Ando85: This topic isn't exactly religious or political, but this seems to be the best part of the forum to discuss controversial topics.
I notice a lot of times people who kill themselves especially after committing atrocities are labeled as cowards. Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Cho Seung-hui being prime examples.
I think it takes a bit of bravery to go on a murderous rampage and then kill yourself afterward. I know I wouldn't have the courage to do this. I would never be able to pull the trigger.
I think part of the problem is that words like fearlessness, bravery, and courageous are often associated with positive actions. I am by no means saying what these people did was right or should be applauded. However, there are many words to describe them, but in my opinion coward isn't one of them.
Well have to be insane do these things.Nazis are the perfect example they kept cyanide capsules because they feared what the russians would do to them after capture.
Imperator_DK: But are you certain that's its generally understood use in society?
I wasn't claiming to be using the word the way it's generally used in society. But considering a part of the OP was complaining about how people use the word this way, I don't see how you can question it.
Altruism and Asceticism is bravery?
Altruism is. I'm not so sure about asceticism.
Maybe in some Christian sense or something,
As I'm not really a Christian, that's clearly not the sense I was speaking from.
but I don't think what good adjective generally come to mind when somebody gives up his seat on the bus for an old lady is a small instance of "bravery".
The first time a person does it, I would say bravery is exactly the right word for it. I have observed this in myself and others. It can be frightening to offer to a stranger. Now naturally, as one gets older and matures and gets experience with minor social interactions like this it stops being bravery, just as how a soldier can practice being under fire until it's no longer frightening. But for an adolescent for the first time dealing with strangers in an uncontrolled environment (so not like school for example)? Yeah, that's bravery.
A Waffen SS soldier single-handedly holding off a Soviet tank division until the Luftwaffe blew it smithereens? Now that'd be "bravery", even when fighting for an unethical cause, and even when simply doing it in the hope of earning a medal and promotion for himself.
If the Waffen soldier is undertaking all of this just for the sake of a medal, I'd say it's not his bravery that is in question but his sanity. But in any event, I don't see how this is an argument against what I said.
DrVornoff: On the topic of bravery versus cowardice, I find the words themselves to be rather loaded. It's a bit like how people will sometimes tell you, "What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Whose side their on."
I think that "bravery" and "cowardice" are loaded terms. Not all bravery is necessarily admirable, and not all acts of cowardice should be condemned.
KlLLUMINATI: Well have to be insane do these things.Nazis are the perfect example they kept cyanide capsules because they feared what the russians would do to them after capture.
Ok, what about a mother who runs into a burning building to attempt to rescue her children? Is that insane? Should we condemn that, too?
Also, wouldn't that imply that anybody who commits suicide or requests to be euthanised is also a "coward"?
Possibly. Depends on the situation as there is a line between coward and realistic. I couldn't tell you where the line is, just give you examples of extremes.
Katatori-kun: ... I wasn't claiming to be using the word the way it's generally used in society. But considering a part of the OP was complaining about how people use the word this way, I don't see how you can question it.
If it's not how its dictionary definition, and its not how it's used by people either, then I don't see how it can be its "meaning" to anyone but you.
Altruism is. I'm not so sure about asceticism.
Acts of altruism can be brave. Just as much as acts motivated by selfish desires can. Neither is inherently so.
The first time a person does it, I would say bravery is exactly the right word for it. I have observed this in myself and others. It can be frightening to offer to a stranger. Now naturally, as one gets older and matures and gets experience with minor social interactions like this it stops being bravery, just as how a soldier can practice being under fire until it's no longer frightening. But for an adolescent for the first time dealing with strangers in an uncontrolled environment (so not like school for example)? Yeah, that's bravery.
Seems an usually generous use of it for anyone but autists.
But assuming that facing novel forms of social interaction can be considered brave, would it not be equally brave to face the social pressure and stares expecting him to give up his seat, to meet all those gazes until they are lowered, or ask them what their problem was? Is such challenge not equally frightening?
