I was divorcing heroism from a "cause" and talking about something more important; personal bravery. In England, the most dangerous job (in terms of loss of life) is fishing.
Soldiers fight when there is a war (even a war that few people agree with, such as trying to bring about cheaper oil). It is dangerous and they are brave and every country tells itself that they are protecting their country. We make films about it and we brand them heroes. The reality of how veterans are treated shows how governments really consider them, which is - in itself - shameful. But it is a job with a salary like any other. It's not a mission people take on independently.
Compare it to fishermen, though. Their war with the sea is lifelong. They die horrible deaths with alarming regularity. Their bravery isn't in defence of a country, it's just to catch fish. They risk their lives more readily than soldiers (statistically) and have less of a reason to do it.
It's like the difference between tackling a burglar in your own home, and risking your life to feed your neighbours.
I'm still very intrigued. At the risk of making you believe that I am arguing with you, let me inform you that my questions are merely exploratory in terms of the subject and your opinion...
What of the act of heroism in taking the risky job that millions WON'T take (as statistically, most people do not serve in the Armed forces)? Or do you consider the willingness to take the risk and willingness to sign up for a possible fatality on a battlefield not "heroic"?
Oh, don't worry. I'm always happier to talk something through than have people think "That guy's a dick" but never try to see if there's any validity in my opinion.
To preface my answer, of all the heroic acts I've heard of (and which have stuck with me), by far the greater proportion of them have been in the theatre of war. But these are individual acts by extraordinary people.
The point I was trying to make is that you don't automatically become a hero because you're in the military. Nor do you become a hero just because you've been injured (another point of view that doesn't sit well with people, but logically there's no link. Even if you were injured saving someone's life, you'd be equally heroic if you hadn't been injured but had achieved the same thing). It might be a coldly logical way of looking at it, but it is technically true.
To answer your specific question, though, yes, I'd agree there was some heroism involved in your example if protecting one's country was the primary reason for joining the military (and if it wasn't a paid occupation). I have friends in the army and navy, plus some ex-army friends. Although they were proud to defend their country, there were plenty of other reasons they joined up, reasons that were higher up their lists.
Lack (or dislike) of an academic education and little other employment prospects were two, but the main reason by far is that they thought they'd enjoy it (get paid well, keep fit, travel the world, get to play with guns and tanks). The actuality of soldiering (from their point of view) was more about how to stave off boredom. None of them feels like or would ever imagine themselves heroic. Although it's nothing like a conventional job, it is still just a job.
Although one thing I will concede: being in the military gives you plenty more options to be heroic and to become a hero.
I find myself in agreement with you...
It's an opinion that I have considered for a while, actually. Why do certain traits associated with the career and the career go hand in hand when referencing the person holding the career?
How is a soldier automatically a hero, even when they commit acts of travesty against their fellow man? In example, a soldier murders his pregnant girlfriend, why should his act not be regarded in itself, why is he still considered to be a hero, a title of great nobility, after he has murdered an innocent human being as the court rules? Why should his soldier status even be considered when handing down the ruling? Why should even his heroic acts still speak for his character? Mind you, this example is based on an actual case that I would gladly cite if requested.
Why is a Mother automatically granted the status of loving, nurturing and selfless, when their Motherhood may have been caused by a selfish act in itself, while their Motherhood, by virtue of the conditions that the child is being raised in, may be a selfish act, period.
Why is a McDonalds worker considered to be at the lowest end of society, why is a scientist considered to be at the pinnacle of intelligence because they are a scientist, yet a police officer (nowadays) is no longer considered trustworthy or a public servant, defender of the law. Despite this, many of my aforementioned example regularly challenge the reputation that society gives them, by virtue of their career, so why is it still a highly held opinion?
My opinion? Society will never progress while we still accept cultural traditions to be valid, without question, and yet blatantly reject cultural traditions that we "feel" should be rejected.
Long ass rant, I agree with you, but I wouldn't dare say it out loud. My country, like many others, still accepts the use of violence as a valid form of conflict management. I doubt I need to say more.
I also understand that, as a Mormon, my belief in God and traditional values does, in a way, violate everything that I have just said about the progression of society, however, I also believe in progressive ideals which violate the terms of my religion and I feel at ease in participation with my religion... I am open-minded, which makes the statement, that all Christians are closed minded, inaccurate by default... the fallacy of composition, a logical fallacy you may be aware of, I am sure.
I guess, what I am trying to say has been said before... "All generalizations are dangerous, even this one." Credits to Dumas for this realization that will take mankind many more years to accept.
IIN to hate that people are angry for how my brother got his job?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I read that as "I believe soldering is a job not an act of heroism", and it was much less controversial.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That's exactly how I meant it, yeah. I wasn't even being critical of soldiers (it's a tough, dangerous job).
