It saves us the burden of killing you...
Why dying for your beliefs is noble.
- Thread starter NietzscheHimself
- Start date
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Life isn't worth living if you have nothing to die for.
Living against your beliefs is worse.
This is one of the most meaningless statements.... Actually, probably the opposite is true, your life is great if you have no reason to die for....
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
There's a difference between having no reason to die for freedom and having no reason to die for freedom in any circumstances...
Sounds very familar to a qoute by MLK Jr. " A Man not willing to die for somthing is not fit to live"
Well it's certainly great to you, who values your own life above everything else, but to the rest of us your just another man among billions. Ideas transcend people and will have a greater impact than your life ever will.
Reminds me of a quote by Patton:
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his.”
― George S. Patton Jr.
Presumably people risk their lives for non-belligerent ideals, for everything from exploration - from Amelia Earhart to the crews of Challenger and Columbia - to something as adventurous as tobogganing (as in the Olympic mishap).
These folks are so driven by a principle that they simply sign up for the risk, believing in themselves and/or in their support network.
But more often we think of this principle, especially the way you phrased it, in terms of belligerence. This could be the mantra of a mountain militia, the KKK, or several churches I can think of.
It would seem to apply to the Native Americans who attempted to defend their way of life from marauding invaders, or to the Columbian FARC, the Tamil Tigers, the civilians who recently liberated Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. It certainly applies to Syrian today.
It applied to the American and French revolutions and seems to have been echoed throughout history by legendary figures like Joan of Arc or Alexander and the forces they mustered.
Then there are the infamous uprisings and all of the Cold War dominoes: the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, the Cubans, North Koreans, Czechs, North Vietnamese, Cambodians, Burmese, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Chileans, South Africans, Argentines, Iranians, Afghans, Bosnians, Sudanse, Somalians, and so on.
All told there must be over a billion people slaughtered over this principle, and probably at least a tenth of those are children, mothers and elderly folks and innocent bystanders.
On a normal day in a normal town a normal person tends quietly to the things worth living for: someone at this moment is just watching the sun rise.
The "principle" arises when that peace is disturbed. War is the infliction of violence in the name of peace.
I'm not sure who the "we" is who's going to kill all these people if they don't comply, but your question seems best directed at societies who would execute anyone who refused to fight.
Without a doubt, the most successful way to create desperate murderers is to assure them they are going to die by the hand of some authority or opponent.
It would appear that some folks prefer to go down fighting, as in the case of a person in a submerged vehicle, pounding at the window glass in vain. Others may try to remain calm, drawing doodles or ticking off the rosary beads.
I'd be using some leverage on that window glass.
These folks are so driven by a principle that they simply sign up for the risk, believing in themselves and/or in their support network.
But more often we think of this principle, especially the way you phrased it, in terms of belligerence. This could be the mantra of a mountain militia, the KKK, or several churches I can think of.
It would seem to apply to the Native Americans who attempted to defend their way of life from marauding invaders, or to the Columbian FARC, the Tamil Tigers, the civilians who recently liberated Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. It certainly applies to Syrian today.
It applied to the American and French revolutions and seems to have been echoed throughout history by legendary figures like Joan of Arc or Alexander and the forces they mustered.
Then there are the infamous uprisings and all of the Cold War dominoes: the Bolsheviks, the Maoists, the Cubans, North Koreans, Czechs, North Vietnamese, Cambodians, Burmese, Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Chileans, South Africans, Argentines, Iranians, Afghans, Bosnians, Sudanse, Somalians, and so on.
All told there must be over a billion people slaughtered over this principle, and probably at least a tenth of those are children, mothers and elderly folks and innocent bystanders.
On a normal day in a normal town a normal person tends quietly to the things worth living for: someone at this moment is just watching the sun rise.
The "principle" arises when that peace is disturbed. War is the infliction of violence in the name of peace.
I'm not sure who the "we" is who's going to kill all these people if they don't comply, but your question seems best directed at societies who would execute anyone who refused to fight.
Without a doubt, the most successful way to create desperate murderers is to assure them they are going to die by the hand of some authority or opponent.
It would appear that some folks prefer to go down fighting, as in the case of a person in a submerged vehicle, pounding at the window glass in vain. Others may try to remain calm, drawing doodles or ticking off the rosary beads.
I'd be using some leverage on that window glass.
Question. Who or whom are these "Us" you boxing yourself in with? Religious Fundementalist? Radical Extremist? Your Neighbor? or are you just using the collective form to validate your cause whatever that might be?:shrug:
Last edited:
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Hypothetical scenario: Ok fine, we all get to live by our own beliefs. you want to lie cheat and steal. I dont want to be to lied to, cheated, or stolen from ever.
Just because we get to live by our own beliefs does not inherently mean we then get to lie, cheat, and steal as we please. The appeal for the separation of church and state is not an appeal for anarchy.
Perhaps I don't want to look at the obscene image of a naked man dead on a cross while I'm at court for a traffic violation. Perhaps my partner and I don't want to have less rights as a couple because your 2,000-year-old book written by desert nomads condemns gay sex (male gay sex, that is; at press time, it had apparently no knowledge of the Lesbian. So much for omniscience, I suppose). Perhaps I don't want my television programming censored based on the contradictory values of your faith.
I find myself to be wishy-washy on the issue, I'll piggy back on JDawg's comments about gay marriage which kind of highlight the issue. It's all really a matter of obligation. American's as a populous believe homosexuality is choice, whether they are right or wrong (last time I checked 51% to 38%). So are they obligated to accept that it isn't? Well you can't force them to believe something. The majority of American's want religion in their politics but there's a minority who don't...so is that minority obligated? Well you can't force them to believe in religion. From a political perspective; modern atheist secularism is a religion no different than a particular sect of Christianity.
In our populist society the rules basically equate to:
- You can't force anyone to believe an idea or act in a specific way. This is constitutionally protected.
- You don't have to to cater laws to be equal to all OR permit activity if it's against popular opinion.
On the latter, why should we? You have the right to go against popular opinion, no one can obstruct you. But that doesn't mean your privy to all of the benefits which are constructed to create a populist society.
So...
You're allowed to live how you believe. But you're not entitled to anything for it.
That's the American philosophy.
That's not even close to the American philosophy. I don't understand how your post "piggybacks" mine when you're essentially saying the opposite of what I'm saying.
If the philosophy of America was simply to appeal to the majority, then there's a strong likelihood the slaves never would have been freed. And even if that had happened by some other means, many abolitionists were for the deportation of blacks back to Africa.
The idea that homosexuals shouldn't be "catered to" by the recognition of their right to be married is one steeped in bigotry and ignorance. Gay marriage rights is not a "special privilege," it's the long-overdue recognition of homosexuals as equal citizens.
I'm seriously sick of people who don't know the first fucking thing about America trying to tell me what America's "all about." It's nauseating.