, totally wrong according to you.

One might almost start to wonder which side you are actually on. The evidence throws some doubt on the idea that you would be on the side of liberty and justice for all.

Jokeslayer
09-13-2010, 05:56 AM
Wait, you had a point? I thought you were just being childishly contrarian.

Not on this occassion, I wasn't. Sacrifice is completely the wrong word for the majority of the deaths and I can't believe you didn't choose it deliberately over a more appropriate word.

GonzoTheGreat
09-13-2010, 06:00 AM
Not on this occassion, I wasn't. Sacrifice is completely the wrong word for the majority of the deaths and I can't believe you didn't choose it deliberately over a more appropriate word.I dunno. One could argue that they were a form of human sacrifice. Of course, if you argue that, then there's the question of to what or whom they were sacrificed.

yks 6nnetu hing
09-13-2010, 07:22 AM
I don't have much to comment because as you've pointed out, this only relates to US citizens... although, I could mention that a cousin of a friend of mine died in Afghanistan the week before last. While on a NATO mission. But ok, that's neither here nor there.

I do, however feel the need to comment on this:

something like this shouldn't be posted as the ONLY thread remembering 9-11 on 9-11.

I call moral narcissism. You're upset that this was the only thread on the board on this day. Basically, you're not upset at Ivhon, you're upset at everyone here because no-one was "decent enough" to post a respectful thread or to call Ivhon down. Seeing as you were the first one to answer Ivhon, at a whopping 15 hours and 37 minutes after the first post (if my math is correct), shows that during the whole day no-one had rooted him on as you seem to imply. Nor had you yourself made an actual respectful thread. So here's my question: why do you get to pour crap on people for expressing their frustration (with which you agree) in a manner with which you don't agree if you yourself are not motivated enough during the whooooole day to make a separate thread to commemorate the day in the way you see fit? that way it would not have been the ONLY thread, you would have gotten respectful responses on your thread (probably not from all the same crowd as here... but still) and Ivhon's would probably just have died off into obscurity. I mean, even allowing for Real Life, 15 and a half hours is rather a long time.

*shrug* to me it was not obvious from the thread title that it was about 9/11, btw. I assumed something about a banana and possibly a dog in a tutu

Ivhon
09-13-2010, 08:27 AM
I am, however, claiming the moral high ground because I appear to be the ONLY one on this board treating the date with the kind of reverence it deserves.


So...YOUR determination of what is "reverent enough" is what goes? And if I - or anyone else - fails to meet YOUR standard of "reverence" then you are perfectly justified in name-calling and personal attacks?

OK. What is "reverent enough," Sini? Shall we call off all the football games next year? Everybody spend the day in church? I would expect that tailgate parties would be irreverent...but then that might be my interpretation of the word and since only YOURS counts, I am being presumptuous.

Lemme know for next year what I can and cannot say on 9/11.

Oh...and I suppose I will need to check in with you on MLK day, Pearl Harbor day and the other days of reverence that you mentioned, right? Any other days I need to be aware of where the "reverence meter" will be on? I suppose I can't rant against consumerism on or around Christmas without being a "political hack pissing on Jesus' grave." Is that just Christmas day? Or the whole retail season?

Your assuming the moral high ground - along with the moralistic lingo that you have slung throughout this thread - and castigating anyone who fails to meet whatever standard YOU set is exactly the kind of thing I was railing against in the first place.

What gives YOU the authority - other than a conception in your mind of what you want in this moment - to determine what I or anyone else SHOULD do? Absolutely nothing. And yet, you feel that whenever anyone thinks, feels or expresses themselves in a way that bothers you that you are justified in immediately jumping in with ad hominems (although, I seem to recall that you are quick to point out how inappropriate it is to ever call YOU a name).

My opinion - and it is only that - is that you saw my thread, decided you didn't like it because you don't like me and used 9/11 as a cover to call me names. Which makes that whole "cheap political points" thing seem a bit...idunno.

GonzoTheGreat
09-13-2010, 08:31 AM
Your assuming the moral high ground - along with the moralistic lingo that you have slung throughout this thread - and castigating anyone who fails to meet whatever standard YOU set is exactly the kind of thing I was railing against in the first place.Which gave Sinistrum a chance to display his double standard for all to see once again, thus making him happy. Consequently, you achieved your purpose, and gave someone a happy MND. Well done, Ivhon. I wouldn't have thought of doing this, and then Sinistrum would have missed out on this happiness at the expense of the 9/11 victims.

Davian93
09-13-2010, 10:45 AM
In honor of Columbus Day, I'm gonna go to my local Indian Reservation, enslave the populace and if they revolt, pass out smallpox ridden blankets to keep them warm.

