The Voice of Reason Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 But I would prefer to remember those who have died with some idea of the truth behind their situation and not with drivel about them making sacrifice and being representative of noble qualities. But they did make sacrifices, the greatest one you can make (and that's not drivel). And yes, they did represent noble qualities. Not everyone can look at life with the same detachment as you do, LDV. Some people would rather engage with life and all that that means. I hate the phrase but they can "see the bigger picture" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Rather than do my usual and explain my position further, I ask - what is the nature of this sacrifice and how do you consider this generation noble. Please explain. I am gobsmacked that you can honestly believe in this stuff. And from what I can glean from such perspectives of the use of men to go and die somewhere for little, I see a great deal of detachment and ignorance in perceiving anything like WW1 as comprising of nobility and demonstrating sacrifice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Rather than do my usual and explain my position further, I ask - what is the nature of this sacrifice The nature of this sacrifice is death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Rather than do my usual and explain my position further, I ask - what is the nature of this sacrifice The nature of this sacrifice is death. I don't know if you are trying to evade here. I was asking why this is considered a sacrifice. And I was asking where the nobility is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Rather than do my usual and explain my position further, I ask - what is the nature of this sacrifice The nature of this sacrifice is death. I don't know if you are trying to evade here. I was asking why this is considered a sacrifice. And I was asking where the nobility is. Contrary to what you may think a lot of soldiers believed in the cause they were fighting for. Would you have made such a sacrifice in the Stonewall riots? Or would you have sat back and desecrated the memory of those who lost their lives in that episode? Unfortunately I think you would do the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 how do you consider this generation noble. in order to explain this we would need to define noble first. Noble has numerous meanings but for our purposes we will stick with its meaning in context, noble describes someone of royal blood, or can be used to describe someone who acts like royalty. in particular this refers to the virtues than nobility were supposed to uphold (note i said "supposed to") these were integrity, chivalry, bravery or self sacrifice. (this was a time when royalty held these virtues in esteem even if they didnt actual practice them) integrity: is the consistancy of actions based on a value system. in ethics it describes someone who upholds their own moral code. mostly in this sense integrity describes everyone who isnt hypocritical. Chivalry: originally used to describe the code of conduct that the soldiers or knights of the feudal heirachy used, it has since been used to describe other codes of conduct, those that adhere to a code of conduct are consider to be chivalrous. common virtues for a code of conduct are respect courtesy and honor. Bravery: not the absence of fear, but the ability to act in the face of it. self sacrifice: following a course of action that will or could benefit others but is detrimental to the self. so which of these do you have a problem with? does being forced to be brave make you less brave or make the bravery not count? what invalidates noble as a description of this generation?, certain individuals, lack of a choice or do you just disagree with the labels. As usual i dont expect you to understand this stuff, not because i think you to be stupid but because i think your own politics to be so removed from this, it makes it impossible for you to accept that A) people do feel this way and B) why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Contrary to what you may think a lot of soldiers believed in the cause they were fighting for. Would you have made such a sacrifice in the Stonewall riots? Or would you have sat back and desecrated the memory of those who lost their lives in that episode? Unfortunately I think you would do the latter. And what was that cause? To teach Fritz a lesson for attacking little Belgium? This is no sacrifice on the part of the soldiers, but millions of men being SACRIFICED. And for what? To punish Germany (in some manner) because of its treaty violation? Firstly, after 1916 men were conscripted into the services to be forced to fight and die. These men did not choose to make a noble sacrifices - they were there because they had no choice. And they had little choice but to die to when commanded. Those that volunteered almost wholly did so under the misguided idea that it would be an adventure and were lured in by the propaganda. Peer pressure in the community also made it difficult for men to escape the humiliation of not doing 'their bit' for King and Country. These men didn't join with the idea with the primary purpose of putting their lives on the line in a conflict where their life often ended a day after reaching the trenches. And I find it so utterly contradictory and shameful that anyone could consider that this was a noble generation when such an episode in history stands to serve as an example of gross inhumanity. They were psychologically bullied or forced to fight their fellow man in absolutely disgusting conditions and many died very very young. It think people should be ashamed when they bring talk of sacrifice, nobility, and talk of freedom into this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Contrary to what you may think a lot of soldiers believed in the cause they were fighting for. Would you have made such a sacrifice in the Stonewall riots? Or would you have sat back and desecrated the memory of those who lost their lives in that episode? Unfortunately I think you would do the