Bravery have nothing to do with whether you're acting in your own interest or that of the community. Is the girl who flees a marriage arranged by her clan for its benefit, to be with the one she loves even in the face of dishonour and persecution, not "brave"?
It can be an act of bravery to set oneself aside. It can also be an act of convenience, resignation, or plain weakness to do so. Likewise with putting one's own interests first.
If the Waffen soldier is undertaking all of this just for the sake of a medal, I'd say it's not his bravery that is in question but his sanity. But in any event, I don't see how this is an argument against what I said.
It shows that bravery is not especially tied to acting in the interest of the community.
If two firemen go into a burning building to save a little girl, one because he wish to protect his community, the other because he really wants to be able to rape that particular girl later on, then both are equally "brave" in doing so, however different they may otherwise be in terms of ethical merit and goal. Both put themselves at great personal risk to obtain their various goals.
Katatori-kun: ... I wasn't claiming to be using the word the way it's generally used in society. But considering a part of the OP was complaining about how people use the word this way, I don't see how you can question it.
If it's not how its dictionary definition, and its not how it's used by people either, then I don't see how it can be its "meaning" to anyone but you.
For you to have come out with this tells me very clearly you didn't read a damn thing I wrote and are arguing for the sake of arguing. Read it again- that's not what I said.
Altruism is. I'm not so sure about asceticism.
Acts of altruism can be brave. Just as much as acts motivated by selfish desires can. Neither is inherently so.
You're pretty grossly misrepresenting my argument, and it's making me wonder if your issue isn't with what is being said rather than who said it. Because I don't believe I claimed that all altruistic acts are inherently brave, nor did I claim that all selfish acts are inherently cowardly.
But assuming that facing novel forms of social interaction can be considered brave, would it not be equally brave to face the social pressure and stares expecting him to give up his seat, to meet all those gazes until they are lowered, or ask them what their problem was? Is such challenge not equally frightening?
Not really. Being a dick to strangers on public transport doesn't require a lot of bravery because odds are quite good that the people involved in the interaction will never see each other again.
Is the girl who flees a marriage arranged by her clan for its benefit, to be with the one she loves even in the face of dishonour and persecution, not "brave"?
Possibly. I never said she wouldn't be.
If the Waffen soldier is undertaking all of this just for the sake of a medal, I'd say it's not his bravery that is in question but his sanity. But in any event, I don't see how this is an argument against what I said.
It shows that bravery is not especially tied to acting in the interest of the community.
It does not. And to understand why, you need to ask yourself who is the Waffen SS Soldier's community in your example.
If two firemen go into a burning building to save a little girl, one because he wish to protect his community, the other because he really wants to be able to rape that particular girl later on, then both are equally "brave" in doing so,
Incorrect (and such a ridiculous example that it's not even worth discussing).
You're grossly misrepresenting my argument, and since I'm rather pressed for time today I'm not going to bother arguing against things I never said. I suggest you re-read my posts if you want to understand them. If it helps, pretend someone other than I wrote them.
The punishment is in place to be a deterrent and the only way to get around that deterrent is to commit suicide afterward. "I did something bad, and now I must accept the punishment I deserve". These people have no remorse for their actions.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. How can it be a deterrent for something that has already happened?
The punishment such as life in prison is a deterrent in place to prevent the crime from happening. So the only way to get around the punishment is to kill oneself afterwards.
The punishment is in place to be a deterrent and the only way to get around that deterrent is to commit suicide afterward. "I did something bad, and now I must accept the punishment I deserve". These people have no remorse for their actions.
Sorry, but that makes no sense. How can it be a deterrent for something that has already happened?
The punishment such as life in prison is a deterrent in place to prevent the crime from happening. So the only way to get around the punishment is to kill oneself afterwards.
You do realize that "deterrent" means "prevention", "discouragement", etc.? If something actually happens, the "deterrent" has already failed, and there's no need to "get around it".