Sinistrum
09-13-2010, 12:41 PM
@YKS, silence can be a sign of respect depending on the context. Its not the only one but that was the one I choose to observe as relates to 9-11 until Ivhon decided he was going to "speak up."

@Ivhon, if you can't figure out why what you said when you said it and in the way you said it is irreverent, then I don't know what to tell you. This isn't about my standard, its about an objective standard based upon not turning days of memorialization into political soapboxes. It is clear to me though that there are some gaps in your education on what constitutes decency and common courtesy as releates to proper resepct for the dead. Although given the general reaction of the board to this, I guess perhaps decency and courtesy as to this subject aren't common after all. That might have something to do with the political slant of those involved though. Anyway you slice it though, I'm certainly not the one to teach you such things. That should have been done by your parents. I doubt you'd listen to me anyways. And if you think my comments had anything to do with a personal grudge, then you have seriously inflated your own self-importance as relates to me.

Not on this occassion, I wasn't. Sacrifice is completely the wrong word for the majority of the deaths and I can't believe you didn't choose it deliberately over a more appropriate word.

@ Jokeslayer Sacrifice is exactly the appropriate word, just not in the Aztec religious sense you are attempting to twisted it into. They were killed for no other reason than the way of life the U.S. affords its citizens, which is something the culprits behind 9-11 despise as evil. Viewed from that perspective those killed were absolutely a sacrifice in order to preserve our way of life.

@Gonzo, once again, piss off. You have nothing to add to this discussion aside from your usual trollish baiting, false dichotomies, and anti-american axe to grind.

GonzoTheGreat
09-13-2010, 12:49 PM
@ Jokeslayer Sacrifice is exactly the appropriate word, just not in the Aztec religious sense you are attempting to twisted it into. They were killed for no other reason than the way of life the U.S. affords its citizens, which is something the culprits behind 9-11 despise as evil. Viewed from that perspective those killed were absolutely a sacrifice in order to preserve our way of life.That is a lie. Or at least, I hope it is.

Do you consider "the American way of life" to be supporting tyrannical absolute monarchs and starving children to death in order to "punish" a dictator whom you yourself acknowledge does not care about those children, just to name two of the reasons which the perpetrators themselves gave for their actions?
If you do, then the American way of life is indeed despicable. But if you do not consider the support of various tyrants in the Middle East to be a necessary part of your happiness, then the least you could do is be honest when the truth is well known*.

* Mind: I'm not asking you to tell any secrets you might have. I am merely asking you not to pretend to be unaware of things which have been public knowledge for years, and which are very pertinent to your claims. You are not sufficiently stupid to be talking out of ignorance here.

Davian93
09-13-2010, 01:02 PM
It is clear to me though that there are some gaps in your education on what constitutes decency and common courtesy as releates to proper resepct for the dead. Although given the general reaction of the board to this, I guess perhaps decency and courtesy as to this subject aren't common after all. That might have something to do with the political slant of those involved though. Anyway you slice it though, I'm certainly not the one to teach you such things. That should have been done by your parents. I doubt you'd listen to me anyways. And if you think my comments had anything to do with a personal grudge, then you have seriously inflated your own self-importance as relates to me.

The general reaction is that you overreacted, misunderstood Ivhon's post and then flipped out about it for 3 days now...and then there was Gonzo's trolling as usual.

Yes, none of the rest of us have any respect for the deceased victims and, in fact, actively went out of our way to piss on their graves this weekend.

Ivhon
09-13-2010, 01:21 PM
@YKS, silence can be a sign of respect depending on the context. Its not the only one but that was the one I choose to observe as relates to 9-11 until Ivhon decided he was going to "speak up."

@Ivhon, if you can't figure out why what you said when you said it and in the way you said it is irreverent, then I don't know what to tell you. This isn't about my standard, its about an objective standard based upon not turning days of memorialization into political soapboxes. It is clear to me though that there are some gaps in your education on what constitutes decency and common courtesy as releates to proper resepct for the dead. Although given the general reaction of the board to this, I guess perhaps decency and courtesy as to this subject aren't common after all. That might have something to do with the political slant of those involved though. Anyway you slice it though, I'm certainly not the one to teach you such things. That should have been done by your parents. I doubt you'd listen to me anyways. And if you think my comments had anything to do with a personal grudge, then you have seriously inflated your own self-importance as relates to me.



@ Jokeslayer Sacrifice is exactly the appropriate word, just not in the Aztec religious sense you are attempting to twisted it into. They were killed for no other reason than the way of life the U.S. affords its citizens, which is something the culprits behind 9-11 despise as evil. Viewed from that perspective those killed were absolutely a sacrifice in order to preserve our way of life.

