The Glade 4.0

There isn't really any other possibility. You've contradicted your definition. Fear is an emotion. It's not rational. It may be quite accurate, but there's no logic involved in a decision based on fear. It's nature's "Fight or flight" instinct. Fear is a conditioned evolutionary response. We can learn to ignore it. This is a dangerous thing to do, as fear serves a purpose, but fear is irrational and not always appropriate, and can prevent us from doing things we truly need to do to accomplish our goals.

As soon as you remove the emotion of fear from the equation, as soon as you use logic and rationality, then you're doing risk-benefit analyses and making value judgements. Ultimately, if you risk your life for a random stranger, you've decided either (A) the risk is sufficiently low that it is worth doing, and/or (B) you value this stranger's life more than your own. Conversely, if you decide not to risk your life for a random stranger, you've decided that both (C) the risk is too great AND (D) you value your own life more than the random stranger's. (You can insert money, reputation, freedom, in place of life. None of it matters. Every single one of us values our own standard of life more than we value the lives of starving children in Africa, or else they wouldn't be starving and the west would be a whole lot poorer. It's all the same ****.)

The problem with (B) is this decision is almost always hypocritical. People spend the majority of their lives working for themselves, for their own families, their own well being. We don't dedicate our entire lives to making the world a better place for others we don't know. So barring depression/suicidal tendencies, it's not generally true. (D) on the other hand is where practically everyone lies. That leaves us with (A) or (C) being the primary factor in such a decision making process. And (A) vs. (C) is solely a matter of logic. Do you think the odds are very much in your favor here that you can make a difference, to the point that the possibility of failure is not worth considering? Logically, you should rarely take any gamble or risk where failure is not an option you can accept. Can you live with the results if you take no action? How do the possible outcomes stack up against each other? Let's take the two worst case scenarios: Would you rather do nothing, and have the stranger die? or attempt to intervene, die yourself, and the stranger dies anyway? Or...what about partial success? What if you die, but the stranger survives because of you? How does that outcome stack up against if you just stayed out of it? What are the odds the stranger will live anyway if you just stay out of it? What are your odds of success to the point that you both survive? These all have to be weighed against each other, in a few brief seconds, if even that, and your decision is made.

Now, considering you have essentially changed your position to admit that and it is also not based on fear (because fear is a visceral emotion, and has nothing to do with rationality or logic), and now you say this is NOT a value judgement, then, that you aren't talking about (B) vs. (D), that can only mean you are talking about the weighting between (A) and (C). And since (A) and (C) should have a fixed result based on the data that goes into making that decision, then you are basically equating courage with stupidity and cowardice with intelligence. In which case, I'll happily choose to be a coward.



Oh you certainly did. Your machismo and holier-than-thou false moral superiority touches a whole lot of nerves. Mostly the ones invoking revulsion and disgust.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Fear is not something that is a binary present-or-absent factor in a situation. A decision made entirely on fear is irrational, and one made entirely in the abstract is rational, but it is possible for fear to still be a factor in a decision, while being "under control"; i.e. it affects the decision without overwhelming everything else.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is not true, but it gets back to nitpicking definitions, which holds no interest for me.



Wrong.



Hey, I'm fine with it. As I said before, you can rationalize any decision however you like - whatever helps you sleep at night. What disgusts you is obviously not what disgusts me.

Obviously, my moral code is superior to yours, or I wouldn't follow it. I'm fine with feeling morally superior to pieces of **** who stand by and let a child be beaten when they have the ability to do something about it. YMMV

The why is an easy explanation. The day-to-day dealing with the consequences would be more difficult, obviously. My wife would understand, of course - she knows who she married. My kids would understand - whether they agreed or not would be up to them, ultimately. Similar to all moral issues - it is for them to develop their own priorities and "moral code".

That's great, then, for you. You will note I didn't say you are wrong to the make the chocie you would make. I don't see, however, where you get off claiming anyone else is a coward for assessing things differently.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Same way you form opinions of anyone else that doesn't live up to your expectations. People spend a great deal of energy judging others, DE, you know that. Some of it's codified, some is not, but that's the way it works.

So, it's merely your personal opinion that other people are cowards if they don't make the same choices as you in such matters?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, like I said, "coward" has a definition. Nevertheless, how that gets applied isn't black and white, though my judgment on the matter has quite a bit of leeway.

Ok, so people may or may not be cowards in your personal opinion if they wouldn't take the same action as you? It sounds to me like you are trying to call people cowards without actually saying that you are calling people cowards. It rather implies that you are calling some unspecified people here cowards, or at least implying that they might be cowards. Is that the case?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This reminds me of the Milgram experiment. Arathain is so 100% sure how he'd behave in a given situation... but humans aren't nearly as good or decent as they think they are.

Until you're in that situation, you don't know how you'd react.

It sounds like Arathain has been in enough stressful situations to have a good idea of how he'd react. I think the problem lies in his expectations for everyone else.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I think the problem lies in internet trolling, really.

How many children has Arathain adopted?
How many foster children does he have?
How often does he volunteer to do gang outreach?
What portion of his money does he give to youth abuse shelters?
Has he ever publicly demonstrated on behalf of abused youth organizations?



If the answer to literally even one of those items is even a partial negative, he is, by his definitions as used in this thread, "a coward" "piece of ****" who is a "waste of space."