Sorry, but that makes no sense. How can it be a deterrent for something that has already happened?
The punishment such as life in prison is a deterrent in place to prevent the crime from happening. So the only way to get around the punishment is to kill oneself afterwards.
You do realize that "deterrent" means "prevention", "discouragement", etc.? If something actually happens, the "deterrent" has already failed, and there's no need to "get around it".
Yes I know what it means. That is why I said it is in place to prevent the crime from happening. I don't understand why it makes no sense to you. The deterrent is the punishment. The way to make that deterrent fail is to kill oneself afterward.
Ando85: The punishment such as life in prison is a deterrent in place to prevent the crime from happening. So the only way to get around the punishment is to kill oneself afterwards.
You do realize that "deterrent" means "prevention", "discouragement", etc.? If something actually happens, the "deterrent" has already failed, and there's no need to "get around it".
Yes I know what it means. That is why I said it is in place to prevent the crime from happening. I don't understand why it makes no sense to you. The deterrent is the punishment. The way to make that deterrent fail is to kill oneself afterward.
...if you already committed the crime, the deterrent obviously failed to deter you from it...
You do realize that "deterrent" means "prevention", "discouragement", etc.? If something actually happens, the "deterrent" has already failed, and there's no need to "get around it".
Yes I know what it means. That is why I said it is in place to prevent the crime from happening. I don't understand why it makes no sense to you. The deterrent is the punishment. The way to make that deterrent fail is to kill oneself afterward.
...if you already committed the crime, the deterrent obviously failed to deter you from it...
Exactly. Since the person had the option of killing them self that is why the deterrent failed. If the only option was life in prison the person would of been deterred preventing the crime from ever happening.
Ando85: Exactly. Since the person had the option of killing them self that is why the deterrent failed. If the only option was life in prison the person would of been deterred preventing the crime from ever happening.
The problem seems to be that you're missing the causality. The harshness of the punishment is not the deterrent. Only certainty of punishment can deter people from committing a crime, and that generally only works on crime of the premeditated variety, crimes of profit. It's not going to stop people who commit crimes of passion or out psychological compulsion (i.e. serial killers).
Ando85: Exactly. Since the person had the option of killing them self that is why the deterrent failed. If the only option was life in prison the person would of been deterred preventing the crime from ever happening.
The problem seems to be that you're missing the causality. The harshness of the punishment is not the deterrent. Only certainty of punishment can deter people from committing a crime, and that generally only works on crime of the premeditated variety, crimes of profit. It's not going to stop people who commit crimes of passion or out psychological compulsion (i.e. serial killers).
Yea, that makes sense. Of course different people have different passions and reasons behind their actions. I think in the case of Cho Seung-hui he was already suicidal. Perhaps his suicide was mainly an escape from his unhappiness and less about evading punishment. It seems like he just wanted to take down as many people as he could with him.
I think that a lot of the courage that it takes to kill yourself after committing an atrocity comes from the knowledge of whats going to come next. If you know you've got a life time of imprisonment and possible torture ahead of you or a gruesome execution and there's no escaping it then the idea of ending your life now rather than both being subjected to that or giving your enemy the satisfaction of inflicting it on you would probably be much more appealing.
DrVornoff: The problem seems to be that you're missing the causality. The harshness of the punishment is not the deterrent. Only certainty of punishment can deter people from committing a crime, and that generally only works on crime of the premeditated variety, crimes of profit. It's not going to stop people who commit crimes of passion or out psychological compulsion (i.e. serial killers).
This is a point that could do with restating.
When people want to be "tough on crime", usually due to some knee-jerk reaction, the usual response is to impose harsher sentences. This simply does not work if the problem is that you aren't catching the criminals...though it's easy to do.
Ando85: Yea, that makes sense. Of course different people have different passions and reasons behind their actions. I think in the case of Cho Seung-hui he was already suicidal. Perhaps his suicide was mainly an escape from his unhappiness and less about evading punishment. It seems like he just wanted to take down as many people as he could with him.
