A counter-quote

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
Thanks for sharing your "faults" with us then.

Joe, if you think my opinion is a "fault" that's your business. If you think that I have wasted your time by sharing my opinion with you that's equally your business and your business alone. If I have confused you by sharing my opinion not just with you, but with everyone here, all I can say is that I am anything but sorry for expressing myself, even if it left you confused.

But if you imply that I said something was good while from my POV I never did so you shouldn't just give me the "confused" look. I think I can at least expect you to either point out to me where and when I said something was "good" or at least admit that you may have possibly misunderstood me.
By saying what you did (see above) it looks to me like you are just trying to shift the burden of explaining oneself from you to me, while at the same time still leaving the impression that I judged something as "good" that I didn't. As I read it your are not even addressing my statement, but merely avoiding to explain yourself.

[First of Two]

I just wouldn't let myself be restricted to two choices I both want to avoid.

How you intend to do this without the Q powers, I have yet to hear. I don't know about you, but I don't have that sort of power over time and space.

It's shutting down your survival instinct and wasting your existence.

Sometimes, it's turning on your community/familial instinct and sacrificing yourself for the good of the pack.

I've yet to see why I should put myself in a hypothetical no-win situation. What exactly would be the point of that? Other than proving that a no-win situation means you can't "win" or come out clean.

Life is a no-win situation... unless there are immortals running around that nobody's told me about.

More hypothetical: (And stolen from a movie.)

The Asteroid's going to hit the earth. You're on the mission to plant the charges that will divert it. Something goes wrong, and the remote detonator fails. Someone has to stay behind and blow the thing. You can't fly the shuttle, but you can ride out with the others... or you can push the button.

Do you ride the shuttle back to what's left of the Earth, or do you make it go boom?

And the guy who DOES stay and make it go boom, has he wasted his life?

[Sea Tyger]

Well, so much for bowing out gracefully.

With all due respect, Joe D., you're coming across as someone who doesn't have children. My girls are certainly more important to me than my own life.

Now, believe me, I would rather live to see the next passing of Haley's Comet (at the very least). I certainly want to live to see my daughters grow, have children and grandchildren of their own. I want to live long enough to see both my Chiefs and Royals win a couple more world championships each, watch the first human set foot on Mars, and (with a lot of Providence) some semblance of a real peace in the Middle East (okay, that last one is a long shot). But if it comes between my life or my children, then I'll go meet God. To me, that is not a "waste," as you put it. How is doing good, in any way, a "waste?"

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Lancer
mucho misunderstanding snipped

All I meant was that you gave an example for something which IMO had little or no relevance to the topic at hand.
If you didn't mean to say that the choice you described was "good" (thus having your support), then why did you mention it at all?

It didn't add anything to your argument, except that you said you'd "ignore your ethics under certain circumstances". I don't approve of this idea, but what I approve of or not shouldn't much matter to you.

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Sea Tyger
With all due respect, Joe D., you're coming across as someone who doesn't have children. My girls are certainly more important to me than my own life.

You're right, I don't.

Still doesn't change much about what I said. I still doubt that a dead father is more help to his children than a live one is.

I'd probably be willing to risk more if it meant it would help my children, but I still wouldn't die for them.

"to die" =/= "to get killed in action"

[First of Two]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy


"to die" =/= "to get killed in action" [/B]

When you get killed, you die. You're trying to make a distinction that isn't there.

If you're saying that you wouldn't sacrifice yourself mindlessly, just for the heck of it, if it wouldn't change anything, yeah, we know that.

Unfortunately for you, nobody else here is talking about that.

[Sarge]

Joe, you referred to making a choice as being no better than flipping a coin. I have to disagree with that.

If I'm in a position to choose who lives and who dies, I certainly won't randomly pick one. Insofar as possible, I'd pick the person who, IMO, was more deserving of life. How do I determine that? I'd have to rely on my experience, perception, and judgement. It's certainly possible I'd make the wrong choice, but if I'm trying to make the right choice, I'm more likely to choose wisely. And that's far better than flipping a coin.

I hope I never have to make that kind of choice. But as a military professional, I feel obligated to consider the possibility.

"And that's all I have to say about that." [/gumpvoice]

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Sarge
Joe, you referred to making a choice as being no better than flipping a coin. I have to disagree with that.

This "choice" I'd say is as relevant as flipping a coin. It really doesn't matter why I choose option A over option B or vice versa.

If this is all you can choose, you might just as well flip a coin. The "human factor" is reduced to a simple yes/no, black/white, Pepsi/Coca-Cola question. If your options are that limited, you are not really freely choosing anything, but merely acting as a "flipped coin".

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
This "choice" I'd say is as relevant as flipping a coin. It really doesn't matter why I choose option A over option B or vice versa.

If this is all you can choose, you might just as well flip a coin. The "human factor" is reduced to a simple yes/no, black/white, Pepsi/Coca-Cola question. If your options are that limited, you are not really freely choosing anything, but merely acting as a "flipped coin".

What a safe, quiet life you must lead. Never having to make hard choices or worry about your moral structure being impinged on. Some of us don't get that luxury; I've personally had to stop three different assaults -- one a sexual battery -- because their were not cops around and it was my responsibility. I had my gun. I never had to use it because the other guy realized I was fully prepared to use it in the defense of the victim.

Your "shades of gray" argument is the usual crap people use because they don't want to take responsibility for themselves and are too timid to step up when needed by others. The safe, comfortable vision of yourself as "civilized man" wouldn't survive contact with the real world. There are shades of gray, sure -- but the instant that you allow yourself to be paralysed into inaction at a critical moment by indecision because you're too busy looking at "all the elements of the picture" -- or are just plain scared to take the responsibility -- someone might die or be tragically injured.

