what the hell kind of thinking is this

[Steve]

Just for what it's worth, I don't like the implications that democrats are cowards and republicans are not, as well as liberals don't serve in the military and conservatives do.

My personal opinion is that people don't know how they will react in a crisis until they face a crisis requiring action. Most of us would like to think that we would react well, keep a level head and do the right thing when the time comes. Some of us has been in situations where we have had to do these very things. Others have not, and don't know. Those kids don't know, and I'm willing to bet that in a crisis, some who say they wouldn't act would be heroes without a thought. Others who say they'd rush in guns ablazin' would freeze. It's human nature.

For the most part, our kids in this country have been well sheltered. "Dangerous" in the USA isn't the same thing as elsewhere, and we are by and large a spoiled group of people. Canada and most of the European countries are little better, from what I can gather.

But to those of you who think it's cute or clever to continually associate democrats and/or liberals with cowardice, I'd invite you to take a look at all of the GOP and Democratic politicians on the hill right now and compare service records. They are comparable. There are heroes and patriots on both sides of the aisle.

I make no secret about leaning to the left, but I am a veteran and served proudly. My brothers have all served, as have both my mom and dad. Between the 6 of us, we have served our country for over 60 years. I believe I've earned a little respect, even if I am a hippy. I'm very sure my mom and dad both deserve respect, even though, by the standards on this board, they're both hippies, too. I'm sure that many other liberals deserve respect in exactly the same way.

 

[Sukerkin]

Don't be a 'nit-picker', Bill. It's not a good way to further a discussion.

I'm not going to get into an argument over that point. You know what I meant.

If that cliche truly offends your eye, try a "hero is one whose fear prompted him to run towards the enemy by mistake".

 

[Gordon Nore]

As always, Tez, reason and good sense prevail in your posts.

I would suggest that if 20 people had decided to say this there's more to this than just they don't want to defend their loved ones, I'd say that for whatever reason they wanted to go against what the group were saying. this probably indicates they didn't want to be there.

Two-hundred-fifty people in the room; twenty of them seeking attention. Sounds about right.

In the same group you might find people who profess to do this or that in an s/d situation just to sound tough.

 

[Tez3]

Thanks Gordon, much appreciated.

I have to ask too why on earth would you have 250 people in one seminar? How do you teach SD to that many? How many other instructors were there? I've never been to anyones seminar that had more than 30 people there.

C'mon people, get a grip, this isn't a political thing at all, its kids messing around and boy have they wound you lot up! Dear me they would love this!
Anyway enjoy, I'm off for 12 days by the seaside, no computers, just peace and quiet so no falling out or arguing till I'm back and can join in lol! Ta ta!

 

[Carol]

Thanks Gordon, much appreciated.

I have to ask too why on earth would you have 250 people in one seminar? How do you teach SD to that many? How many other instructors were there? I've never been to anyones seminar that had more than 30 people there.

C'mon people, get a grip, this isn't a political thing at all, its kids messing around and boy have they wound you lot up! Dear me they would love this!
Anyway enjoy, I'm off for 12 days by the seaside, no computers, just peace and quiet so no falling out or arguing till I'm back and can join in lol! Ta ta!

I'm SOOO envious! I'll have to save up all my points of controversy till you get back. Have a great vacation Tez! You've earned it

 

[Tez3]

I'm SOOO envious! I'll have to save up all my points of controversy till you get back. Have a great vacation Tez! You've earned it

cheers, wish you come come too! I'm off here
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cornwall/photos/coverack/1.shtml

it's lovely!

See you all later!

 

[AoCAdam]

I think it might be that they are so afraid of being hit or being in confrontation they don't want to put themselves in such a situation.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Don't be a 'nit-picker', Bill. It's not a good way to further a discussion.

I'm not going to get into an argument over that point. You know what I meant.

If that cliche truly offends your eye, try a "hero is one whose fear prompted him to run towards the enemy by mistake".

All I was trying to point out, gently, was that the term 'coward' is common on MT. And that is a shame. It is now a generic term for 'someone who fails to react or believe in the way I would react or believe'.

 

[dnovice]

RANT!

My teacher was doing some self-defense seminars for a local high school, which he has been doing for years. But for the first time he enocuntered a group of people who he had never met before.

Normally he tries to get people into the sruvivor mindset like this:
"Imagine a 300 pound hell's angel biker with scras and tatoos all over his face is threatening you. Who wants to rush in and fight with him?"

no one raises their hands

"now imagine that 300 pund man is pounding the person you love most in the face over and over again and then decides he's going to have his way and begins taking his pants off. Who's fighting now?"

almost everyone raises their hands...usually until this day.

