Sounds like he was trolling you.

Oh trust me. He seriously did not know about that fact.

Lenin, from your post I can conclude that you've little exposure to the reality of the outside world, so I'm not going to get angry or flame you. Just remember, though, that people do things and experience things that are no less valid just because you've no experience of them.

 

You base this off a dissimilarity in personal ethics?

 

He does it a lot.

When I'm in class and the person beside me has extremely heavy breathing. I had to look over a few times to see if they were having a heart attack or something.

Lenin, from your post I can conclude that you've little exposure to the reality of the outside world, so I'm not going to get angry or flame you. Just remember, though, that people do things and experience things that are no less valid just because you've no experience of them.

 

You base this off a dissimilarity in personal ethics?

The callous apathy to suffering is a trait either of a psychopath or a young person with very little actual exposure to life. I'm assuming the latter.

 

I think we can all empathise to those with cancer, irrespective of our ethical perspectives.

Not sure if you understand personal ethics? Or rather, perhaps, that they're all different?

 

---

 

 

You know the feeling, when you know a subject/topic very much and in detail, then a bunch of people ignorant to that topic go about talking who's right and who's wrong with terrible accuracy to the truth?

 

Most forums should not allow history discussion for most of it's members, I tell you what.

Lenin, from your post I can conclude that you've little exposure to the reality of the outside world, so I'm not going to get angry or flame you. Just remember, though, that people do things and experience things that are no less valid just because you've no experience of them.

 

You base this off a dissimilarity in personal ethics?

The callous apathy to suffering is a trait either of a psychopath or a young person with very little actual exposure to life. I'm assuming the latter.

 

I think we can all empathise to those with cancer, irrespective of our ethical perspectives.

He never demonstrated apathy, he demonstrated a distaste of the illogical and ridiculous labels that are immediately applied to certain people in certain situations, which I certainly sympathize with.

Lenin, from your post I can conclude that you've little exposure to the reality of the outside world, so I'm not going to get angry or flame you. Just remember, though, that people do things and experience things that are no less valid just because you've no experience of them.

 

You base this off a dissimilarity in personal ethics?

The callous apathy to suffering is a trait either of a psychopath or a young person with very little actual exposure to life. I'm assuming the latter.

 

I think we can all empathise to those with cancer, irrespective of our ethical perspectives.

He never demonstrated apathy, he demonstrated a distaste of the illogical and ridiculous labels that are immediately applied to certain people in certain situations, which I certainly sympathize with.

 

Why should we call someone who has died from cancer a hero? Did they do anything heroic? Not really. Maybe somebody like Henrietta Lacks could be called a hero for having cancer, but the average person is no hero. Maybe they were a strong individual fighting for their life, but don't all humans do that without even trying?

Maybe they were a strong individual fighting for their life, but don't all humans do that without even trying?

You've never heard of sucide have ya? Or the high rate of them? :razz:

 

A hero is a very subjective word though, applied to each individual individually. Your heros aren't my heros and vice versa.

Lenin said throwing around the word 'brave' was problematic, not the word 'hero'.

 

And to be honest (and I don't mean any offense), I think that Lenin's being a bit unreasonable, as are the people who agree with him. I mean, come on, does it really piss you off when people call a kid who is going to die soon 'brave'? Who cares if this kid doesn't fit the exact definition of bravery. In such a situation, why should you be pissed about a little misuse of the word? Death is right in front of them; they know they won't live as long as they could have without cancer. They have to deal with that, and I find simply living on knowing that to be brave, simply accepting it.

Lenin said throwing around the word 'brave' was problematic, not the word 'hero'.

 

And to be honest (and I don't mean any offense), I think that Lenin's being a bit unreasonable, as are the people who agree with him. I mean, come on, does it really piss you off when people call a kid who is going to die soon 'brave'? Who cares if this kid doesn't fit the exact definition of bravery. In such a situation, why should you be pissed about a little misuse of the word? Death is right in front of them; they know they won't live as long as they could have without cancer. They have to deal with that, and I find simply living on knowing that to be brave, simply accepting it.