Cho Seung-Hui was a deeply disturbed individual who had no access to the help he needed. Had he gotten that help, things might have turned out differently, but it's impossible to say.
Cho was one of those people who no deterrent can stop because by the time they reach the point of willingly taking their lives after they take blameless innocents out with them, it's already past the point of no return. It's what makes people like him so frightening. Their mental instability makes their motives and logic alien and difficult to comprehend. And their actions are so sudden and the frequency of these tragedies is so rare that it is impossible to prepare for them.
Simply put, it's one of those cases where punishment will never be a deterrent.
That said, punishment need not be severe to be a deterrent. Again, it's the certainty. Look how many corrupt politicians there are out there. Even when caught, they're not worried. Because they either leverage their power within their party or they just hire an armada of lawyers to get them off the hook. They do this shit because they're confident they can use their power to evade punishment of any kind indefinitely.
When it gets bad enough its easier to kill yourself than to press on. If you went off and killed 30 men, women, and children you would be in for some hell.
Protective police escorts the the courthouse, solitary confinement in jail, your entire life from birth till when you committed the act would be plastered on major media outlets. And finally when you do go to prison you will most be killed and possibly raped.
or you could just skip to the end and make it on your terms. See now why it seems cowardly?
Zack Alklazaris: When it gets bad enough its easier to kill yourself than to press on. If you went off and killed 30 men, women, and children you would be in for some hell.
Protective police escorts the the courthouse, solitary confinement in jail, your entire life from birth till when you committed the act would be plastered on major media outlets. And finally when you do go to prison you will most be killed and possibly raped.
or you could just skip to the end and make it on your terms. See now why it seems cowardly?
No. No I don't. All you're doing is proving to me that courage and cowardice are loaded terms and most people don't know how to use them.
Zack Alklazaris: When it gets bad enough its easier to kill yourself than to press on.
And you'd know that...how, exactly?
Protective police escorts the the courthouse, solitary confinement in jail, your entire life from birth till when you committed the act would be plastered on major media outlets.
That last bit would happen either way, losing the first two saves the state some money tho.
And finally when you do go to prison you will most be killed and possibly raped.
In that order? *sorry, had to*
or you could just skip to the end and make it on your terms. See now why it seems cowardly?
The act of choosing death on your own terms as opposed to remaining at the mercy of things you have no control over...I don't know, "cowardice" isn't the first word that comes to mind.
How is doing stuff on your terms cowardly? I mean, just what exactly changes, what exactly is different? The dead remain dead, and the killer gets dead-ed some time earlier, even saving the state some cash they'd have to spend on red tape, so what's the negative with that? That the society doesn't get a chance to gloat?
No. No I don't. All you're doing is proving to me that courage and cowardice are loaded terms and most people don't know how to use them.
Mhm, I'd say so myself. I just see people trying to justify and rationalize their own bloodlust to make it seem "better" than someone else's bloodlust was.
Zack Alklazaris: When it gets bad enough its easier to kill yourself than to press on.
And you'd know that...how, exactly?
Protective police escorts the the courthouse, solitary confinement in jail, your entire life from birth till when you committed the act would be plastered on major media outlets.
That last bit would happen either way, losing the first two saves the state some money tho.
And finally when you do go to prison you will most be killed and possibly raped.
In that order? *sorry, had to*
or you could just skip to the end and make it on your terms. See now why it seems cowardly?
The act of choosing death on your own terms as opposed to remaining at the mercy of things you have no control over...I don't know, "cowardice" isn't the first word that comes to mind.
How is doing stuff on your terms cowardly? I mean, just what exactly changes, what exactly is different? The dead remain dead, and the killer gets dead-ed some time earlier, even saving the state some cash they'd have to spend on red tape, so what's the negative with that? That the society doesn't get a chance to gloat?
No. No I don't. All you're doing is proving to me that courage and cowardice are loaded terms and most people don't know how to use them.