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I do not disagree with you, rather, I am intrigued by your statement and would like to hear your argument for it.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I was divorcing heroism from a "cause" and talking about something more important; personal bravery. In England, the most dangerous job (in terms of loss of life) is fishing.
Soldiers fight when there is a war (even a war that few people agree with, such as trying to bring about cheaper oil). It is dangerous and they are brave and every country tells itself that they are protecting their country. We make films about it and we brand them heroes. The reality of how veterans are treated shows how governments really consider them, which is - in itself - shameful. But it is a job with a salary like any other. It's not a mission people take on independently.
Compare it to fishermen, though. Their war with the sea is lifelong. They die horrible deaths with alarming regularity. Their bravery isn't in defence of a country, it's just to catch fish. They risk their lives more readily than soldiers (statistically) and have less of a reason to do it.
It's like the difference between tackling a burglar in your own home, and risking your life to feed your neighbours.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm still very intrigued. At the risk of making you believe that I am arguing with you, let me inform you that my questions are merely exploratory in terms of the subject and your opinion...
What of the act of heroism in taking the risky job that millions WON'T take (as statistically, most people do not serve in the Armed forces)? Or do you consider the willingness to take the risk and willingness to sign up for a possible fatality on a battlefield not "heroic"?
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh, don't worry. I'm always happier to talk something through than have people think "That guy's a dick" but never try to see if there's any validity in my opinion.
To preface my answer, of all the heroic acts I've heard of (and which have stuck with me), by far the greater proportion of them have been in the theatre of war. But these are individual acts by extraordinary people.
The point I was trying to make is that you don't automatically become a hero because you're in the military. Nor do you become a hero just because you've been injured (another point of view that doesn't sit well with people, but logically there's no link. Even if you were injured saving someone's life, you'd be equally heroic if you hadn't been injured but had achieved the same thing). It might be a coldly logical way of looking at it, but it is technically true.
To answer your specific question, though, yes, I'd agree there was some heroism involved in your example if protecting one's country was the primary reason for joining the military (and if it wasn't a paid occupation). I have friends in the army and navy, plus some ex-army friends. Although they were proud to defend their country, there were plenty of other reasons they joined up, reasons that were higher up their lists.
Lack (or dislike) of an academic education and little other employment prospects were two, but the main reason by far is that they thought they'd enjoy it (get paid well, keep fit, travel the world, get to play with guns and tanks). The actuality of soldiering (from their point of view) was more about how to stave off boredom. None of them feels like or would ever imagine themselves heroic. Although it's nothing like a conventional job, it is still just a job.
Although one thing I will concede: being in the military gives you plenty more options to be heroic and to become a hero.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
I find myself in agreement with you...
It's an opinion that I have considered for a while, actually. Why do certain traits associated with the career and the career go hand in hand when referencing the person holding the career?
How is a soldier automatically a hero, even when they commit acts of travesty against their fellow man? In example, a soldier murders his pregnant girlfriend, why should his act not be regarded in itself, why is he still considered to be a hero, a title of great nobility, after he has murdered an innocent human being as the court rules? Why should his soldier status even be considered when handing down the ruling? Why should even his heroic acts still speak for his character? Mind you, this example is based on an actual case that I would gladly cite if requested.
Why is a Mother automatically granted the status of loving, nurturing and selfless, when their Motherhood may have been caused by a selfish act in itself, while their Motherhood, by virtue of the conditions that the child is being raised in, may be a selfish act, period.
Why is a McDonalds worker considered to be at the lowest end of society, why is a scientist considered to be at the pinnacle of intelligence because they are a scientist, yet a police officer (nowadays) is no longer considered trustworthy or a public servant, defender of the law. Despite this, many of my aforementioned example regularly challenge the reputation that society gives them, by virtue of their career, so why is it still a highly held opinion?
My opinion? Society will never progress while we still accept cultural traditions to be valid, without question, and yet blatantly reject cultural traditions that we "feel" should be rejected.
Long ass rant, I agree with you, but I wouldn't dare say it out loud. My country, like many others, still accepts the use of violence as a valid form of conflict management. I doubt I need to say more.
I also understand that, as a Mormon, my belief in God and traditional values does, in a way, violate everything that I have just said about the progression of society, however, I also believe in progressive ideals which violate the terms of my religion and I feel at ease in participation with my religion... I am open-minded, which makes the statement, that all Christians are closed minded, inaccurate by default... the fallacy of composition, a logical fallacy you may be aware of, I am sure.
I guess, what I am trying to say has been said before... "All generalizations are dangerous, even this one." Credits to Dumas for this realization that will take mankind many more years to accept.