Normally my teacher does this to get peole out of victim mentality and get around the fear of injury in order for them to gain the mindset that it is okay to fight back, but this time about 20 people out of 250 said that no matter what they would not jump in to fight off an attacker who was murdering their loved ones.

WHAT!?
They said they didn't want to put themselves at risk and wouldn';t want others to place themselves in danger for another's sake. It makes no sense! I gaurantee that if any of these peope where to face a life threatening situation they would pray with all their might that someone would assit them.

Have any of you met people like this? How can anyone think this way. It's so baffling!

lol. That is your average person. IMHO the first group that said they'll help were probably just lying.

People caring only for themselves used to annoy me.... well... it still does... but i've come to terms with that. chock it of to human nature.

 

[Guardian]

Oh well, what can you say. Some say 20 is what will show off, some say they are cowards, some say this or that. I say to each their own, I try never to put myself in a situation where I have to depend on anyone that I do not know for sure will have my back. I know that there are situations that arise that you can not account for every minute of the day, but even then, I try and work those situations to where I don't rely on anyone but myself if it came down to it. All that good military cop training taught me that.

So those 20 can do whatever they want, I'll do my best to take care of my own.

 

[redantstyle]

All I was trying to point out, gently, was that the term 'coward' is common on MT. And that is a shame. It is now a generic term for 'someone who fails to react or believe in the way I would react or believe'.

avoiding confrontations, or seeking a non-violent resolution to one, are admirable qualities in many situations.

and i would'nt define that as cowardice.

however, the act of not defending a loved one, if you are capable, is indeed shameful.

and cowardly.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

however, the act of not defending a loved one, if you are capable, is indeed shameful.

and cowardly.

I am not a person who could refuse to defend a loved one. I'd do it though it got me killed. But that's me. I also recognize people whose dedication to the principles of non-violence is absolute. I won't characterize their behavior as cowardly. As I pointed out earlier, Jesus Christ was Himself one of those cowards.

I think we're too quick to use that term here. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Big Don]

Besides... they're called pacifists.

Gandhi, one of the best known pacifists in history would disagree, I think.

It is better to be violent, if their is violence in our hearts than to put on the cloak of pacifism to cover impotency

 

[Big Don]

As I pointed out earlier, Jesus Christ was Himself one of those cowards.

John 2:

Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

scourge


CLICK HERE FOR A PICTURE

  [skurj] Show IPA noun, verb, scourged, scourg⋅ing. –noun 1. a whip or lash, esp. for the infliction of punishment or torture.

No, not a pacifist OR a coward.

 

[Archangel M]

Baaaaa!!...grass eaters.

Pacifism?

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach nonviolence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes.[/FONT] -Ghandi

 

[GBlues]

Hmmm....yeah....Jesus a coward hmmm....I don't think so. This actually was and still is a point of contention for me, with religious nuts since I was a kid. I was raised a Jehovah's Witness for many years of my young life growing up. I have always loved god, and martial arts. In that religion you are not permitted to study martial arts because Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Wow, but you know and I forget where exactly he also says, " there will come a time when a man need sell his coat, and buy a sword." I always wondered why that was? Maybe because one day, you will have to fight for your life? Probably, I would think so. No Jesus wasn't a coward. He was a very brave man. It takes a guy with a pretty big set of balls, to do what he did, knowing 100% for sure, your going to die, and it's going to be very, very, very painful. Not all battles are won with our fists. SOme battles are won with our minds, our beliefs, our ideals, and yes, our actions. Make no mistake, Jesus is and was a warrior.

Now that being said, and removed from my chest. Not all people feel that they are capable of helping someone else, that is being attacked. If your not, you aren't. It's that simple. Better to not get involved physically, and call for help, than to add another body count to an already bad situation. On the other hand, if you feel at that moment that you can make a difference, then go for it. I feel that most people would, jump in and try to save somebody.

As far as the 300lb hells angels biker guy coming at you, well that really isn't to scary and I'll tell you why. In my experience as long as you give them the same respect that you want shown to you, they are actually really cool guys. SOme of them even to the point that they would give you the shirt off of their back to help out a friend in need. SO, bad analogy. My opinion only. I've had nothing but positive experiences the few times I've been around them. That being said, hey each to his own. If 230 kids don't want to help out there family members in need, well it ain't no skin off of my back. I'd call it bad parenting, or lack there off, in teaching good upstanding morals. Again my opinion only.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Just a question. Was Jesus a coward?

