DIE brave

Is it better to die a brave man or to live as a weak one

  • Total voters
    16
Fear is the mind killer? example is a person who is unable to act due to paralizing fear, some will not act just so they wont be wrong, I should have said that unreasonable fear is the mind killer since for example if you were in fear of fighting a gorilla becouse you might lose, fear would be the life saver, lol.
 
Last edited:
TheoryOfRelativity:

Whilst you are clearly right that women are no match for men in general, the mere act of retalitory violence is enough to scare off many would be miscreants. Why? Because whilst they may be prepared to get away with it - and indeed, think they will, and have prepared to do so as you say - they are never prepared to NOT get away with it. The ego of criminals is so constructed as to give them a sense of false invincibility. This is why they think they can do what they do and never be caught. Many people not prepared for a brutal counterattack wilt before the mere image of someone attacking them. Two women biting, clawing, and pummeling with whatever they could, and trying to fling him onto the third rail, would scare the shit out of him.

That above being said, it was only a (relatively) minor thing you let go by.

And as for my experience with violence, it has been rare. I live in a safe neighbourhood in New York, filled with lesbians, WASPS, and liberal Jews, so that the majority of my violent experiences comes from when I was in school as a child. In those experiences, the few times I had to make recourse to violence I acted appropriately. One particular instance had me beat a bully until he cried to his dead father. Neither he, nor anyone else, bothered me following such. I am also a large, strong man, who few would seek to target, so thankfully I am kept free of most aggression.

Now, as to the topic of "fear as the mind killer".

What this excellent quote (from the best SciFI novel ever, by the way, "Dune" by Frank Herbert) is refering to, is the fact that fear, if it is allowed to control one, robs one of the freedom to act without restraint. It is the mind-killer in the sense that it shackles and restrains and makes one a slave to the fear. Even if fear can be used for one's safety and the safety of others, it can just as well cause a terrible blunder. The clear, undisturbed mind, is far better. A hurricane subsists only by having a stable centre.
 
Theoryofrelativity:

"James have you ever been a woman and tried fighting back against a man? Is your experience that the man turns tail and runs?"

Well I had a past life once...

But no, I have never been a woman. However, I have read, heard, and watched instances where women, by reacting with excessive and unsuspected violence, made an utter mockery out of the man who would do them harm.

"It is easy to adopt your attitude when you are as you say of yourself a big strong man. Would an 8stone woman intimidate you physically? Also with so little experience of violence you are not talking from experience are you?"

No, the woman would not freak me out. However, were I a criminal expecting an easy mark, and met with "psycho bitch from fucking hell and her twin friend Ms. Nutcase", I would definitely think twice of trying to get away with the crime I was going to commit.

But you are correct, I do not have knowledge of this type of violence first hand as you have.

"To suggest that a slight woman stands up to a violent man whi himself has no fear of other violent men is utter nonsense. Everytime I fought back I got ten times worse than what I gave out or what I would have got had I done nothing. Violence begets violence it does not prevent it. "

You were alone in this situation, were you not? But for your friend?

"I am no wimp but life has taught me what limtiations are and what results of actions are, and nothing you have said with regard to fighting back is actually correct. If you fight back against a weak minded bully you may have success, but generally violent criminals will merely become more violent the more you direct it at them. I have no recollection of a man backing off when I defended myself against him. It has never happened, they merely up the anti."

In this case, you had two people involved. Or have you been in groups and never been able to overcome your adversary?

Tell me, have you also ever studied any forms of self-defense? Because there are ways to offset some of the imbalances you face as a slight woman. The usage of common, every day items, upon your person can even the odds even more, specifically when employed to strike certain areas. Keys, pens, umbrellas, canes, bicycle chains, helmets, pencils, rings, heavy braclets, are all possible means of inflicting a good deal of harm, even enough to knock a grown man out if employed properly. The cleft of the upper lift, jammed with an object at full force, can knock even the strongest man out cold.

But then again, if you are truly as physically weak compared to most of the assailents you have met, you are correct in being wary of fighting back.

"Your experience is difrent because you are NOT a short slight female. "

You are correct there, yes.