@Gonzo, once again, piss off. You have nothing to add to this discussion aside from your usual trollish baiting, false dichotomies, and anti-american axe to grind.

You, sir, are of course the standard of decency and respect. I shall endeavor to emulate your sterling example of objectivity and righteousness. For truly there is only One Way and you clearly tread it.

Of course, I hold no hopes - probably due to my slant - of ever truly being able to approach your level of compassion and sensitivity to others. I see it nearly every day and I am truly in awe of how skillfully you are able to see points of view other than your own.

We all, here - especially us slanted ones - have so much to learn from you. I am humbled. Truly.

EDIT: For the record, the only one who has politicized this thread is YOU sir. In several posts. I have not, in ANY post, made political commentary. I made some social commentary. Furthermore, YOU started making the thread ugly with your insults and poor language. I did none of that. And going after parents? Really? How's 8th grade going?

Jokeslayer
09-13-2010, 02:27 PM
@ Jokeslayer Sacrifice is exactly the appropriate word, just not in the Aztec religious sense you are attempting to twisted it into. They were killed for no other reason than the way of life the U.S. affords its citizens, which is something the culprits behind 9-11 despise as evil. Viewed from that perspective those killed were absolutely a sacrifice in order to preserve our way of life.

No, they weren't. What would have happened to your way of life if they hadn't been sacrificed? Nothing.

Also as far as can see your point can only stand if either the government knew about 9/11 beforehand and let it go ahead or the terrorists wanted to preserve your way of life.

Is this the bit of the thread where I copy-paste from dictionary.com?

nameless
09-13-2010, 02:53 PM
Thinking that any terrorist anywhere gives a crap about our "way of life" is the most narcissistic thing I've seen on this thread so far, which is saying something given the self-righteous pissing contest going on between Gonzo and Sinistrum. They went after us for the same reason they go after Russia and China: because we're a global superpower with significant influence in every corner of the world and they want sole power over the Middle East for themselves. Islam is just a recruiting tool to get naive young men to blow themselves up. The leaders of the terrorist organizations don't care about God or about freedom and Happy Meals. They care about power and domination, and they think we're in their way.

fdsaf3
09-14-2010, 01:02 AM
I'd love to talk about this, but I'm afraid of what this conversation has become. I hate the fact that there seems to be a natural urge to resort to arguing and namecalling between certain "camps" of people here in the non-WOT section of the forum. If we spent as much time and effort guessing clues to the Great Hunt as we do writing up biting and scathing comments about each other, we'd have solved all the clues by now.

So, back to your insulting and out of context comments about each other I guess.

Verin Mathwin
09-14-2010, 01:34 AM
To you it is. Its always easy to rationalize something away when it didn't personally affect you. Especially when that something is inconvenient to your world view. I can only hope that it won't take something similar happening to your country to change your mind but I suspect fate will not be so kind, especially in light of your country's current immigration policies.



...I'm from the U.S.

GonzoTheGreat
09-14-2010, 05:08 AM
...I'm from the U.S.Well, just look at what Arizona is doing to "suspected immigrants", and you'll see what Sinistrum is talking about.

Davian93
09-14-2010, 08:06 AM
...I'm from the U.S.

Papers please!

Crispin's Crispian
09-14-2010, 11:14 AM
No, they weren't. What would have happened to your way of life if they hadn't been sacrificed? Nothing.

Also as far as can see your point can only stand if either the government knew about 9/11 beforehand and let it go ahead or the terrorists wanted to preserve your way of life.

Is this the bit of the thread where I copy-paste from dictionary.com?

Or to put it another way, a sacrifice is given not taken. If terrorist victims were sacrificed, then all murder victims are sacrificed.

You could argue, however, that the firefighters and police sacrificed their own lives in order to save others. That's valid.

GonzoTheGreat
09-14-2010, 11:33 AM
You could argue, however, that the firefighters and police sacrificed their own lives in order to save others. That's valid.I don't think that is correct either, though.
It would have been a sacrifice if they had been (reasonably) sure that going into the Towers when they did would mean their death. But if they had had that certainty, then they wouldn't have gone, as that would have meant that they couldn't get anyone out anymore either.
Instead, they went in there in the hopes of getting people out, and then getting out themselves before it was too late. Not all made that last, and that is a pity.

Saying that they were a sacrifice means saying that they knowingly committed suicide, and I do not think that is true for the majority of them, possibly not for any of them. Instead they gambled with their lives and lost.

It may be picky to insist on precision in language, but in the case of 9/11, such imprecision is so wide spread that correcting it becomes rather necessary.
There are also a lot of people who deny the courage of the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers. That is stupid; it seems to assume that courage is impossible for anyone who is not morally correct. The fact that the terrorists were amoral believers in God (Allah) does not mean they were cowards.

