Are people more cowardly now?

UCDVet

newmug wrote: »

You've just answered your own question there. You disagree with Irish Water, but what are the chances you'll go on thirst strike to prove your point?


Nil.


Bravery never makes common sense. That's the point. Sometimes it takes balls of granite, and a lifetime of suffering, or indeed death, to achieve what's right. And those who come after you are the ones who'll benefit, not you.


We are now benefitting from what Michael Collins, Devalera, every soldier who fought the Nazi's, every aid worker, every volunteer against the spread of disease, every teacher who taught in spite of their own hardships, every scientist who struggled on despite not having the funding or support to carry out their work, every campaigner for rights (yes, even those who turned up to rally against abortion, Irish Water, cuts to home help etc.), every anonymous mother who does her best to raise her children in impossible circumstances, we are benefitting from what all these people have done. And most people just don't appreciate it.


IMO its just down to selfishness, "Why should I try to change anything, I'm alright jack"! But in reality, selfishness is the worst kind of cowardice of them all.

The chances are zero because it's a ridiculous and irrational course of action to take. Advocating death over something so trivial is well.....incredibly extreme. Perhaps I should strap some bombs to myself and take out as much of the Irish Water HQ building as I can. That would SHOW EVERYONE I AM NOT A COWARD, right?

It's ridiculous though. Irish Water exists for a reason and if people don't want it to exist there are non violent courses of action that don't involve death. Why are you so quick to advocate a lifetime of suffering or death, when a few years of political activism can achieve the same? Why not advocate civil disobedience?

And what happens when someone else thinks (like many of my coworkers think) that Irish Water is a necessary thing? Well, here I am, all ready and excited to die for my cause....and unless THEY ARE COWARDS, well, they'd better be ready TO DIE to show the world that Irish Water is necessary.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/water-charges-poll-findings-disastrous-for-government-1.2026895

33% of poll respondents said they were going to pay.
48% said they weren't going to pay.

WELL I GUESS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. Because that's really the only way non-cowards can do things!

I mean, if we sat down and talked about it, well...then we'd be selfish and unwilling to die for our cause. And if our side is losing this bloody conflict and the other side surrenders - well, they weren't willing to die.

dashcamdanny

UCDVet wrote: »

I don't think that's a fair argument to make. "We're cowards because I speculate we aren't willing to lay down our lives for a cause that doesn't exist yet"

Maybe so, but there are massive factors that separate our way of life from generation before us.
I was under the impression that you were comparing our thought process and rationale against theirs.
The fact that we have not experienced the hardships of those living just 70 years ago does not mean you can deal with them any better. In fact, we have a lot more to lose if for ever reason the worst did happen.

We cant seem to get by with a electrical power cut in this day and age, let alone bombs being dropped on us from above..

`

COYVB

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Maybe so, but there are massive factors that separate our way of life from generation before us.
I was under the impression that you were comparing our thought process and rationale against theirs.
The fact that we have not experienced the hardships of those living just 70 years ago does not mean you can deal with them any better. In fact, we have a lot more to lose if for ever reason the worst did happen.

We cant seem to get by with a electrical power cut in this day and age, let alone bombs being dropped on us from above..

`

Wars are good for society. They thin out the population, and reduce the numbers of the least educated/employable/law-abiding, traditionally, and give a decent opportunity for rebuilding, both figuratively and literally. The west hasn't had one for a while now, so none of that has had a chance to happen. TBH they seem to be our own ways of self regulation

efb

Had a run in with a dickhead parking his massive 4x4 people carried on the footpath on my road , advises him he couldn't park there, the moron couldn't understand why, so I explained people in wheelchairs couldn't pass. When he suggested they go out onto the road I asked him if he was being serious!!! Seriously this fast selfish little man boiled my piss!

Atomicchilli

Yea I think most people are quite cowardly these days. If you ask the a man at random if he has ever approached a woman sober he 'll say no. It's pathetic.

UCDVet

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Maybe so, but there are massive factors that separate our way of life from generation before us.
I was under the impression that you were comparing our thought process and rationale against theirs.
The fact that we have not experienced the hardships of those living just 70 years ago does not mean you can deal with them any better. In fact, we have a lot more to lose if for ever reason the worst did happen.

