The Angry Sicilian

So every example that proves you wrong is not a classic example and therefore can be ignored?

 

Ok, let me rephrase.

Does that sound better?

 

You're still talking about in the context of the story Sleek, while I am not.

 

Well what the fuck are you talking about then? Don't keep it a secret. Explain to me how honor and duty exist as concepts in society. I'm talking about honor and duty in relation to consious decisions, and reasons for action. If you want to talk about honor, I don't think it is something someone can foster in themselves, it is only something they can see in others, and they'll only witness it based on their own moral views. Duty is also something that can only be imparted by an outside force.

 

Just like I said, fire fightes. It's not a reflex response to rush into a building and save someone. It's a consious decision, and heroism, duty, and honor are the reasons. Taking the actions of a few people who use those ideas as bullshit excuses for whatever they feel like doing are just being cowards who are too afraid of taking responsibility for their actions. It's like murdering someone adn saying your crazy because you don't want to go to jail. If half the people your alluding too actually had a shred of honor or decency in them, they wouldn't do any of the things your alluding to.

If you want to pass off everything that proves you wrong as either self-preservation, or equate it to working a fucking latee machine, fine. You'ld just be proving how much of an irrational child you are. Why don't you go into a firehouse and tell one of them that they only do their job because they'ld expect someone else to save them, or that by working at Starbucks you fulfill you're just as vital to society as they are.

 

I'm not talking about percieved traits, I'm talking about what people are motivated by. To run into a burning building for the sake of honor would be self-serving, and immature. To run into the burning building because you want to save the people inside is courageous and honorable, and sincere. The traits can exist as third party adjectives, but anyone motivated by honor and duty, doesn't really care about the person they're saving, they care about their personal image.

I think I'd be ridiculed as much for saying that as I would be for walking in and asking them about honor and duty.

Please explain the shread of decency remark, it makes no sense to me.

 

Sleek, seriously, you're being an ass.

They are still running in there to save people. That is good, selfless, courageous and honorable.
Even if the reason they are running in to save people is to look good, who cares? They're actions are the same, they are still risking life and limb to save other people when they don't have to do so at all.
Doing it for their personal image? That's a stupid assumption, they are sending themselves into harms way, and being dead or maimed is not going to help them with their image, there are many safer ways to look better than fighing fires.

 

Fuck! I'm not trying to belittle any firefighters here. I'm just saying that honor and duty are shitty reasons for doing anything. I'm not saying its not honorable to be a firefighter, and save lives, I'm saying its obnoxious, and pretentious to assume that thats why they do it!

In my opinion personal "honor and duty" are selfish, and immature reasons for doing anything. This is why I'd like to believe firefighters fight fires because they actually want to protect their community, and the people threatened by the fire, NOT because of the way the believe the community will honor them because of it.

Does that make more sense?

 

"To run into the burning building because you want to save the people inside is courageous and honorable, and sincere."

Your words, not mine.

 

Fuck! YOU MOTHERFUCKING IDIOT! I know I said that, I was trying to make a point about the context of its use! Obviously it was lost on you, and the fact that you can't see the difference between me saying it, and the hope that someone might say it about them being the firefighter's motivation is exatly why we're having this discussion.

 

ok, I understand, you're reading a different connotation to "honour and duty" you consider them to be selfish things, and doing something for them is doing something purely so that other people might like you more or something like that.
But you should recognize that you are basing this off of your conotation to these words instead of their denotation, and others are therefore going to disagree with you, and you sound like you are saying that anyone who does a good deed is in fact evil incarnate.

It really all depends on what you see the primary definition of honour to be:
(a) A nice sense of what is right, just, and true, with course of life correspondent thereto
or
(b)Fame; reputation; credit.

Most of us see it as option a, but sleek, who somehow manages to have even less faith in human nature than I do, believes it to solely mean b.

 

Yes, but I can't see how you can argue that its not vain to do something purely for the honor.

 

It is vain, and I have less faith in humans than anyone here I reckon. However, you can be aware that what you're doing is honourable, and still choose to do it, without being vain, simply because you couldn't live with yourself if you didn't.

 

No one is perfect, you can be vain and still be, completely justifiably, a hero. Having a conscious and having pride and not antonyms.

 

I'm not arguiing against that, all I'm saying is that being motivated purely by personal glory is vain.

So basically we agree.

 

But at the same time being PURELY motivated by glory isn't honorable. Maybe there is a part of the person that enjoys the spotlight and the glory, but to truly have honor, there also needs to be at least some altruistic part of it. Doing this for attention and helping people in the meantime is different than helping people, and thereby gaining attention.

 

Holy shit blinky, thanks for re-capping all the posts of mine that you were previously arguing against in that first sentence. Of course the second was slightly incomprehensible.

 

Well, speaking as a fire fighter. We have had people join thinking they were going to be "hero's", but they usually didn't last very long at it... whether it was from realising just how hard and dangerous it is or whether we "encouraged" them to find something more productive to do. Generally speaking all but all of those I've worked with do it because it's something that need's to be done whether we like it or not.... that and it's a great way to pick up chick's.... "hey baby, I'm a fire fighter.... want to see my hose?...".

 

I stand utterly corrected Nobodie. Thank you for that. And the beautiful mental images I'll now try to scrape out of my subconscious.

There's a slight difference Sleek, you make it sound like it is completely and utterly impossible for any human action to be motivated by anything other than sheer avarice or a selfish sense of self-preservation. I don't agree although I believe some may fall under that category. I also think your delusional, and reactively anti-humanitarian. I can elaborate further, but I need beer. Ta ta for 20 minutes.

 

NO! I'm just saying that its utterly dishonorable for a human action to be motivated purely by honor.