Jokeslayer
09-14-2010, 12:36 PM
Or to put it another way, a sacrifice is given not taken. If terrorist victims were sacrificed, then all murder victims are sacrificed.

You could argue, however, that the firefighters and police sacrificed their own lives in order to save others. That's valid.

Those were the people I had in mind when I said that there were some exceptions.

Crispin's Crispian
09-14-2010, 12:41 PM
I don't think that is correct either, though.
It would have been a sacrifice if they had been (reasonably) sure that going into the Towers when they did would mean their death. But if they had had that certainty, then they wouldn't have gone, as that would have meant that they couldn't get anyone out anymore either.
Instead, they went in there in the hopes of getting people out, and then getting out themselves before it was too late. Not all made that last, and that is a pity.

Saying that they were a sacrifice means saying that they knowingly committed suicide, and I do not think that is true for the majority of them, possibly not for any of them. Instead they gambled with their lives and lost.

It may be picky to insist on precision in language, but in the case of 9/11, such imprecision is so wide spread that correcting it becomes rather necessary.
You're just drawing a line between the words "willing" and "sacrifice." The fact that a person doesn't want to die shouldn't detract from the fact they they were willing to die to save others.

There are also a lot of people who deny the courage of the terrorists who flew the planes into the towers. That is stupid; it seems to assume that courage is impossible for anyone who is not morally correct. The fact that the terrorists were amoral believers in God (Allah) does not mean they were cowards.
I'm not sure why you bring this up, but I'll bite. Sure, let's say courage isn't limited to the morally sufficient. Courage stands on its own without moral implications. This means that courage is not a virtue, in and of itself.

That said, if you're brainwashed to believe that upon your bodily death your soul will go to a paradise, is it then courageous to willingly die? The promise of an afterlife that is better than your corporeal existence seems to negate the sacrifice (ahem...) of bodily death.

Even with that said, even if I were to agree that the terrorists were courageous, I don't understand why that is important. The overwhelming horror of their crimes surely outweighs an semblance of courage you might point to as virtuous.

GonzoTheGreat
09-14-2010, 01:06 PM
You're just drawing a line between the words "willing" and "sacrifice." The fact that a person doesn't want to die shouldn't detract from the fact they they were willing to die to save others.No, I'm drawing a line between "being willing to die" and "expecting to die". The latter could be a sacrifice, the former is not. Both might require equal courage, and be equally moral.

I don't think that "sacrifice" is appropriate here, because there wouldn't be any reason to think that sacrificing a life would have made any improvement. When the towers weren't coming down, yet, it seemed reasonable to think that the firemen going in would have a fair chance of surviving, as they were trained to do so in burning buildings. And when they did come down, nothing someone could do from inside could have slowed that down at all.

I'm not sure why you bring this up, but I'll bite. Sure, let's say courage isn't limited to the morally sufficient. Courage stands on its own without moral implications. This means that courage is not a virtue, in and of itself.Yep, that is my point here.
The reason that I bring it up is that it is the most obvious of the cases related to 9/11 where language was twisted, and the "sacrifice" case seems another of those to me.

That said, if you're brainwashed to believe that upon your bodily death your soul will go to a paradise, is it then courageous to willingly die? The promise of an afterlife that is better than your corporeal existence seems to negate the sacrifice (ahem...) of bodily death.To be honest, I seriously doubt that was the main motivating factor.

Consider American soldiers who are Christians. When they go into battle in a situation where they may be killed, what do they expect?
They could think that since they are violating the "do no violence" command which is implicit in Christianity, they will go to Hell if they die. But that does not seem to be the case.
Or they could expect that, since they are doing the Lord's work, they will go to Paradise when they die, just as those Al Qaeda fanatics are alleged to think.
But it seems more likely, more in accordance with what is said by veterans, that they aren't thinking too much about that at all, but more about not letting their comrades down.

And that last is almost certainly also what is the case with the terrorists. Such group dynamics are a very well known phenomenon in radicalisation of all sorts of groups, and the only solution seems to be to give the members enough interaction with outsiders.

Even with that said, even if I were to agree that the terrorists were courageous, I don't understand why that is important. The overwhelming horror of their crimes surely outweighs an semblance of courage you might point to as virtuous.Of course. I just prefer to use true accusations against the terrorists, rather than invented lies.
If governments lie about this, then that raises the question "how much else of what they say is also a lie?"

Ivhon
09-14-2010, 01:29 PM
I disagree Gonzo. Even working from the distinction of "willing to die" and "expecting to die."

If you - as the firefighters, etc. did - willingly risk your life to save others and eventually "lose" that gamble....to me that is clearly sacrifice. Whether or not you expect to die is irrelevant.