We cant seem to get by with a electrical power cut in this day and age, let alone bombs being dropped on us from above..

`

My point was that we don't have a reason to lay down our lives for some cause. So, of course, we don't do it. That's rational, not cowardice. I'm all for a violent upheaval of the government, or defending against an invading army....but these are things that we should TRY TO AVOID.

Our government isn't perfect, not by a long shot, but I don't see how an armed uprising is going to improve it. We're not at a point where that seems reasonable to me.

Also, my history isn't so good, but didn't we have bombs dropped on us during WW2. And as a country, we didn't do anything about it. I'm not sure that suggests we're more cowardly now.

newmug

UCDVet wrote: »

The chances are zero because it's a ridiculous and irrational course of action to take. Advocating death over something so trivial is well.....incredibly extreme. Perhaps I should strap some bombs to myself and take out as much of the Irish Water HQ building as I can. That would SHOW EVERYONE I AM NOT A COWARD, right?

It's ridiculous though. Irish Water exists for a reason and if people don't want it to exist there are non violent courses of action that don't involve death. Why are you so quick to advocate a lifetime of suffering or death, when a few years of political activism can achieve the same? Why not advocate civil disobedience?

And what happens when someone else thinks (like many of my coworkers think) that Irish Water is a necessary thing? Well, here I am, all ready and excited to die for my cause....and unless THEY ARE COWARDS, well, they'd better be ready TO DIE to show the world that Irish Water is necessary.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/water-charges-poll-findings-disastrous-for-government-1.2026895

33% of poll respondents said they were going to pay.
48% said they weren't going to pay.

WELL I GUESS A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. Because that's really the only way non-cowards can do things!

I mean, if we sat down and talked about it, well...then we'd be selfish and unwilling to die for our cause. And if our side is losing this bloody conflict and the other side surrenders - well, they weren't willing to die.

Relax there buddy! Way to miss the point of a post! Yes bravery is irrational, but I listed a whole pile of non-violent ways of being brave, and stated at the end that IMO, selfishness was the worst kind of cowardliness. Therefore, to be selfLESS, is the key to bravery. Nothing to do with blowing yourself up.

UCDVet

newmug wrote: »

Relax there buddy! Way to miss the point of a post! Yes bravery is irrational, but I listed a whole pile of non-violent ways of being brave, and stated at the end that IMO, selfishness was the worst kind of cowardliness. Therefore, to be selfLESS, is the key to bravery. Nothing to do with blowing yourself up.

Sorry - I guess I misunderstood. I was saying that it didn't make sense to go and lay down your life for some trivial cause and then you started talking about thirst strikes over Irish Water and pointed out that 'Bravery never makes common sense'.

You also said "selfishness is the worst kind of cowardice of them all". I honestly don't understand that.

selfishness
the quality or state of being selfish; lack of consideration for other people.

cowardice
lack of bravery.

Someone can be a coward without being selfish. Someone can be selfish without being a coward. Someone can be both of these things and someone can be neither of them. I don't see how selfishness is ANY kind of cowardice, much less the worst.

My apologies for getting confused. I guess we agree then, if we both feel that death should be the last option explored and that all of the other non-violent alternatives are 'brave'.

rubadub

Clermont1098 wrote: »

do we run away from fights and trouble?

coward
ˈkaʊəd/Submit
noun

1.
literary
excessively afraid of danger or pain.

Seems the OP has changed the definition to be "sensibly afraid of danger or pain".

"Brave" seems to have changed over the years too, in the media it seems to be used mostly to describe sick children.

Clermont1098

Cowardly
Adjective
Lacking courage

OED

My dictionary is bigger than yours. Anyway it hasn't stopped ppl for four pages making posts.

Venus In Furs

Clermont1098 wrote: »

do we run away from fights and trouble?

Well it's not like it's cowardly to run away from "fights and trouble", sometimes it's sensible. To me, cowardice is not admitting to your faults, sneaking away weasel-like to let someone else take the flak for your own doing, etc.
Don't know that that's more prevalent now than it ever was. I do see people saying on this thread "Yes, 'we' are more cowardly now" in a very condescending manner putting other people down though.

Is it all about being a cool hipster?

What the bejesus? What's this thing of people referring to anything at all that they disagree with, as "hipster"? Even to the point of completely distorting the meaning.