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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (46773)	1/25/2008 3:58:21 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 541997

J.C. re: "We see that "brave" is in the galaxy of "heroic," "valiant," courageous," gallant," etc. IMO, the 9/11 perpetrators do not deserve association with such words. Flying a plane into a building populated with unsuspecting innocents is quite akin to stabbing someone in the back. I don't associate that deed with bravery. In the end, the only possible connection to "bravery" would be that they committed suicide. I have nothing against suicides, but I don't consider that deed to be brave either. Usually when we choose the words "brave," "heroic," "valiant," "courageous" or "gallant" we're describing some action that we approve of. That creates an automatic association but why can't "courage" be used to describe life sacrificing actions that create consequences we despise? An act of courage must require an appreciation that significant, undesired harm may be suffered, the resolve to act and suffer the harm and then the act itself. Those who commit suicide for the purpose of killing themselves aren't usually considered courageous although that act certainly takes resolve but if someone with a thirst for life throws his, or her, body on a live grenade, that's certainly courageous. But throwing your body on a grenade or throwing your body into a building at hundreds of miles an hour requires the same resolve and the same sacrifice; it's only the purpose that differs. And, unless I'm mistaken, purpose isn't one of the defining terms of "courage." But your point that "the 9/11 perpetrators do not deserve association with such words," is well taken. Since we usually associate such words with actions we approve of and since we feel the need to vilify the actions of those terrorists, it feels clumsy to use the word courage with respect to those men. The sad fact is, however, that too often in war and in life we go way too far to create monsters on the other side. As a result we often fail to appreciate that there is another side to the story and that the ideas that drive our enemies have real power. Pointing out that the 9/11 terrorists had courage although they performed a despicable act that resulted in the deaths of so many of our innocent people is just one necessary step to avoiding the silly caricaturizing of the "enemy" as mad, mindless, rabid men whose motivations or purposes should be ignored. And that's an important first step because when 19 fairly young, full of life, men fly planes into buildings we ought to pay a lot of attention to the ideas that drew them there since those powerful ideas survived 9/11. I suspect that's what Bill Mahr, in his typical obnoxious, heavy handed way, was trying to say; don't write of their actions as cowardly and mad, they were not cowardly and we ought to understand that they weren't insane. Ed

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (46773)	1/25/2008 5:30:26 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 541997

Well, I see a problem there. Brave doesn't really apply to Hitler in this sense, since Hitler really isn't at risk- his troops are. So Hitler could be brave- assuming he was facing bullets, but since he wasn't, we have a problem. Hitler's troops were certainly brave. Do you not think the German soldiers were every bit as brave as the Americans? So there you have soldiers on the "wrong" side, doing exactly what our soldiers do- risking their lives for their country and their ideals. And in the end, isn't that what the suicide bombers were doing? They put their lives on the line in service for an ideal. Sure, we don't LIKE their ideal, but definitionally they certainly were brave. They knew they were going to die, and they thought such a death, and the reward of paradise, was a good enough reason to do what they did. Our soldiers, on the battlefield, kiling the enemy at risk to themselves while thinking about heaven and their beloved America, would be doing pretty much the same type of thinking (even were they killing civilians- a la Dresden). I don't really understand the need to demonize such actions definitionally speaking, by torturing the English language. What these men did was repulsive to us- but mostly it was repulsive because we don't agree with them. If (for example) some Christians (before the invasion) had flown in to Baghdad and bombed Saddam's palace with him in it, and had they done it because they were convinced they would enter heaven by the deed, you can't tell me a good percentage of Americans would not tell each other this was a heroic brave deed. If you think about it that way, I'm sure you will understand better why so many Muslims consider the 9/11 folks heroes. Me, I think what they did was awful- just as I would hate it if anyone on our side did anything like that- but that doesn't make men who go out and die or live with spectacular violence in the service of a cause less brave. Your galaxy is interesting. The problem with it is that we tend to use those words in a completely relativistic way- so that they really mean "what I think is brave", which is, of course, a synonym for "what I think is good". Getting closer to objective bravery I think you merely look at the risk to the actor, and his knowledge of the risk. Those folks who act with disregard to danger (danger that they comprehend) are brave- regardless of what act they are committing. Any other way of defining the word is far too relativistic to mean much. imo While you can, of course, say you "know it when you see it"- that merely means you like your relativistic way of defining the word. I can't say I think much of that as an argument. I think an objective standard is more logical. No one is saying the 9/11 folks are "admirable"- merely that they did not fear death, which really ought to be obvious.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (46773)	1/26/2008 12:02:29 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541997

>>We wouldn't have such a thing as synonyms if words were perfectly clear in their meaning. Virtually all words have nuances that develop over the years through common usage. It would be difficult to incorporate these subtleties in dictionary definitions. The inappropriateness of "bravery" in our discussion falls into the category of, "You know it when you see it." In this case, obviously neither Bill Maher nor yourself see it.<< JCD - Going strictly on my memory of what he said, I don't believe that Maher called the hijackers brave. I'm fairly sure he did not use that word to describe them. If he didn't really say that in the first place, which I believe he did not, this whole discussion about the meaning of the word "brave" is pointless. If someone can find the exact quote, I'd be grateful, even if it turns out that I'm wrong. I've tried to find the original footage or an exact quote from a definitive source. But so far, I haven't found it. - Allen