Mhm, I'd say so myself. I just see people trying to justify and rationalize their own bloodlust to make it seem "better" than someone else's bloodlust was.
They can be loaded terms. Take the suicide bombers for example. It is brave to blow yourself up for something you believe in. But to some people blowing yourself up instead of fighting your enemy face to face can be cowardly.
How is doing stuff on your terms cowardly? I mean, just what exactly changes, what exactly is different? The dead remain dead, and the killer gets dead-ed some time earlier, even saving the state some cash they'd have to spend on red tape, so what's the negative with that? That the society doesn't get a chance to gloat?
Its different because as the shooter you no longer have to worry about others seeking their own brand of "justice" onto you. A shot to the head can be much less painful than the crap you might go through if you stay alive. If you live in a state that has the death penalty like I do, you know the end result of either choice is the same anyway.
Look I'm not saying you don't need to be brave to kill yourself. I myself once held a gun to my head and it was one of the hardest things I've ever done. Still, you need to ask yourself "why". Did they do it as a finally act to say fuck you to the world? or did they do it to escape prosecution?
People who go on "murderous rampages" most often do so because they want to pretend that they are powerful when in reality they are the weakest and lowest form of cowards. Anyone who kills for any reason does so only because they are not brave, smart or strong enough to find a better way. Don't forget that.
Anyone who kills for any reason does so only because they are not brave, smart or strong enough to find a better way. Don't forget that.
That's a rather narrow and unnecessarily condescending viewpoint. No human in the history of the earth has found a "better way" that works in all or even most life threatening situations.
An attacker cannot always be reasoned with even by the most intelligent and/or charismatic among us, the strongest among us can easily be outclassed with the right combat multipliers (by which I mean the military term, not the video game high score bonuses), and all the bravery in the world will just get you killed without accomplishing a single thing if the right opportunity does not appear in time. In all too many situations, an attempt to keep an aggressor alive only risks the lives of innocent people around him.
I would agree with your statement if you chose to confine it to people like those in the OP that kill without true cause, for pleasure or satisfaction rather than to defend.
Anyone who kills for any reason does so only because they are not brave, smart or strong enough to find a better way. Don't forget that.
That's a rather narrow and unnecessarily condescending viewpoint. No human in the history of the earth has found a "better way" that works in all or even most life threatening situations.
An attacker cannot always be reasoned with even by the most intelligent and/or charismatic among us, the strongest among us can easily be outclassed with the right combat multipliers (by which I mean the military term, not the video game high score bonuses), and all the bravery in the world will just get you killed without accomplishing a single thing if the right opportunity does not appear in time. In all too many situations, an attempt to keep an aggressor alive only risks the lives of innocent people around him.
I would agree with your statement if you chose to confine it to people like those in the OP that kill without true cause, for pleasure or satisfaction rather than to defend.
I don't think so. The only reason I'd ever have to kill someone is if I wasn't good enough to deal with the situation in a better way. I would expect no less from anyone else, especially those who are more powerful then me.
I don't think so. The only reason I'd ever have to kill someone is if I wasn't good enough to deal with the situation in a better way. I would expect no less from anyone else, especially those who are more powerful then me.
People who train extensively for the express purpose of subduing others without killing them are still forced to kill from time to time.
All of humanity is falling short of your ideal Ampersand, and it is not a problem that is likely to ever be fixed
By all means we shall continue to try and avoid death in a case like that. But if someone who is determined to kill is killed in turn when other options fail, there is neither point nor purpose to blaming oneself for the actions and choices of someone that forced one's hand.
In the meantime, if you wish to continue this debate, I suggest we move it to another thread, this is getting a bit offtopic.
I don't think so. The only reason I'd ever have to kill someone is if I wasn't good enough to deal with the situation in a better way. I would expect no less from anyone else, especially those who are more powerful then me.
People who train extensively for the express purpose of subduing others without killing them are still forced to kill from time to time.
