Is this a true Christian?

[Whateverist]

You know, according to Aristotle, "courage" is not the polar opposite of "cowardice", "brashness" is.

The Coward has too much regard for consequences - fear.

The Courageous correctly apprehends the consequences but does what must be done anyway in spite of the fear.

The Brash have too little regard for the consequences, the fear or the harm they do to others.

brash/braSH/
Adjective:
Self-assertive in a rude, noisy, or overbearing way.

Synonyms:
impudent - insolent - audacious - impertinent - cheek

[Aardverk]

Reason is behind courage. Passion is what drives most people to stand on their soapbox, the desire for someone to understand.

I absolutely agree with you - 'reason is behind courage'. Just because you personally do not agree with someone, that does not mean that they have not used 'reason'. Or would you deny the ability to 'reason' to anyone you disagree with? I will assume that you do not as that would be a form of madness.

I absolutely agree with you - 'the desire for someone to understand'. Yes, you are getting there bit by bit. If someone really wants you to understand he will go a long way to get his message over. Whilst we agree that his message was of no interest, to him it was vital! He thought he was doing good. We both disagree with him but so what? He was trying to get his message across. Good for him for having the courage to try. Don't forget that there are plenty of people who will admire both his courage AND his message. The fact that we do not like the message or his style does not negate the courage.

.....the little history lesson you gave on women, thanks, wasn't aware of it ........

No, I thought you had forgotten about those brave people. The were roundly condemned but had the courage to stand up and insult people who didn't agree with them. Their 'reasoning' was challenged at all levels of society. Despite great number of people trying to deny them their 'reason', their bravery eventually won through. Admirable, don't you think? Even though they were being 'thoroughly unpleasant'.

"Don't worry your little head about it, it's probably beyond women to understand".

That is a very, very mild example of the verbal abuse and 'reasoning' that the suffragettes had to overcome. What problems do you think the oaf in the video has to overcome? The suffragettes' actions required determination and bravery and so did the oaf's - in his view.

For the record I believe absolutely in equality and universal suffrage for everyone with an IQ over 99. My quote above was just to make you think.

---

You know, according to Aristotle, "courage" is not the polar opposite of "cowardice", "brashness" is.

The Coward has too much regard for consequences - fear.

The Courageous correctly apprehends the consequences but does what must be done anyway in spite of the fear.

The Brash have too little regard for the consequences, the fear or the harm they do to others.

brash/braSH/
Adjective:
Self-assertive in a rude, noisy, or overbearing way.

Synonyms:
impudent - insolent - audacious - impertinent - cheek

Thank you. I agree with your earlier observation that he had foreseen trouble, hence the video camera and witnesses.

Off at a tangent a bit - what is the opposite of courage?

[Whateverist]

Interesting question but I'm not sure there is a true opposite for qualities which are virtually defined as striking a balance between two other qualities, the golden mean for Aristotle. Unlike the coward, the courageous is not stopped by fear. Unlike the brash, the courageous is not willfully setting events into motion which will bring on the danger. Rather, the courageous responds with some reluctance owing to the value he places on his own life to the necessity of acting for an even higher value at grave personal risk. So I'm not sure what an opposite would be which captures the wider meaning. Any suggestions?

[Aardverk]

Unfair to villains, Aard? Your problem there is that you seem to want to reach out to them through admiration of some quality which is nebulous in its capacity to be admired, whereas many have explained why doing so without discretion is the mark of a fool. Simply put, despite your attempt at popular appeal through Kennedy and Bush, there is nothing to admire in Hitler, nor is there a reason to attempt to rehabilitate the man. This is why your absolutists statement that we have to admire the fucknut preacher in the OP's post met with disapproval from me and others. We do not "have" to admire him or Hitler, nor is there anything in the actions of either which I find as a compelling cause to do so.

Ah, you really are clutching at straws now Epi! You know perfectly well that "you have to admire him for that" is simply a figure of speech and not an absolutist statement. I am sure you realise that I did not actually demand or expect that everyone should agree with me. I am rather more realistic than that; I am well aware that many people (well, at least four of you on this forum) operate in a biased and one sided manner. I suggest that you should not expect everyone to agree with you and it is evident that they do not.

You know perfectly well that I did not "reach out to them" in any way. You have a strange but vivid imagination. You know perfectly well that I condemned them.