A concrete example that likely happened in multiple cases. A firefighter runs into the wreckage, pulls out a victim - saves a life. He goes back in to save someone else and dies. How is that not sacrifice? He saved a life and died trying to save another...

Crispin's Crispian
09-14-2010, 02:10 PM
No, I'm drawing a line between "being willing to die" and "expecting to die". The latter could be a sacrifice, the former is not. Both might require equal courage, and be equally moral.

I don't think that "sacrifice" is appropriate here, because there wouldn't be any reason to think that sacrificing a life would have made any improvement. When the towers weren't coming down, yet, it seemed reasonable to think that the firemen going in would have a fair chance of surviving, as they were trained to do so in burning buildings. And when they did come down, nothing someone could do from inside could have slowed that down at all.
I get your point, but I disagree. Risking your life to save others (when you have the skill to do so) is not a sacrifice. But once you lose the gamble, haven't you sacrificed yourself? I don't know many firefighters personally, but I have a feeling that many of them are prepared to die when they go into a burning building. I imagine they would have to be prepared.


The reason that I bring it up is that it is the most obvious of the cases related to 9/11 where language was twisted, and the "sacrifice" case seems another of those to me.One could argue that terrorist are cowards precisely because they target innocents to make a political point, rather than trying to make changes diplomatically or joining a more formal armed organization. The singular act of flying a plane into a building filled with innocents might not be cowardly, but if you're doing that instead of other more difficult or time-consuming options it could be.

Consider American soldiers who are Christians. When they go into battle in a situation where they may be killed, what do they expect?
They could think that since they are violating the "do no violence" command which is implicit in Christianity, they will go to Hell if they die. But that does not seem to be the case.
Or they could expect that, since they are doing the Lord's work, they will go to Paradise when they die, just as those Al Qaeda fanatics are alleged to think.
Well, American Christian soldiers are going to war on behalf of America, not Jesus (I hope). It's hardly a comparable situation, in addition to be worthy of its own thread about religious vs. patriotic motivations.

But it seems more likely, more in accordance with what is said by veterans, that they aren't thinking too much about that at all, but more about not letting their comrades down.Sure, once they're there, in the field and acting, but what got them there? Do you think they decided to be martyrs because their buddies were all doing it, or to support their friends who were also joining the organization? These guys knew going in that the plan was for them to die. What motivated them at that point?


Of course. I just prefer to use true accusations against the terrorists, rather than invented lies.
If governments lie about this, then that raises the question "how much else of what they say is also a lie?"
Calling a terrorist a coward isn't lying, even in your scenario--it's just incorrect. I'm hardly going to defend governments as consistently correct.

nameless
09-14-2010, 03:38 PM
Suicide attackers in past conflicts were usually motivated by an extreme version of not wanting to let people down. In WWII Japan, for example, anyone tapped for a kamikaze run who didn't go through with it was completely ostracized, even by their own families. However, there are a lot of things about the current crop of Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists that don't fit the traditional terrorist/insurgent profile. They tend to be better educated, better off financially, and most of them have never lost a friend or family member the way a traditional revenge-driven terrorist has. A lot of the best and brightest are still trying to figure out exactly what motivates them.

I'd agree that "coward" doesn't seem like a very accurate description of someone who's proven willing to die for their cause, but I thing it perfectly describes the people who sent them out to die and stayed safe in their caves with their thumbs up their asses all the while.

Brita
09-14-2010, 04:23 PM
I'd agree that "coward" doesn't seem like a very accurate description of someone who's proven willing to die for their cause, but I thing it perfectly describes the people who sent them out to die and stayed safe in their caves with their thumbs up their asses all the while.

Excellent point.

Sei'taer
09-14-2010, 05:02 PM
I remember watching TV that day and after the first tower fell, there was a guy with a camera there in all the dust and debris. If I remember right, he was several blocks from the site. He is walking through the dust and he comes up in a group of firemen. One of them is sitting there with dust all over him, blood running in his eyes from a cut on his forehead. He was a heavyset guy with graying hair and one of those badass fireman mustaches. He slugs down a bottle of water and grabs another and dumps it all over his face and cleans all the blood off and then sits there staring off into space. The reporter or whatever asks him several questions about whats going on and he answers, then he gets up and tells the other firemen to get there stuff together, "we gotta get back in it". The reporter says, "you're going back in there? What if the other building falls?" The fireman looks at him a second and then smiles and says "There's people in there trapped in the building, there's people trapped under the debris, there's people hurt between here and there, so yeah, we're going back in. That's what we do."

That's courage.