All of humanity is falling short of your ideal Ampersand, and it is not a problem that is likely to ever be fixed
By all means we shall continue to try and avoid death in a case like that. But if someone who is determined to kill is killed in turn when other options fail, there is neither point nor purpose to blaming oneself for the actions and choices of someone that forced one's hand.
In the meantime, if you wish to continue this debate, I suggest we move it to another thread, this is getting a bit offtopic.
Oh course you're right. I would just like people to realize that killing only happens as a result of the short comings of people, not their strengths.
I'm not sure if I have anything else relevant to say so I'd be happy to leave it there.
Ampersand: People who go on "murderous rampages" most often do so because they want to pretend that they are powerful when in reality they are the weakest and lowest form of cowards.
Yawn. Yet another person who doesn't actually know what cowardice is. Or mental illness for that matter.
Anyone who kills for any reason does so only because they are not brave, smart or strong enough to find a better way. Don't forget that.
I'll be sure to let my friends and relatives in the military know about that.
Ampersand: People who go on "murderous rampages" most often do so because they want to pretend that they are powerful when in reality they are the weakest and lowest form of cowards.
Yawn. Yet another person who doesn't actually know what cowardice is. Or mental illness for that matter.
Anyone who kills for any reason does so only because they are not brave, smart or strong enough to find a better way. Don't forget that.
I'll be sure to let my friends and relatives in the military know about that.
I hope you do, I'm sure they could benefit from the insight.
Ampersand: People who go on "murderous rampages" most often do so because they want to pretend that they are powerful when in reality they are the weakest and lowest form of cowards.
Quite the generalisation there. I don't doubt that that's true for many, but to say "most often" sounds rather dubious.
Ampersand: Anyone who kills for any reason does so only because they are not brave, smart or strong enough to find a better way. Don't forget that.
Er...I guess, but then isn't any action with negative consequences taken because people couldn't do it better for some reason?
Ando85: This topic isn't exactly religious or political, but this seems to be the best part of the forum to discuss controversial topics.
I notice a lot of times people who kill themselves especially after committing atrocities are labeled as cowards. Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Cho Seung-hui being prime examples.
I think this is to fundamentally misunderstand what's going on with many of these spree killers. Dying is actually the primary objective, and causing atrocity a secondary one.
They want to die, but for whatever fucked up reason (usually some revenge fantasy) want to make cause a load of devastation first. The advantage of shooting themselves when there's nowhere left to go is that they ensure their desired death rather than risk a non-lethal take down from the police.
Whether it's cowardice or not is beyond easy analysis in my view - they are helluva screwed up. I suspect they're called cowards because it's more comforting for society to demean them wherever possible.
Ampersand: People who go on "murderous rampages" most often do so because they want to pretend that they are powerful when in reality they are the weakest and lowest form of cowards.
Quite the generalisation there. I don't doubt that that's true for many, but to say "most often" sounds rather dubious.
Ampersand: Anyone who kills for any reason does so only because they are not brave, smart or strong enough to find a better way. Don't forget that.
Er...I guess, but then isn't any action with negative consequences taken because people couldn't do it better for some reason?
Probably a generalization sure, but in most cases I've seen of people acting violently against people that aren't able to properly defend themselves, enacting some sick power fantasy would be my best guess as to their motives.
Yes of course it is, that's pretty much what I was saying.
Kamikazing a enemy in a selfless act of valour not ordered by on high is brave. offing yourself after murdering innocents no.
And by kamikaze I me the ordinay trooper who took out the tank with his own life to save his buddies or crashed his plane to the other could make it out. Not the jihadist who blew him self up on a convoy because his "leaders" decided thats the best course.
And by kamikaze I me the ordinay trooper who took out the tank with his own life to save his buddies or crashed his plane to the other could make it out. Not the jihadist who blew him self up on a convoy because his "leaders" decided thats the best course.
You watch too many movies and/or play too much CoD.
Well have to be insane do these things.Nazis are the perfect example they kept cyanide capsules because they feared what the russians would do to them after capture.