By a quality being 'nebulous', I presume you mean that it can not be clearly identified. That is not the case with any of the examples given.
1. The oaf was brave - a quality.
2. Hitler was an extremely effective statesman - a quality.
3. Naomi Campbell is beautiful - a quality.
4. Suffragettes were brave - a quality.

Now matter how awful, or otherwise, the crimes or stupidity of the people in these four examples, those qualities remain to be observed - quite the opposite of 'nebulous' if I have understood your meaning of that word. I must then ask you the question yet again - why do you think that those qualities should be expunged/deleted/ignored? It is a simple question but you are studiously avoiding giving any coherent answer.

Unlike you ('many have explained' for example), I have not sought any popular appeal, I would be happy to stand alone if I needed to. You have completely misunderstood my reference to Bush and Kennedy because you clearly had no idea what was happening in Germany. Perhaps it will help you understand a little if I list some of the advances under the Third Reich that spring to mind. Just see if you can think of any country under any leader that has achieved that sort of progress.

There was huge growth in the obvious industrial companies: Volkswagen, BMW, Heinkel, Krupp, Mercedes, Braun, Messerschmitt, DKW, Fokker, Thyssen (significant Bush family connections), Dornier, etc and although some claims are open to question, the Germans will claim the following first inventions and advancements: The computer, jet planes, manned rockets (Hannah Reich survived the V1 but Lothar Sieber died in the Bachem Ba349), doctors linked smoking with lung cancer, nerve gasses, single person anti-tank weapon, autobahns, stealth technology, tape recorders, Wankel engine, wire guided missiles, IR guided missiles, major advances in rocket technology, advances in sewage treatment, advances in TV and first TV broadcasts, geophones for seismic wave detection, the rail gun, extraction of liquid fuel from coal, the ejector seat, electron microscope, pesticides, methadone, pethidine, inflatable sex dolls, punch card data sorting, etc. After WW2, approximately 300,000 German patents and copyrights were 'liberated' by the allies.

No, Hitler certainly can't take the credit for them but he did set up the state specifically to encourage, reward and support these sorts of advances and he turned the country round financially in the most dramatic manner ever witnessed. As well as those 'firsts' I have listed above German scientists were also making their own independent advances in a wide range of other technologies. The most obvious ones are nuclear fission and radar. Even during the war they were planning on delivering nuclear bombs on the USA via intercontinental ballistic missiles. Pretty advanced stuff in 1943! I am sure you know perfectly well that German scientists were in huge demand after the war, many being shipped of to the USSR and to the USA.

Again - by no means all of this can be credited to the mad, bad, Hitler BUT some of it can. Denying that strikes me as a strangely biased attitude.

---

Interesting question but I'm not sure there is a true opposite for qualities which are virtually defined as striking a balance between two other qualities, the golden mean for Aristotle. ............ So I'm not sure what an opposite would be which captures the wider meaning. Any suggestions?

The Dictionary of Opposites says that the opposite of courage is, "cowardice, faint-heartedness, fear, meekness, timidity, weakness". None of these seem to be fully appropriate, especially if we are to take Aristotle's definition.

I am tempted to challenge Aristotle but discretion is the better part of valour!

[Epimethean]

Incorrect as ever, Aard. You really don't seem to remember your posts.

"Unlike you ('many have explained' for example), I have not sought any popular appeal:

I admire anyone with the courage of their convictions. I certainly don't have to agree with someone to admire them. Hitler was one of the most evil people the world has ever known but the technical, engineering and scientific advances in the Third Reich were incredible. Part of those advances were due to the vision and direction of Hitler. If it had been under the dictatorship of a 'nice' person the world would still be full of admiration for Hitler. The fact that he proved to be mad and evil does not stop me admiring the amazing, good things that he acheived. American investment money came flooding into Germany when Hitler started to turn Germany around in such a spectacular fashion. Both the Bush family and the Kennedy family were high profile investors who admired him greatly so perhaps you will feel that I am in good company whatever your politics are."

[Aardverk]

Incorrect as ever, Aard. You really don't seem to remember your posts.

"Both the Bush family and the Kennedy family were high profile investors who admired him greatly so perhaps you will feel that I am in good company whatever your politics are."

Ah, maybe I get it now Epi! This is just intended as a joke! You are implying that my mention of a banker who died 60 years ago and an ambassador who died 50 years ago is ‘seeking popular appeal’. Yes? Very funny – I expect. Sadly I don’t have the same sense of humour as you. Is it some sort of sarcasm? Or is it simply an accidental exposition of your ignorance?