I'm going to go look for a source I had in regards to fighting back, though, which had an expert caution women that giving in can be very dangerous.
 
perplexity said:
One thing that long and bitter experience does help to teach is an appreciation of the practical limitations to the application of moral principles, preconceptions and sundry varieties of narrow mindedness, so often passed off as a "know".
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty easy to SAY things like "Love thy neighbor", but it's damned difficult to love him when he's fuckin' your wife, beating your kids and trying to burn your house down! ....LOL!

The non-violent philosophies and the non-violent advocates of life are ONLY possible because a few violent individuals have fought hard and died to give the non-violent advocates the freedoms right to say those things ....and few of them appreciate it. In fact, it's quite the opposite ...the peace-lovers actually denigrate the very people who fought to give them the rights and the freedoms, and to protect those rights. Sad, ain't it?

Baron Max
 
Best to live brave and die like a coward!!
edit: No, wait... it was supposed to be like this: Best to live brave and die weak!!

because if you live brave, you have more fun, you get more out of life, and when you die, nothing matters (because it's just nothing), so it's pointless to be brave then.

Theoryofrelativity said:
Liberty is great too, but what liberty do you experience if you are dead?
Click to expand...

lol, death is the ultimate liberation... if it existed, that is.
 
Last edited:
Prince_James said:
A life without honour ceases to be life. Being a worm is no existence at all. If life is about living well, and the only way to live well is to die, then death is the choice most befitting.

"It is better to die on your feet then live on your knees."
Click to expand...

I assumed it would be preferable to live on your feet than die on your knees.

If you live brave, you die brave, live weak, you did weak.
 
TheoryOfRelativity:

"I know from experience I am not a match for an enraged violent man. Men are stronger than women and no man for whom violence is of no consequence, will fear a retaliation from a female. "

This is the crux of the problem: I suggest that most criminals are not of this type. Most, frankly, do not have the conviction, nor intent, to harm without consequence for the reprecussions. There are instances of this - and they are the ones you must look after - but the majority of criminals expect a passivity that makes their job easy.

But yes, I agree with you. Few women could match this type of man.

"I am not a psycho bitch but I can hold my own in sitautions I know that I can hold my own. We are talking though about you advocating that women uneccessarily (over trivial theft) take on a potentially violent male criminal with no fear of female retaliation OR male for that matter. Muggers are generally not passivists of fradie cats. Not where I come from."

You misunderstand: I am not suggesting she shall not face retaliation, only that the retaliation mayn't be as bad as she suspects. Moreover, it is precisely the sort of criminal-capitulation behaviour (as well as a general lack of armed citizenry in the Western world) which perpetuates crimes and emboldens criminal. One cannot seriously be against crime and other acts of evil and then not seek to deal with such personally when met with it.

Or in other words: Aside from the pragmatic consideration, there is a moral one. I would say that regardless of the danger to one's life, there are situations where one is -mandated- to do so, and one is morally blame-worthy not acting. That this can lead to HORRIFIC results I think is most exemplified in two historic situations, namely, the Holocaust and 9-11 (on the planes).

"No man hitting me will ever be permitted to 'get away with it' but I know as soon as I retaliate that I could be worse off for doing so. Neccessary self defence only, the first thing they teach you at self defence is if you can run DO run."

Perhaps the difference is on the focus of "self" in "self defense". I am not advocating some nonsense "self-sacrifice" as it were, but if the focus is simply on "defending oneself at all costs despite the moral considerations and the necessary character indictment" then yes, fleeing may well be a good idea. But this same sort of reasoning can lead to the criminals themselves. Pragmatic concerns, I put forth, oughtn't be considered to have a -necessary- superiority to moral ones.

"Some women will have attacked men themselves and feel powerful as the man did not retaliate, that would be because of the mans conditioning not to hit women. Had that woman attacked a man with no such conditioning it would be a very different story. An angry male v an angry female is not an even match. Testosterone see's to that. I learned this the hard way."

I agree for the most part, yes. Few women will be able to handle an enraged man. The superior bulk, higher testosterone, et cetera, will generally bring about a victory for the male, all things being equal.