latter. And what was that cause? To teach Fritz a lesson for attacking little Belgium? This is no sacrifice on the part of the soldiers, but millions of men being SACRIFICED. And for what? To punish Germany (in some manner) because of its treaty violation? Firstly, after 1916 men were conscripted into the services to be forced to fight and die. These men did not choose to make a noble sacrifices - they were there because they had no choice. And they had little choice but to die to when commanded. Those that volunteered almost wholly did so under the misguided idea that it would be an adventure and were lured in by the propaganda. Peer pressure in the community also made it difficult for men to escape the humiliation of not doing 'their bit' for King and Country. These men didn't join with the idea with the primary purpose of putting their lives on the line in a conflict where their life often ended a day after reaching the trenches. And I find it so utterly contradictory and shameful that anyone could consider that this was a noble generation when such an episode in history stands to serve as an example of gross inhumanity. They were psychologically bullied or forced to fight their fellow man in absolutely disgusting conditions and many died very very young. It think people should be ashamed when they bring talk of sacrifice, nobility, and talk of freedom into this area. Would you care to answer the questions I posed? And you have raised another one. Where those taking part in the Stonewall riots doing so because they were "noble", or because of something they believed in? Or can their actions be explained merely as a result of "peer pressure" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 As usual i dont expect you to understand this stuff, not because i think you to be stupid but because i think your own politics to be so removed from this, it makes it impossible for you to accept that A) people do feel this way and B) why. My understanding of noble and the one I believe is being used in this context is to mark a separation from others based on qualities of higher morality, a valued self-purpose, and it carried with it ideas of military chivalry. I think because I have anarchist politics you believe that I am detached from the conventional understanding of matters such as this. However, very few grow up with anarchist politics. We do, however, grow up indoctrinated and fed information based on liberal, traditionalist, nationalist, and patriotic understandings of the world. I know these things very well, it would have been very difficult not. Though I need to ask who you are referring to in A). And ideas of sacrifice and nobility are solely build upon jingoistic feelings in society and are a result of patriotic feeling. Would you have made such a sacrifice in the Stonewall riots? Or would you have sat back and desecrated the memory of those who lost their lives in that episode? Would I have sacrificed my life in the Stonewall Riots? I don't know, I doubt it. And that is testamount to my free will, something that these servicemen didn't have. Yet you believe there is this noble self-sacrifice. And yes, the Stonewall rioters fought for something they believed in. But WHY did the men who VOLUNTEERED believe it was a right thing to do. If anywhere you need a example of why patriotism is something we need rid of it is WW1. Those that volunteered believed that fighting for their King and Country was right because of this unfortunate understanding. And they could hardly have gone to their work place and lived life as normal while others had gone to fight. Some people were shunned in society or given the white feather, it was humiliation. But how on earth is Stonewall relevant to the participation of soldiers in WW1 who were forces into the conflict through risk of imprisonment or humiliation, or made to think that they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lao Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 As usual i dont expect you to understand this stuff, not because i think you to be stupid but because i think your own politics to be so removed from this, it makes it impossible for you to accept that A) people do feel this way and B) why. My understanding of noble and the one I believe is being used in this context is to mark a separation from others based on qualities of higher morality, a valued self-purpose, and it carried with it ideas of military chivalry. I think because I have anarchist politics you believe that I am detached from the conventional understanding of matters such as this. However, very few grow up with anarchist politics. We do, however, grow up indoctrinated and fed information based on liberal, traditionalist, nationalist, and patriotic understandings of the world. I know these things very well, it would have been very difficult not. Though I need to ask who you are referring to in A). And ideas of sacrifice and nobility are solely build upon jingoistic feelings in society and are a result of patriotic feeling. QED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 QED Well what is it then? Clearly you also seem to believe you know what they felt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Poor old Harry must be turning in his grave. Music is nice but totally spoiled by Yorke's whining voice and schoolboy lyrics. Still a nice gesture. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsi...000/8184802.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted August 5, 2009 Share Posted August 5, 2009 Poor old Harry must be turning in his grave. Music is nice but totally spoiled by Yorke's whining voice and schoolboy lyrics. Still a nice gesture. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsi...000/8184802.stm That's what I thought too: I really like the music and not the singing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 6, 2009 Author Share Posted August 6, 2009 The funeral service for World War I veteran Harry Patch is taking place at Wells Cathedral. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8186578.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.