I presume you do know that the Bush family had the $millions that they made from the Third Reich confiscated by the US government and that they ended up hating Hitler? I presume you do know that ambassador Kennedy's admiration of Hitler brought an end to his political aspirations and he ended up hating Hitler too? No, actually I am lying to you; in reality, I presume that you knew nothing about them and you didn't even realise that I was talking about people living in the 1930's.

Now let me see if I can make a similar joke.....

You said: ‘we only pointed out the insanity of what you said’ and ‘some of us find fault with your admiration scale’ and ‘many of us have arrived at the same conclusion’ and ‘many have explained', etc. That IS a perfectly clear appeal to popular approval and the joke is that there are only 3 and a half of you displaying that rather unpleasant, bigoted bias. Now, THAT I do find funny.

Your popular support may not be as popular as you think it is Epi. THAT I find funny too.

The funniest thing of all though was seeing that you had removed the italics from my quote to try to mask that fact that it was you who was actually seeking popular approval. ...... and your posse is 2 and a half!!!!!!!

[Epimethean]

Aard, you are clueless, and utterly incapable of rational dialogue.

Edited: So that is how the ignore function works. Perfect.

[Aardverk]

Aard, you are clueless, and utterly incapable of rational dialogue.

Who is the one who is not willing to defend his position Epi?

Could it be because you are fully aware that even to try would make you look even more foolish? Or do you have no idea how you could possibly do it?

How come you never attempt to answer any question but only try to make pretty pathetic insults? Is that all you are capable of?

[renew]

[quote='Aardverk' pid='241372' dateline='1329575473']

[quote]I absolutely agree with you - 'reason is behind courage'. Just because you personally do not agree with someone, that does not mean that they have not used 'reason'. Or would you deny the ability to 'reason' to anyone you disagree with? I will assume that you do not as that would be a form of madness.[/quote]

Your reasoning does not define courage. You are referencing reason with thoughts, which can be debated. A little madness doesn't hurt anyone, as long as it is used in moderation.

[quote]I absolutely agree with you - 'the desire for someone to understand'. Yes, you are getting there bit by bit. If someone really wants you to understand he will go a long way to get his message over. Whilst we agree that his message was of no interest, to him it was vital! He thought he was doing good. We both disagree with him but so what? He was trying to get his message across. Good for him for having the courage to try. Don't forget that there are plenty of people who will admire both his courage AND his message. The fact that we do not like the message or his style does not negate the courage.[/quote]

Well, then the ones that have been placed under physcological care and stand up on chairs and start rambling on about have great their aunt marys chocolate cake is, have courage by your understanding. For you to define by universal terms then all terms apply.



[quote]No, I thought you had forgotten about those brave people. The were roundly condemned but had the courage to stand up and insult people who didn't agree with them. Their 'reasoning' was challenged at all levels of society. Despite great number of people trying to deny them their 'reason', their bravery eventually won through. Admirable, don't you think? Even though they were being 'thoroughly unpleasant'.
"Don't worry your little head about it, it's probably beyond women to understand".
That is a very, very mild example of the verbal abuse and 'reasoning' that the suffragettes had to overcome. What problems do you think the oaf in the video has to overcome? The suffragettes' actions required determination and bravery and so did the oaf's - in his view.[/quote]

Let's compare:
Women standing up for equal rights vs. this man standing up for _____(you are going to have to fill the blank in due you seem to understand what he was standing up for)
That is if you would like to keep it in universal thought.

[quote]For the record I believe absolutely in equality and universal suffrage for everyone with an IQ over 99. My quote above was just to make you think.[/quote]

So you are giving this man an IQ over 99, interesting. I would have chosen a bit lower on the scale.

[Aardverk]

So you are giving this man an IQ over 99, interesting. I would have chosen a bit lower on the scale.

An interesting but incorrect interpretation of my words. I very much look forward to giving you a full reply BUT before I do so, would you mind editing your post or starting all over again. You have blatantly inserted a lot of your own words to make them look as if they were mine.

Because your 'error' is so obvious, it may just be an accident. You would probably like to be understood correctly and not be seen to be blatantly putting wholly fictitious words in my mouth; that is against the rules of course. I honestly don't want to have to criticise you any more that is reasonably necessary. You must already be embarrassed quite enough by displaying such a bigoted view.

I will have a look tomorrow to see if you have corrected your little 'error'. Then I will reply in full. I bet you can't wait!