 

Does it piss me off? Not particularly, but my definition on bravery would be someone saying "pull the plug on me, I don't really want to suffer through this." Now that takes some balls (and courage) do do.

I'm sure many say the opposite is brave: sticking it out, experiencing the suffering.

Lenin said throwing around the word 'brave' was problematic, not the word 'hero'.

 

And to be honest (and I don't mean any offense), I think that Lenin's being a bit unreasonable, as are the people who agree with him. I mean, come on, does it really piss you off when people call a kid who is going to die soon 'brave'? Who cares if this kid doesn't fit the exact definition of bravery. In such a situation, why should you be pissed about a little misuse of the word? Death is right in front of them; they know they won't live as long as they could have without cancer. They have to deal with that, and I find simply living on knowing that to be brave, simply accepting it.

Actually, I resent the label of brave being applied to something not brave at all - doing so does a disservice to true bravery.

But fighting for your life when you know the process is going to be very very intense and painful both physically and spiritually, IMO that's bravery.

Meh, we have our own definitions of bravery, then.

 

@ Obfuscator:

If the above is true, though, who are you to say that it is ridiculous to call someone brave when it doesn't match our own personal idea of bravery? Who are you to say that being a cancer patient is not brave at all?

 

Anyway, bravery is one of those abstract ideas that, when it comes down to it, cannot be fully defined.

I question how someone can be considered inherently brave when faced with something they have no control over, and in no way chose.

 

Bravery involves control and a conscious decision. Having cancer cannot be brave in and of itself because it isn't something we can control. Certainly someone can deal with cancer very bravely, and many people do; but many people don't. It's that whitewashing I resent.

 

This thought of "fighting for your life" when faced with something like cancer is also a figment of our overactive imagination. How exactly does one "fight" cancer? If you want to stay alive, you take the treatment and hope for the best. That's it. It's not something you can physically control short of deliberately neglecting medical care so that you die faster.

I find bravery is something that someone personally finds in someone else. For example, you find someone else beautiful, but someone else might think they're not really that attractive.

 

It's all relative to a person's personal experiences and ideals.

I question how someone can be considered inherently brave when faced with something they have no control over, and in no way chose.

 

Bravery involves control and a conscious decision. Having cancer cannot be brave in and of itself because it isn't something we can control. Certainly someone can deal with cancer very bravely, and many people do; but many people don't. It's that whitewashing I resent.

 

This thought of "fighting for your life" when faced with something like cancer is also a figment of our overactive imagination. How exactly does one "fight" cancer? If you want to stay alive, you take the treatment and hope for the best. That's it. It's not something you can physically control short of deliberately neglecting medical care so that you die faster.

To elaborate on this some more:

 

Consider, for a second, that I slipped and fell off a cliff. Would you call me brave for falling of a cliff? I rather doubt it. You might call me brave for not screaming on the way down, because that's a conscious decision I made.

 

This article sums it up pretty well: http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1043090--joe-fiorito-last-battle-for-a-happy-warrior

 

Specifically:

Among the things that sadden me is that Jack said he was going to fight his illness and beat it. Does his death mean that he didn’t fight hard enough? His will wasn’t strong enough?

 

I don’t know what fighting means when it comes to illness. I do know what it means to be human. When my uncle Dave, an iconoclast, got his diagnosis — he was, I think, in his 70s — he started eating massive amounts of vitamins, and then he cobbled together enough money to go to Mexico for laetrile. He’d have been better off eating peaches.

 

Dave fought his cancer as hard as anyone ever has. His attitude was fierce. Didn’t save him, but he died with a marvelous head of jet-black hair, thanks to the vitamins.

 

Let me point out a miserable truth: We do not fight cancer. We take treatment and if we are lucky, we get the right treatment from the right doctors at the right time.

 

Yes, we are hardwired to hope. Many people, when they learn they have cancer, turn the rest of their lives into a display of cheery willpower. Alas, length of life depends primarily on genetics, good luck, sensible habits and timely medical care.

 

The lesson?