In your definition, the guys who robbed the bank in LA and killed all those cops, in order to make a personal gain at the cost of others, were courageous. Same with the 9/11 terrorists. They did it for personal gain. Not courageous, not sacrifice.

Uno
09-14-2010, 05:55 PM
I'd love to talk about this, but I'm afraid of what this conversation has become. I hate the fact that there seems to be a natural urge to resort to arguing and namecalling between certain "camps" of people here in the non-WOT section of the forum.

Well, certain posters are locked in a sort of Ishamael-LTT dynamic. They're waging the same struggle over and over again, and the outcome is predetermined by the pattern of the board. That's why it's possible for those that have achieved Theoryland enlightenment to foresee what each poster will say before they actually do so.

Davian93
09-14-2010, 05:59 PM
Well, certain posters are locked in a sort of Ishamael-LTT dynamic. They're waging the same struggle over and over again, and the outcome is predetermined by the pattern of the board. That's why it's possible for those that have achieved Theoryland enlightenment to foresee what each poster will say before they actually do so.

Yup, pretty much.

For example, I already knew exactly what Uno was gonna say before I even read his post.

Dragon Thief
09-14-2010, 07:30 PM
Yup, pretty much.

For example, I already knew exactly what Uno was gonna say before I even read his post.

Me, on the other hand, I don't even know what I'm going to say ne..... oooo, shiney!

Sei'taer
09-14-2010, 07:34 PM
Me, on the other hand, I don't even know what I'm going to say ne..... oooo, shiney!


Weird...I thought DT was going to say "oooo, fuzzy! And wooly! And holey!"

Totally had to check and see who the poster was...

Dragon Thief
09-14-2010, 07:46 PM
Weird...I thought DT was going to say "oooo, fuzzy! And wooly! And holey!"

I'm fairly sure I rarely, if ever, say holey.

Sei'taer
09-14-2010, 07:49 PM
I'm fairly sure I rarely, if ever, say holey.

But I'm sure you're thinkin it, O Poker of Wooly, Holey Things.

GonzoTheGreat
09-15-2010, 05:57 AM
A concrete example that likely happened in multiple cases. A firefighter runs into the wreckage, pulls out a victim - saves a life. He goes back in to save someone else and dies. How is that not sacrifice? He saved a life and died trying to save another...I make a difference between taking a risk and sacrificing something.

Look at the Rand/Sammael battle for example. In that case, Sammael was taking a risk with his own life (he knew Rand could be deadly) but he was willing to do that because if it worked out, then the payout would be worth it. Moridin, on the other hand, sacrificed Sammael, because that gave him what he wanted.

Or, if you look at a more traditional way of offering sacrifice: if you throw a virgin into a volcano, then you don't want her to bounce off the lava and walk away. You expect that which you sacrifice to be lost to you.

The firemen were willing to risk their lives, and that shows (a lot of) courage. But they were not sacrificing their lives. Going into a situation where they knew they were going to die would have been stupidly unprofessional, and I do not have reason to think they were that badly trained.

I get your point, but I disagree. Risking your life to save others (when you have the skill to do so) is not a sacrifice. But once you lose the gamble, haven't you sacrificed yourself?No, you have died at that point.
A sacrifice is payment, and they were not hoping to placate Allah's Anger by performing human sacrifices.

I don't know many firefighters personally, but I have a feeling that many of them are prepared to die when they go into a burning building. I imagine they would have to be prepared.Every time I have a training in fire fighting (just very small scale; do what is possible until the professionals arrive), it is stressed that the first rule is "do not get yourself into danger, that is useless and will only make things worse".
Yes, they are well aware that what they do is dangerous. But then, driving a car is also dangerous, and anyone who is totally ignorant of that should not have a driver's license.

One could argue that terrorist are cowards precisely because they target innocents to make a political point, rather than trying to make changes diplomatically or joining a more formal armed organization. The singular act of flying a plane into a building filled with innocents might not be cowardly, but if you're doing that instead of other more difficult or time-consuming options it could be.If a Saudi national wanted to get rid of his corrupt and tyrannical royal house, then which formal armed organisation could he join in order to achieve that? Through which diplomatic channels could he achieve such aims? For both options, how could he get the US government to stop supporting the tyrants?

I am not saying that the choice they made was right. But I get rather tired of hearing that they should have remained slaves (oppressed subjects of our allies who are financing extremism at the same time, if you want another formulation rather than the simple "slaves") rather than trying to fight oppression.
I really wish that to any of them who did want to fight it I could honestly say that we were not on the side of the oppressors, but I know that we support the rulers in a lot of highly undemocratic countries.


