The Glade 4.0

The assumption that there is some virtue or value to "normalcy" is rather repugnant to me. There are only
a few things you could say about someone more damning than "they were normal."

The assumption that there is some virtue or value to "normalcy" is rather repugnant to me. There are only a few things you could say about someone more damning than "they were normal."

I think you are forgetting something in this formula: the values of the person in question.

Cowardice is not about whether fear influences your actions. It is about whether you allow fear to override rational thinking, or to compromise your values.

If you fail to act to save children when you think you should, because you are afraid, then that is cowardice.

If you think about your fear, and in the end, value your own life more than the life of some random child you do not know, you are not being a coward. It is not cowardly to do the smart thing to get the results that you find most favorable. Fear is merely an indicator of danger. Heeding fear to run for your life from a wild animal is not cowardice -- standing there and facing it is stupid. It's only when the animal threatens something you value more than your life, and fear stops you from reacting properly, that you're being a coward.

Most of the time, acting on fear is just being intelligent.

Any act or lack of action that is based on fear is, by definition, a cowardly act. If someone fails to protect a child in need out of fear of physical or financial harm, they are a coward by definition. Now, I have granted special consideration to people who just cannot hope to succeed in protecting such a child, as logic may dictate their action rather than fear.

A coward is: a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

Now, as I said previously:

And again, I think you missed the point. Let's approach it from a different angle:

You don't even need to feel fear to "fail to protect a child" because of risk of physical or financial harm. You might not even be feeling fear at all. It may be completely rational. You may simply value your own physical and financial well-being more than you value that of some random kid you do not know. Mentally balancing risk vs. reward is not fear.

Note that the above may not even be selfish. Maybe you value the idea of not orphaning or bankrupting your own children (or widowing your wife) more than you value the life of someone else's child. You wouldn't hesitate to risk physical or financial harm for one of your own.

Taly,

I do not recall ever feeling an emotional-based fear until I had children. Being completely rational yet concerned for yourself over others is still cowardly.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

Let's see how this conversation started shall we?

Arathain: Save the childrens because they are valuable!

Hopwin: You can't make a blanket statement like that. Here are examples of children who not only weren't valuable but were net detractors.

DE: Hilter and Dahmer are strawman arguments!

Hopwin: Here is a common example that I think everyone can relate to (me)

DE: They are vaulable because society needs them to continue existing!

Hopwin: Existing does not add value

DE: Changes argument *existence of society in and of itself does not constitute value* Calls Hopwin ridiculous

Hopwin: Accuses DE of being annoyed for getting caught in a bald assertion

DE: Changes argument to philosophical, "What is value really?" People are now valuable because "people around them" say they are valuable or because we don't take their lives as punishment for crime. Calls Hopwin internet hipster. Starts arguing about societal penalities for intervening.

Hopwin: Posts picture of moving goalposts

DE: Tells Hopwin he met a "quota" that apparently has been set in prior conversations that Hopwin is unaware of.

Facism is not a school of thought, it is a racial slur.

Did I get No True Scottsmanned as a sociopath?

Yes, I believe you did. Congratulations, Hopwin. You're now the Glade's most likely to commit serial rape and cannibalism.

This is so incredibly far off the mark that you no longer merit response.. anywhere.

Yes, I believe you did. Congratulations, Hopwin. You're now the Glade's most likely to commit serial rape and cannibalism.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

Right here.



If you like, you can have Gay Nazis for Christ instead.

In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin

Right here.



If you like, you can have Gay Nazis for Christ instead.

Mosaic law indicates that God thought precisely that. (what it says in the original image)

Me: technically, even men were only forbidden from **** missionary position.
Diamondeye: depending on how you read it, yes
Diamondeye: I presume jewish couples did not only **** missionary
Me: yes, but other positions are not necessarily lying down.
Me: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Me: doing him bent over the back of a chair is perfectly acceptable.
Diamondeye: if you're exceedingly legalistic
Me: welcome to judaism.
Diamondeye: then again, judaism is noted for its legalism

Not necessarily.

Odds of success factor into it. There may be a 1 in 1,000,000 chance I could save a child falling out of an airplane by jumping after it (sans parachute) and using my body to cushion their fall. Is it cowardly to fail to take a low-percentage choice? I don't know if I would to it for my own child, given the other people I still have to protect.


Would I step in front of a bullet for my child? Probably. That has a slightly higher odds of success, and isn't necessarily fatal.

Would I do it for someone elses child? Probably not, given that it might mean that I wouldn't be there for my own children.

A risk/benefit analysis does not automatically mean a cowardly choice.

So your definition of cowardice, then, has nothing to do with fear at all, but is instead about valuing your own life above that of random strangers.

If this is the case, quite frankly, you are a pompous idiot, and a liar/hypocrite as well. **** off.

Arathain, I think you have no idea what cowardice really is; in fact, your definitions disallow bravery and privilege fearlessness. I suggest a healthy dose of Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adams, as you certainly need to learn the lessons Hal Jordan and Ollie Queen have to teach.