 

We keep our spirits up, more for others than for ourselves. And now we mourn the man, just as we grieve for his family.

 

I will remember him for his willingness to fight — not for his life; we all have that spark — but for his willingness to fight for the causes he believed in.

I question how someone can be considered inherently brave when faced with something they have no control over, and in no way chose.

 

Bravery involves control and a conscious decision. Having cancer cannot be brave in and of itself because it isn't something we can control. Certainly someone can deal with cancer very bravely, and many people do; but many people don't. It's that whitewashing I resent.

 

This thought of "fighting for your life" when faced with something like cancer is also a figment of our overactive imagination. How exactly does one "fight" cancer? If you want to stay alive, you take the treatment and hope for the best. That's it. It's not something you can physically control short of deliberately neglecting medical care so that you die faster.

I again say, control and conscious decision may be part of your definition. But bravery for me can be accepting the inevitable. I find that a very brave move, regardless if they have control over it or not.

 

Also, per 'fighting for your life', psychological approach does play a huge role in it. Just saying. A person can 'fight' cancer by staying positive about it, because that battle is on a completely different level.

Consider, for a second, that I slipped and fell off a cliff. Would you call me brave for falling of a cliff? I rather doubt it. You might call me brave for not screaming on the way down, because that's a conscious decision I made.

Of course I wouldn't see the act of falling off the cliff brave. But I can, assuming I knew what you were thinking, reason that you were brave as you fell to your death. We all don't know what death entails (what happens after), so who is to say that facing death with acceptance isn't brave?

 

Again, I stress, bravery and it's definition can be likened to love/beauty's definitions. We're aren't going to get anywhere arguing about differences in definitions.

When I'm in class and the person beside me has extremely heavy breathing. I had to look over a few times to see if they were having a heart attack or something.

 

I hate this too. Especially during a test.

People who bought minecraft and [bleep] and whine about how it doesnt go the way they want, its just as bad, if not worse then members on the RSOF

I again say, control and conscious decision may be part of your definition. But bravery for me can be accepting the inevitable. I find that a very brave move, regardless if they have control over it or not.

 

Also, per 'fighting for your life', psychological approach does play a huge role in it. Just saying. A person can 'fight' cancer by staying positive about it, because that battle is on a completely different level.

One makes a conscious decision to accept the inevitable, that's my point. You say "bravery can be accepting the inevitable". But "accepting the inevitable" is separate from simply "having cancer". The two are not part in parcel; and that's where the difference lies.

 

I never said that people who have cancer cannot be brave. I'm saying the physical act of having a tumor grow on your body, with nothing else considered, cannot be brave.

 

And yes, psychologically there is a battle to stay positive. But you're not fighting the disease in the sense of a physical fight.

Of course I wouldn't see the act of falling off the cliff brave. But I can, assuming I knew what you were thinking, reason that you were brave as you fell to your death. We all don't know what death entails (what happens after), so who is to say that facing death with acceptance isn't brave?

 

Again, I stress, bravery and it's definition can be likened to love/beauty's definitions. We're aren't going to get anywhere arguing about differences in definitions.

 

All you're doing is proving my point - that it takes a conscious decision to define bravery. Our definitions appear to be the same.

Of course, when you talk about practical applications of bravery the definition can change. Like you said, some may think it's braver to chose the long, painful fight with cancer over euthanasia, for instance. Others may see it the other way - that deciding to face death immediately to end your suffering is the brave thing. That's where a difference of opinion comes in.

 

But can you not see how strange it is that one would never, ever apply the label of bravery to an uncontrollable action alone? Yet, as soon as cancer comes up, it's suddenly made an exception.

 

List me something, anything, that if it "happens" to someone, immediately makes them brave. I'm not talking about their mentality, or their decisions. Just any uncontrollable occurrence or accident.

 

I think the main problem here is that you're missing my point.

People that derail threads into meaningless arguments.

People that derail threads into meaningless arguments.

 

Not meaningless.

I again say, control and conscious decision may be part of your definition. But bravery for me can be accepting the inevitable. I find that a very brave move, regardless if they have control over it or not.