Calling a terrorist a coward isn't lying, even in your scenario--it's just incorrect. I'm hardly going to defend governments as consistently correct.But it is lying if they know that it is incorrect. And if they are too stupid to know that it is incorrect, then they are not worthy of holding the post they do. So, either they are incompetent, in which case one shouldn't vote for them, or they are very blatant liars, in which case voting for them is rather cynical.

I'd agree that "coward" doesn't seem like a very accurate description of someone who's proven willing to die for their cause, but I thing it perfectly describes the people who sent them out to die and stayed safe in their caves with their thumbs up their asses all the while.Considering how many attempts to kill them are made, I would not say that those leaders are really all that safe.
And considering that they generally only become leaders after having shown actual ability (or luck) in the field themselves, I don't think it is reasonable to say that they can be considered cowards. In general, known cowards are not good at recruiting fanatical followers.

OBL is a fairly good example. One of the main reasons why he became far better known, and far more influential, than the various other Saudi and Yemeni suppliers of money and weapons to the insurgents fighting the Soviets in the 1980s was that he actually went out and fought alongside those he supplied with weapons and money.

I remember watching TV that day and after the first tower fell, there was a guy with a camera there in all the dust and debris. If I remember right, he was several blocks from the site. He is walking through the dust and he comes up in a group of firemen. One of them is sitting there with dust all over him, blood running in his eyes from a cut on his forehead. He was a heavyset guy with graying hair and one of those badass fireman mustaches. He slugs down a bottle of water and grabs another and dumps it all over his face and cleans all the blood off and then sits there staring off into space. The reporter or whatever asks him several questions about whats going on and he answers, then he gets up and tells the other firemen to get there stuff together, "we gotta get back in it". The reporter says, "you're going back in there? What if the other building falls?" The fireman looks at him a second and then smiles and says "There's people in there trapped in the building, there's people trapped under the debris, there's people hurt between here and there, so yeah, we're going back in. That's what we do."

That's courage.I agree.

In your definition, the guys who robbed the bank in LA and killed all those cops, in order to make a personal gain at the cost of others, were courageous. Same with the 9/11 terrorists. They did it for personal gain. Not courageous, not sacrifice.Courage, yes, sacrifice, no, moral, no.

I am arguing here against the following fallacies:
"Someone who is brave is therefor, by definition, good."
"Someone who is not good can therefor not be brave."

Assuming that the terrorists do not have courage leads to seriously underestimating them, and it means that they can succeed at things that would have failed if a more realistic assessment had been made.

Sei'taer
09-15-2010, 07:45 AM
Courage, yes, sacrifice, no, moral, no.

I am arguing here against the following fallacies:
"Someone who is brave is therefor, by definition, good."
"Someone who is not good can therefor not be brave."

Assuming that the terrorists do not have courage leads to seriously underestimating them, and it means that they can succeed at things that would have failed if a more realistic assessment had been made.

I think you're looking at it wrong. Motivation plays a huge factor.

The terrorists motivation was? To be a martyr for their god. Greed was needed for that, not courage. If I told you I'd give you 100 million dollars to cut off you thumb, then there'd be no courage in going to the doctor and having it removed. The motivation negated the courage required because you did it for the money. Now, if your god offers you an afterlife filled with virgins and martyrdom or whatever, for killing yourself and as many other people as you can take with you, then it amounts to the same thing.

yks 6nnetu hing
09-15-2010, 08:18 AM
I think you're looking at it wrong. Motivation plays a huge factor.

The terrorists motivation was? To be a martyr for their god. Greed was needed for that, not courage. If I told you I'd give you 100 million dollars to cut off you thumb, then there'd be no courage in going to the doctor and having it removed. The motivation negated the courage required because you did it for the money. Now, if your god offers you an afterlife filled with virgins and martyrdom or whatever, for killing yourself and as many other people as you can take with you, then it amounts to the same thing.
um, no.

Mainly because the word "sacrifice" has a spiritual rather than material "payoff". It is tightly linked to the word "sacred" -you make the sacrifice to a deity or a Higher Notion and money is (by most standards, even in the contemporary consumerist world) not exactly a deity. If you insist that money is deity then I have to conclude that you've broken the second of the Ten Commandments and/or do not want to discuss this according to religious paradigms (in the judaeo-christian sense), which is fine overall, but in this particular case the debate is moot seeing as the whole hooplah revolves around conflicting religions. in rhetoric, anyways.

Christian martyrs decided to follow their religious beliefs while knowing that this will most probably result in (rather unpleasant) death. You could say that rather than giving up their beliefs they sacrificed their lives. Edit: the firefighters believed in helping others as a Higher Notion and so I would call their deaths sacrifice as well, although I suspect Vatican probably wouldn't agree.

