Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (38554)	11/24/2001 10:35:21 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Cowardice is judged relative to the cause and situation. One is not expected to risk as much for a football game as one would to save a life. One is not expected to risk as much if the gesture is likely to be futile, or the ground held is strategically trivial. The standard is duty: cowardice is failing to perform at the call of duty, heroism is performing above and beyond the call of duty. Presumably, then, if one imagines oneself to be fighting on behalf of Allah, to bring the world into conformity to His will, one's duty is grave. Has it occurred to anyone that the Taliban has proved to be a cowardly lot, even granting our air superiority? The haven't put up much of a fight in any contested city. They have behaved the way mercenaries would behave, easily switching sides for money, cutting and running as the Northern Alliance marched upon Kabul, and generally not acting as one would expect of devoted fanatics defending their own homeland. The fact that they have fought for a cause is irrelevant. What is relevant is their behavior in context, and it appears to be cowardly.........

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (38554)	11/24/2001 10:46:19 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

By the way, in World War II, there was no question of cowardice. American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines pursued the enemy relentlessly, often with horrifying casualties, as did their allies. The landings in Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, Guadalcanal, Okinawa: sometimes it is amazing to contemplate the heroism of ordinary conscripts in these battles. By the time the atomic bombs were used, enough was enough. Truman had estimates, based on our experience in Okinawa, that there might be as many as a couple of million casualties, although more on the Japanese side than ours, and perhaps half a million of those fatalities. Dropping the bomb saved lives, very likely on both sides.......

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (38554)	11/24/2001 11:17:01 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

How about we take the opposite tact......Do you think Osama is brave? No, I've seen no indication of bravery. Placing "cowardly" within the grouping of demonstrably false descriptions is somewhat indicative of the meaning that you ascribe to words. Are you referring to my second list? My second list was, as I stated, an arbitrary list of descriptors that have a negative connotation. I think that some of them are true of Osama, some false, and others, I don't have any way to know. Of that list, I would say that Osama was cold and violent, that he was not ugly, short, fat, unmanly, or stupid, probably not disloyal or dishonest. He might be dirty, considering where he lives. He probably can't dance given that his religious practices preclude music, although he appears to be graceful, which suggests the potential to be a good dancer. The point of the list was, as I stated, a test of whether people can identify both good and bad characteristics in Osama or whether they are over-generalizing. I have found this discussion of cowardice extremely interesting. My posting has not been to argue the case one way or the other but to try to understand the difference of opinion. In an earlier post, I postulated that perhaps some people are engaging in black-and-white thinking, a common practice on SI, and that explains why they insist Osama is a coward. Coward is a negative descriptor, Osama is horrid, ergo Osama is a coward. The bad guy MUST BE a coward. A second theory that has been mentioned during the discussion is that people all have different ideas what cowardice is. The dictionary definitions have been brought in. Some people are dismissive of the dictionary definition and adamant that their personal definition. Others claim to be following the dictionary definition but simply interpret it from their own experiences and perspectives. You mention the absolutist-relativist question, which pervades the topics discussed on this thread. Of course, we, the posters, have historically had trouble with who is or isn't a relativist and what that means. I did not think of that as a factor in the coward discussion, but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on how it is. As I have said several times now, I'm less interested in whether or not Osama is a coward than I am in the reasons for the differences in assessment. Even people who are on the same side are there for different reasons. Solon just said it was about fear, for example, where I think it's about spirit. I am still of the opinion that he is not a coward. I explained my rationale based on the dictionary definition. I have not yet heard a rebuttal of my rational, only others expressing a preference for theirs. I find all that very interesting, indeed. Karen