 

Also, per 'fighting for your life', psychological approach does play a huge role in it. Just saying. A person can 'fight' cancer by staying positive about it, because that battle is on a completely different level.

One makes a conscious decision to accept the inevitable, that's my point. You say "bravery can be accepting the inevitable". But "accepting the inevitable" is separate from simply "having cancer". The two are not part in parcel; and that's where the difference lies.

 

I never said that people who have cancer cannot be brave. I'm saying the physical act of having a tumor grow on your body, with nothing else considered, cannot be brave.

 

And yes, psychologically there is a battle to stay positive. But you're not fighting the disease in the sense of a physical fight.

Of course I wouldn't see the act of falling off the cliff brave. But I can, assuming I knew what you were thinking, reason that you were brave as you fell to your death. We all don't know what death entails (what happens after), so who is to say that facing death with acceptance isn't brave?

 

Again, I stress, bravery and it's definition can be likened to love/beauty's definitions. We're aren't going to get anywhere arguing about differences in definitions.

 

All you're doing is proving my point - that it takes a conscious decision to define bravery. Our definitions appear to be the same.

Of course, when you talk about practical applications of bravery the definition can change. Like you said, some may think it's braver to chose the long, painful fight with cancer over euthanasia, for instance. Others may see it the other way - that deciding to face death immediately to end your suffering is the brave thing. That's where a difference of opinion comes in.

 

But can you not see how strange it is that one would never, ever apply the label of bravery to an uncontrollable action alone? Yet, as soon as cancer comes up, it's suddenly made an exception.

 

List me something, anything, that if it "happens" to someone, immediately makes them brave. I'm not talking about their mentality, or their decisions. Just any uncontrollable occurrence or accident.

 

I think the main problem here is that you're missing my point.

First, a positive psychological approach has actually, in some instances, proven useful in the physical battle. Why else would we have a 'placebo effect'?

 

I read through your post, and I do see you point now. To be honest, everything physical in this world is inherently 'nothing special,' or is not associated with any adjective; there's no inherent connotation to anything physical. So yes, I agree: the disease cancer does not necessarily bring about bravery. But I've been assuming this whole time that in many cases, the 'struggle' against cancer is brave. Yes, it's a generalization, assuming people who have cancer are brave. But it's a generalization for a reason; many people do prove to be brave.

 

Actually, I resent the label of brave being applied to something not brave at all - doing so does a disservice to true bravery.

This quote is confusing, but I can see how you mean that cancer inherently is not brave at all. But really, someone throwing around the word 'brave' when talking about cancer patients, even if they aren't exactly sure if this person fits people's definitions of bravery, shouldn't be a big deal. For some reason, I can't bring myself to believe that you really think doing so does a disservice to true bravery. No one is going to think that people who go to war for their country (or do more extreme things) are any less brave because people 'accidentally' generalize that a cancer patient is brave, too.

 

I read through your post, and I do see you point now. To be honest, everything physical in this world is inherently 'nothing special,' or is not associated with any adjective; there's no inherent connotation to anything physical. So yes, I agree: the disease cancer does not necessarily bring about bravery. But I've been assuming this whole time that in many cases, the 'struggle' against cancer is brave. Yes, it's a generalization, assuming people who have cancer are brave. But it's a generalization for a reason; many people do prove to be brave.

 

Okay - I agree with all of this.

 

This quote is confusing, but I can see how you mean that cancer inherently is not brave at all. But really, someone throwing around the word 'brave' when talking about cancer patients, even if they aren't exactly sure if this person fits people's definitions of bravery, shouldn't be a big deal. For some reason, I can't bring myself to believe that you really think doing so does a disservice to true bravery. No one is going to think that people who go to war for their country (or do more extreme things) are any less brave because people 'accidentally' generalize that a cancer patient is brave, too.

 

This, I think, is a matter of opinion. Personally - I'm a realist, or at least I try to be. So, when people exaggerate or tell things like they aren't, it annoys the hell out of me; hence my original posting on the thread ;)