Lusatian wrote:Once again you attempt to desguise your initial resistance to the notion that an American soldier may actually be a hero. Only this time you revert to criticizing my "debate skills" and picking at semantics.
Lusatian, "debate skills" is not like fencing or something. When I illustrate your use of logiocal fallacy it is a reference to elements that are crucial to critical thinking and is not mere nit-picking about style.
Quote:Well, I guess my debating skills aren't up to par with the official London Debate Association rules and regulations. Craven, your rants of straw men attacks and ad hominem statements is not going to make you look any smarter, to me at least.
That is not the intent. The intent is to illustrate the deficiencies in the cognition through which you make your points here. Through elimination of such deficiencies your critical thinking is improved and the level at which we discuss things raised.
Quote:I already think you are smart so such posturing is redundant.
Again, it's not about posturing (though it certainly can be part of a posture) but about the rigour of critical thought. Logical fallacies are not mere items of style. They represent logical deficiencies in arguments.
Quote:Craven de Kere wrote:By that definition the 9/11 hijackers are all heroes.
Yes, they are. Read the post where I address that to Kickycan.
Yeah, I saw that. That if anything should be an indication of how differently we treat heroism.
Quote:Craven, last two things. First, you know as well as I do that I never considered Jessica Lynch a "hero".
I never said you did. I said we had the "hero" discussion when discussing her and that in that episode you were angry at my "cynical" rejection of what you consider to be heroic.
Quote:For you to attempt to indicate this about me...
Note: I didn't.
Quote:... even after all the other swipes, in the attempt to make me appear a sentimentalist is small and disappointing that you are lying about something that was express between us.
You've re-written the meaning of "lying" to include: "not lying but having the other person imagine that a lie was uttered".
Quote:Secondly, why do you pretend that I don't know you?
That would be because you don't.
Quote:I've known just about every action you've commited throughout your life, and most of the thoughts and feelings you've had towards things.
This is simply not true. Lusatian you have not been within 1,000 miles of me for the majority of my life.
Quote:You would not leave fame and fortune to join the Army.
Neither would I leave certain levels of poverty to do so, but that was not the question.
But you are practicing revisionism.
You asked:
Quote:Would we walk away from millions of dollars to do what we felt is right?
You did not ask whether we'd
join the army. I would accept onion rings over the army and it need not be millions of dollars.
Lusatian you are being careless in debate. Your question was about leaving millions to dow aht is right, not about joining the Army (which as you damn well know has nothing to do with "right" by my estimation).
Quote:Now you will say "of course not join the Army, but I may if I was doing what I thought was right."
Indeed.
Quote:And that my friend is exactly the point I made with my mocking your wavering comment on the "subjectivism of right".
Huh? You have to have a point to point to it Lusatian. So what is this nebulous point?
Quote:In other words, Craven. If you can't respect leaving millions (which, you wouldn't) to do what YOU, Craven thought was right, based on "oh, well, you see, it is a subjective matter of what is right". Then you are anchorless because what YOU Craven think is right apparently is "subjective, yes, could be this, could be that, you know, you see ...".
You are making preciosu little sense.
Let me spell it out for you.
I would think it noble to leave millions to do what
I think is right. I would not necessarily think it noble to leave millions for what
you think is right.
This si where subjectivity comes into question. What is right is subjective and we differ on it. This is why we will have different value judgements on what is and is not heroic.
1) I do not think anyone sacrificing for what they believe is noble.
2) Many people sacrifice for what I consider to be an ignoble cause.
While their dedication is admirable it's not something I feel compelled to consider heroic.