Now, if the terrorists believed that they were being Good Muslims - which, as has been pointed out, is debatable - then it follows that they sacrificed themselves in a way equatable to Christian martyrs.

Just because I or you might not agree with their belief system and reasoning of why it was morally justifiable (if indeed there was such justification before going in) does not mean that the sacrifice did not happen. From their point of view.

Davian93
09-15-2010, 08:31 AM
Me, on the other hand, I don't even know what I'm going to say ne..... oooo, shiney!


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IEMjP0qExpU/SrjAw0y5AVI/AAAAAAAAAhc/vopcpSNx-VI/s400/up_dog.jpg

SQUIRREL!!!!!!!

Davian93
09-15-2010, 08:34 AM
Going into a situation where they knew they were going to die would have been stupidly unprofessional, and I do not have reason to think they were that badly trained.


Not exactly...it depends on why they were willing to do it.

Is is stupid/unprofessional for a soldier to jump onto a grenade to save the rest of his squad? I'd say no...its a heroic sacrifice that should be honored. Same with the firefighters who basically knew they were gonna die if they went into that building. Their desire/willingness to save others even at the cost of their own lives is to be commended and honored.

GonzoTheGreat
09-15-2010, 09:07 AM
The difference is that with the grenade, the one going to die does have a good reason for thinking that would indeed save others, while running into a collapsing building merely means that you too will die.

The fire fighters who went in before it started falling down did so in the expectation that it was possible to get people (including themselves) out. They were not sure they would come out alive, but if they had been certain it was not possible, then there would have been no point in going in, since in that case they couldn't save anyone by going in anyway.

Sei'taer
09-15-2010, 09:07 AM
um, no.

Mainly because the word "sacrifice" has a spiritual rather than material "payoff". It is tightly linked to the word "sacred" -you make the sacrifice to a deity or a Higher Notion and money is (by most standards, even in the contemporary consumerist world) not exactly a deity. If you insist that money is deity then I have to conclude that you've broken the second of the Ten Commandments and/or do not want to discuss this according to religious paradigms (in the judaeo-christian sense), which is fine overall, but in this particular case the debate is moot seeing as the whole hooplah revolves around conflicting religions. in rhetoric, anyways.

Christian martyrs decided to follow their religious beliefs while knowing that this will most probably result in (rather unpleasant) death. You could say that rather than giving up their beliefs they sacrificed their lives. Edit: the firefighters believed in helping others as a Higher Notion and so I would call their deaths sacrifice as well, although I suspect Vatican probably wouldn't agree.

Now, if the terrorists believed that they were being Good Muslims - which, as has been pointed out, is debatable - then it follows that they sacrificed themselves in a way equatable to Christian martyrs.

Just because I or you might not agree with their belief system and reasoning of why it was morally justifiable (if indeed there was such justification before going in) does not mean that the sacrifice did not happen. From their point of view.

I was talking about courage, and was very careful to make sure I was only talking about courage. I agree with you, it's a sacrifice, but it is not, by any means I can see, courageous.

yks 6nnetu hing
09-15-2010, 09:19 AM
I was talking about courage, and was very careful to make sure I was only talking about courage. I agree with you, it's a sacrifice, but it is not, by any means I can see, courageous.

how is knowingly going into a potentially very painful death not courageous? Most people do not like pain, mutilation or death. For me personally, facing a nurse with a needle is courageous. Not a sacrifice though, just a necessary courage.

Sei'taer
09-15-2010, 09:39 AM
how is knowingly going into a potentially very painful death not courageous? Most people do not like pain, mutilation or death. For me personally, facing a nurse with a needle is courageous. Not a sacrifice though, just a necessary courage.

So a heroin junkie is courageous? And just because you are facing a painful death doesn't make an act courageous. You don't have to face death to be courageous. I might give you a kidney and save your life. That is heroic to some people, to others it's simply the right thing to do. It's not a courageous act, though I suppose you could call it sacrifice.

I'm afraid we're not going to come to an agreement on this. It's one of those roundy-round discussions.

yks 6nnetu hing
09-15-2010, 10:01 AM
So a heroin junkie is courageous? And just because you are facing a painful death doesn't make an act courageous. You don't have to face death to be courageous. I might give you a kidney and save your life. That is heroic to some people, to others it's simply the right thing to do. It's not a courageous act, though I suppose you could call it sacrifice.

I'm afraid we're not going to come to an agreement on this. It's one of those roundy-round discussions.

I think you're right in that it very much depends on the circumstances. Overall though, if a person is afraid of something and does it anyways, then that's courageous, right? Me, I'm afraid of sharp objects and blood, especially if it's my own. A junkie might be afraid of the effects of not getting his/her fix.

That's where I was coming from when I said that for most people going into a sure painful death would be courageous.