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.
We're of completely the same mindset. Although, I'll admit I've fallen into the trap myself. The first time I heard you say you were a Mormon, my instinct was: "Okay, this is interesting. I don't know any Mormons. I'll listen to what she says and see what Mormons are like".
That may sound open-minded to some, but it isn't. I was thinking of you as a Mormon and, while that is true, you're also NeuroNeptunian and while your faith may be a big part of who you are, being NeuroNeptunian (and your real-life persona) is all of who you are. You're not defined just by a part of you, even if it's a big part, like belief.
As it happens, the way you talk about religion does sit very comfortably with me but, again, it's not because of your faith but because of you. If you had been Sikh or Buddhist or Catholic and said the things I've seen you say, I would feel the same way.
A label, whether it be positive or negative, is no way to judge an individual. I read what you say and I like who you are. We all have our labels and they're occasionally of some use, but they're of no use whatsoever when predetermining what a person is like. To me, you're NeuroNeptunian and you always will be regardless of anything you are, anything you do, anything you become.
Very generous of you to say so. In all of my studies I have found nothing but irrefutable proof that one label is not sufficient to hand down judgements, that the actions of the group, even if comitted by the majority of the group, can not be attributed to the entirety of the group itself, no matter how prevalent said actions become. Yet, no matter how much proof of this is compiled, there are many that insist on making generalizations. Even those that proclaim said persons as ignorant make such generalizations, remarkable!
In my church, we are taught as an article of faith (of the thirteen handed to us by Joseph Smith) that we will not be held accountable for the sins of Adam or our fellow man on our judgement day. I believe it should work that way on Earth as well... to hold the individual in regard rather than the group. To hold the group in regard would br to deflect individual responsibility... I can't agree with that.
IIN to hate that people are angry for how my brother got his job?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
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.
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
We're of completely the same mindset. Although, I'll admit I've fallen into the trap myself. The first time I heard you say you were a Mormon, my instinct was: "Okay, this is interesting. I don't know any Mormons. I'll listen to what she says and see what Mormons are like".
That may sound open-minded to some, but it isn't. I was thinking of you as a Mormon and, while that is true, you're also NeuroNeptunian and while your faith may be a big part of who you are, being NeuroNeptunian (and your real-life persona) is all of who you are. You're not defined just by a part of you, even if it's a big part, like belief.
As it happens, the way you talk about religion does sit very comfortably with me but, again, it's not because of your faith but because of you. If you had been Sikh or Buddhist or Catholic and said the things I've seen you say, I would feel the same way.
A label, whether it be positive or negative, is no way to judge an individual. I read what you say and I like who you are. We all have our labels and they're occasionally of some use, but they're of no use whatsoever when predetermining what a person is like. To me, you're NeuroNeptunian and you always will be regardless of anything you are, anything you do, anything you become.
--
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
NeuroNeptunian
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Apologies in advance for the uhh... poorly orchestrated post below. My phone is not very accomodating for internet use in long posts.
Very generous of you to say so. In all of my studies I have found nothing but irrefutable proof that one label is not sufficient to hand down judgements, that the actions of the group, even if comitted by the majority of the group, can not be attributed to the entirety of the group itself, no matter how prevalent said actions become. Yet, no matter how much proof of this is compiled, there are many that insist on making generalizations. Even those that proclaim said persons as ignorant make such generalizations, remarkable!
In my church, we are taught as an article of faith (of the thirteen handed to us by Joseph Smith) that we will not be held accountable for the sins of Adam or our fellow man on our judgement day. I believe it should work that way on Earth as well... to hold the individual in regard rather than the group. To hold the group in regard would br to deflect individual responsibility... I can't agree with that.