Since I assume that at LEAST one of those items is a partial negative, the only logical inference is that he's a blatant troll.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Here's my original statement:



So no - it's not black and white, and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I just don't see how I could think otherwise in the latter scenario.

As for people here, if actions follow words, then I would think that. The situation has not arisen, though. I have said that I do not believe that some folks would act the way they say they would act. Here's hoping those folks are not presented with the issue.

Of course, and I allude to that uncertainty in one of my previous statements.

I have been in several situations loosely resembling this and several where my life was in serious danger, and so I at least have some expectation as to how I would react. Nothing recent, so perhaps things have changed.

I'm not sure you can actually troll a thread titled "what would you do in this situation" but, whatever you want to think is your business.



Actually, I have suggested both to my wife, but it has not gone beyond that. On a personal note, while I donate and volunteer with fundraising for children's organizations from a distance, I have a fear that if I were to become involved, I would not be able to do so rationally. There is nothing more horrifying than the thought of deciding to adopt one child, and then going into an orphanage and "picking one out", and leaving the rest behind. I know it doesn't work that way exactly, but I'm not convinced I could get too closely involved with this sort of thing without potentially doing myself or my family serious harm.



I've done some, but mostly spend my resources on sick kids, not here.



No youth abuse shelter has ever presented itself.



Again, hasn't come up.



Um, no. YMMV. I'd be interested to see your logic behind such a statement.



Um, no. YMMV.

DFK,

While you are complaining about trolling, no less, I hope you understand the difference between not helping some child you don't know exists that needs help and a child in front of you getting beaten.

Trolling, indeed.

I don't understand how you can say you "wouldn't judge" people for not intervening, but also say if it were for fear of punishment the person is a bloody coward. Why is punishment special?

Also, the fact that you say you would have a hard time adopting a kid on the bssis of not helping others makes me wonder if you have difficulties approaching problems involving children rationally.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't get the rationale.

I'm the bus driver, If I step in to help a single kid that's getting beaten up by three other kids that are in better physical shape than me, I could get severely injured, or even killed.

If I get severely injured, or killed, the income from my job as a bus driver is no longer going to support *my* children, wife, etc.

Therefore, not intervening is the right thing to do.

"Yeah, I sure helped that kid" is not going to pay the rent or put food on the plates of me and mine if I lose my job because of injury or even have a judgment placed against me by a court in a civil trial.

Altruism is dead. The courts killed it.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Actions of the courts have nothing to do with whether a 15 year old can kick your ***.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Because it seems you're just engaging in internet puffery.

I certainly understand the difference. I also understand that any reason you have for not doing any one of those things can ultimately be traced back to fear, which according to you makes you a coward. Which also according to you makes you a sack of **** and a waste of space.

As long as you're cool holding up the mirror, I'm cool with your opinion. Otherwise I'll probably continue to argue against what I perceive to be a bunch of (figurative, since it's written text not oration) hot air.

In fact, in your response, you have effectively admitted you're (by your standard) a coward:



See the bolded portion. You've expressed cowardace as essentially equating to fear, and cowardice regarding children as making someone a waste of space and a sack of ****.

That's all my point is, really.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

It's really amazing to me that AK's position is generating so much pushback. "Choosing not to help a kid who is getting severely beaten right in front of you because you're afraid of getting sued or losing your job would be a selfish and cowardly decision" doesn't strike me as a particularly high standard or uncommon sentiment.

I wouldn't have nearly the grumble with it if it weren't for the idea that it's somehow wrong, and that people who make that decision are "pieces of ****" and "wastes of space." I also don't find it that selfish or cowardly.

It's pragmatic.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

If someone determines that they do not have the ability to help, and they'll only add to the victim list, I feel I can't second-guess that. But, if they have the ability to help and choose not to, it's a different story.

Yes, I have a soft spot for children, but I don't see how that's relevant.

I've said as much. I would intervene anyway, but would not hold others to that standard. It's the folks worried about later punishment and hardship that I have issue with.



This is not true, and hiding behind unjust courts is not an adequate excuse. How many times on this board have we heard about how unjust laws should be ignored, etc etc.?

It's really just a case of "I cannot believe what I am hearing." Seriously. The positions here are honestly unfathomable to me. I would be shocked (maybe less so now) if I saw any adult, fit male standing by. I mean, I hear about women confronting terrorists that just beheaded a guy on the street, women tackling a guy on a mass shooting spree, men and children doing the same, and I'm somehow engaging in puffery to expect men to step in and prevent the severe beating of a child in front of them? I honestly don't understand this.



I'm still not following your logic. Am I supposed to save every child on the planet or I am somehow a sack of ****? Have I suggested that standard to anyone? This is a nonsensical argument. Not everyone is cut out to perform every job. I am not cut out for working with sick children in a hospital. I'll support it, but I would not be good at it at all. In order to survive working with sick people, you need to be able to detach yourself somewhat to survive. I would be terrible. Not everyone is cut out for stepping into a fight to protect a child, either - I recognize this. At a minimum, you need a sack, which clearly not everyone has.



Of course.



Without a doubt there is that fear, though I'm somewhat confused how you make the connection to me being a sack of **** for only supporting from a distance. Seems somewhat of a leap there.

Indeed, there is a fear there, and I manage this as best I can. I still get the work done, just in a way that I recognize everyone's strengths and weaknesses. I certainly don't bury my head in the sand and pretend there are no sick children - I believe that would be the cowardly act. So no, I'm not sure I agree with you.