"However I hope that first I would hand over the cash, for the risk to my kids is not worth my playing the hero and no amount of cash is worth my life. Life is worth more than money. Liberty is great too, but what liberty do you experience if you are dead?"

Yet through appeasing the mugger, you are simply letting him condemn perhaps dozens of others to the same fate, are you not? Moreover, you have not truly saved yourself, only given something to the mugger for him to consider victimizing you again.

Tell me, would you continually pay this dane geld to the mugger if he consistantly approached you in such vulnerable positions?

And though I do not wish to appear that I am attempting to appeal to some sort of sympathetic notion, I would ask whether or you'd feel guilt if any of these muggers and robbers went on and did something truly terrible, like participate in the gang rape which you briefly mentioned, or murdered someone? You were allowed an opportunity to deal with them, yet you did not. Would not you be, in part, guilty of their crimes in a round about way?


(Q):

"I assumed it would be preferable to live on your feet than die on your knees."

I do indeed agree with you. Life and bravery ought to be sought over death and bravery when life and bravery may be attained without a sacrifice.
 
Perplexity:

"The momentary satisfaction derived from indulging an egotistical sense of moral superiority is but that, momentary. "

Can not one seek a moral principle devoid of simply seeking an "egotistical sense of moral superiority to it"? That is to say, can not one seek it for the aesthetics of the act? Of the innate superiority of doing so? Et cetera, et cetera? Moreover, even if it is momentary, why not indulge in it? All things are momentary in this life when weighed against the greater length of life or, indeed, of eternity. If such mattered, however, nothing would be done at all, for all things are such.
 
perplexity:

"Who then decides what is innately superior?"

Technically speaking, all superiority would be innate, as we cannot speak of "declaring superiority", only "discerning superiority". But who decides? Not who, but what. Reasoning based on an evaluation of the situation. This necessitates that each individual be the judge of the situation, but the idea of "reason" implies at least an attempt at objectivity.

"The satisfaction is momentary.
The pain persists.
Perhaps you have not yet suffered enough to appreciate the reality of that."

Pain persists and is overcome. There are worse things in life than suffering. The will to suffer no longer being extinguished, for instance.

"Did you realise before that I went on about Hamlet because you remind me of him?"

Really? What an intriguing view! I do not think anyone has ever related me back to a Shakespearean figure.
 
perplexity:

"Where do you get this idea from, pain overcome?"

One can suffer and one can accept, or one can fight. When one accepts, one dies. When one fights, one transcends. Even if one should never remedy the pain fully, to strive against it makes all the difference.

Although I am loathe to cite poetry which has become somewhat of a cliche, the oft-quoted snippet from Dylan Thomas seems to summarize it best:

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

"I am really not so sure of what you mean here, what you would have in mind with "will to suffer no longer being extinguished", how that would hope to make sense."

It is the difference betwixt the wild horse and the broken one. The acceptance of one's lot.

Sorry if I used an ambigious wording.

"Suffering comes as a part of the deal.
A defeat is a defeat, no going back on it."

We suffer, yes. We lose, yes. So be it. To quote a far less prestigious source:

You win some, lose some, it's all the same to me. / The pleasure is to play, make's no difference what you say / I don't share your greed, the only card I need is / The Ace of Spades.

To extend the gambling metaphor, I have always understood why in an old episode of the Twilight Zone, a gambler's Hell was where he always won and knew it.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
How can you die brave? Be a Suicide bomber?
Click to expand...

You're a smart young fellow, so I'm betting that you could come up with several examples/scenarios if you just try real hard. HINT: "Give me liberty, or give me death!" ..........Kabooom!!!!! :)

Baron Max
 
madanthonywayne said:
In reservior dogs, Mr Pink survives because he was smart enough to hide during the Mexican standoff. I would have no problem living with myself after that. On the other hand, you see a little girl trapped on a plane that's about to explode. You know there's probably not enough time to effect a rescue and escape. Do you make the attempt anyway? Can you live with the image of the little girl you might have saved being consumed by flames? Many would rush in a such a situation. Protecting women and children is hard wired into our systems.
Click to expand...

It's funny all the things your society trains you to react to while you slowly seal yourself off from all things dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top