We who are Christians are commanded to be like Jesus. I can't do it, I'm too weak. He went freely to His death, without resistance, without violence. He even cured the Centurian who was hurt when one of His disciples tried to protect Him.

Non-violence is a virtue, according to many. It requires a discipline that is beyond my ability, that's for sure. Like you, I could not stand by and watch my loved one attacked and do nothing. And perhaps many who would not offer resistance are indeed afraid for their own well-being only. Perhaps not. I don't know. I don't know if I am qualified to judge.

Well i'm agnostic myself......but last time I checked, Jesus promised to return with a host of angels to take the earth back by force against the Anti-Christ, Satan, and his followers.

Not to mention the whole running the money changers out of the temples bit.

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the Temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers money, and overthrew the tables. And said unto them that sold doves, 'Take these things hence; make not my father's house an house of merchandise.'" -John 2:15

That shows Jesus engaging in a little physical violence....

"...he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - Luke 22:36

Not exactly the words of a pacifist either.


Technically Christs behavior towards humans is viewed more in his viewing them as his flock, than a complete pacifist view, as obviously he's not philosophical opposed to the idea of force.


Again, as i've mentioned in other posts, there is a difference between someone who is refusing to fight back out of a sense of pacifism, and one who is merely a coward.......and it is the later that has sought to create a virtue out of cowardice, NOT out of pacifism per se.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Now that's a frightening thought, gentlemen :shudders:.

The only difference between a coward and a hero is that one of them refuses to be ruled by their fear.

I think tho' that Mac was closer to the mark when he mentioned over domestication as being the root of the problem. The past few generations have been smacked over the head with a constant drum-beat of "Tho' shall not fight under any circumstances. Defending yourself is not your right or your responsibility!".

Couple that with a few horror stories about what happened to people who did defend themselves and the insidious message really digs in. Such are the depths this pass can get to that you end up with that despicable circumstance in one of the 'school shootings' where people just let themselves be shot!

We've slowly been turned from wolves, to camp dogs, to herding dogs, and slowly but surely we are becoming those toy foo-foo dogs that can't even jump on the couch.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Which one would that be?

Supposedly, just about everyone can feel fear. And fear is known to be an instinct in animals - it provokes a 'fight or flight' reaction. Some humans exhibit similar traits.

So the thought occurs to me that if my fear prompts me to fight, and I do, I'm 'ruled by my fear'. Yes? Same if my fear prompts me to run away and I do that instead. So what is the difference?

Fight or Flight only applies to threats of an 'other than human' nature......such as a bear or a tiger......we fight or flee.....our brains are wired that way.

But because we are social animals, Human beings actually have FOUR responses to human-on-human aggression.........they are

Fight
Flight
Posture
Submit

The vast majority of human on human aggression is male hierarchical aggression........not intended to cause death or be predatory, but instead designed to allow a rank male to attain higher social status at the expense of a lower male.

In those situations one male postures and threatens attack......you can see this by the classic school yard chest flexing, and shirt ripping.....one guy strutting like a rooster, and making threats.......and the other male has four choices........Posture back, Submit, Flee or Fight.

Generally he'll choose to posture or submit, sometimes fight.......he may posture back, leading to a show down.......if neither male submits, one will attack........when one male decides he doesn't want to engage in physical violence anymore he will submit.


What we call 'cowardice' is actually a person who has developed the view that Submission is the answer to all their violence problems......and that might be an acceptable view IF all human-on-human violence were hierarchical in nature........but a minority of human-on-human aggression is PREDATORY! Submitting to predatory violence is often suicidal.

 

[sgtmac_46]

All I was trying to point out, gently, was that the term 'coward' is common on MT. And that is a shame. It is now a generic term for 'someone who fails to react or believe in the way I would react or believe'.

Well, lets settle this once and for all.......a COWARD is henceforth defined as someone who erroneously believes that 'Submission' will save him.

Now, if he KNOWS that submission may not save him, but he does it anyway because he believes that it is morally correct, then he's not a coward......but if he does so under the stubbornly erroneous belief that submission is the best response for not only HIM but everyone he knows, in any violent situation, then 'coward' is a good a word as any......unless you have another suggestion.


Actually, 'cowardice' is just a word that is used to described a phenomenon......even if you change the word, the phenomenon remains unchanged.