This makes you, to my mind, a coward.

Before anyone wants to jump all over me for an ad hominem argument, don't get in a twist over the label; it's actually not meant as an attack. You are in good company -- there are many honourable men that were afraid to take action, as well. It's a normal survival trait to avoid conflict or danger. I have friends who think the same way you do; doesn't make them any less decent people, or that I like them any less. But you know they won't be there when you need them.

(I'm surprised the thread hasn't been closed down. People are actually discussing things without the nerf padding.)

[Ezri's Toy]

Originally posted by qerlin


[snip]

Your "shades of gray" argument is the usual crap people use because they don't want to take responsibility for themselves and are too timid to step up when needed by others. The safe, comfortable vision of yourself as "civilized man" wouldn't survive contact with the real world. There are shades of gray, sure -- but the instant that you allow yourself to be paralysed into inaction at a critical moment by indecision because you're too busy looking at "all the elements of the picture" -- or are just plain scared to take the responsibility -- someone might die or be tragically injured.

This makes you, to my mind, a coward.

Before anyone wants to jump all over me for an ad hominem argument, don't get in a twist over the label; it's actually not meant as an attack.

[snip]

OK, we'll take you at your word that its not a personal attack since, to me anyway, you've always been an objective debater.

However, I will call you out on an incorrect definition:

Oxford English Dictionary

coward n. a person who lacks courage

courage n. the ability to control fear when faced with danger or pain.

Being indecisive does not make one a coward by any stretch of the imagination, whether it is a personal definition or a factual one.

[C5]

Mmmh... word choices. There are different reasons for a person not to act during a stressful situation, not all of them being cowardice.
For instance,some people are known to freeze during stressful situations (the "panic syndrome"). Are they cowards ?
And for a more personal example, I know that if I see half a dozen guys armed with baseball bats beating another one, I'll probably walk away (and call the police once there's a safe distance between me and them). Why ? Because I'm 1.75 meter tall (must be something like 5 feets and lots of inches), I'm not armed (let's not go into the debate about being allowed to carry a weapon please), and I have only an orange belt in karate. I know I'll probably end as another victim if I intervene. Does this make me a coward (if by coward you regroup every people that does not act to help others whenb they could, then it's okay - we just don't have the same definition of the word) ?

[Joe Dizzy]

Originally posted by Ezri's Toy
Being indecisive does not make one a coward by any stretch of the imagination, whether it is a personal definition or a factual one.

And not only that, but I have quite clearly stated that I would make "a choice" if necessary. There was no "shades of grey" argument given by me. The concept of me advocating "shades of grey" is hillarious in itself.

Qerlin, I suggest, you start reading what others actually post instead of just pulling strawmen out of your derriere to attack other posters.

"Not meant as an attack", my ass.

Joe "There's a reason why *you people* are on my ignore list" Dizzy

[Sarge]

Joe, I don't generally consider my options when making decisions to be limited by anything but my imagination. I'll always look for a solution that's good for everybody. But if I ever do have to make the really hard choice, I'm going to use all the knowledge and life experience I have to make the right choice. The results of my decisions ought to be much better than the results of flipping a coin.

Hope that was a little clearer.

[qerlin]

Originally posted by Joe Dizzy
Qerlin, I suggest, you start reading what others actually post instead of just pulling strawmen out of your derriere to attack other posters.

If I didn't, I'd get constipated and get grumpy...

[AslanC]

How can one knowingly risk thir life and not accept that they may die? That is the point of risking your life.

Fireman and paramedics and recue workers do it every day.

They don't attack, or agress, they simply make the choice to risk their lives to save thelivesof others.

To me these men and women are the heroes. Not the soldiers who follow orders or the politicians who establish policy.

The man or woman who getsup every day and goes to a job that they are not well paid for and could die trying to save the lives of others are the ones with courage.

Now I am not sayingsoldiers (or even politicians) are without courage. Hell my uncle was one of the first men on Juno beach.

War is something I abhor, but when the agressor comes to you, then you must and should defend yourself and those under your protection or those you can protect.

Taking the war to someone else, that is a different matter.

As John Sheridan's dad said to him "Never start a fight, but always finish it:.

As C5 (and others) have pointed out, there are no clear lines here. The world is one of shades of grey.

I was a bouncer for 10 years. I risked my life more than once. Sometimes knowingly other times unknowingly.

Nothing gives you a gut check more than standing in the middle of a fire fight. You are left with very few options, and the first one is usually RUN. That is the animal reaction. That is wy mamals have dominated the world instead of lizards. Fight or flight reactions.

I didn't run, but only because my co-worker had been hit by a stray bullet and was in danger of being trampled by the crowd of "Club Monkies" that were charging back into the bar.

Had he not been hurt would I have reacted differently? I don't know. I would like to think I would have remained calm, but the reality is that my co-worker's plight galvanized my nereves and allowed me a calm that enable drag him into the bar and out of the way of the crowd.

I tell you what though, 2 hours later in the hospital parking lot I brokedown.

Well can all sit safely infront of our computers and pontificate the merits of war, courage, patriotisim and a thousand other ideals, but only when the troublecomesto you will you learn what kind of person you really are inside. Pray that you like who you are in that moment.

Oh and Qerlin, with the upcoming Wicker Man remake maybe you can sell those strawmen on Ebay

And lastly in regards to the original quote that started this... I counter-quote...

"John Stuart Mills of his own free will drank half apint of shandy, was particularly ill."