| | You hero standards | |
|
+6Lilith Kenzu Black_Cross revolution Tyrlop Zealot_Kommunizma 10 posters | |
Author | Message |
---|
Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: You hero standards Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:51 pm | |
| Ok people, so we come here nominating heroes and what not but, what are your standards for considering someone a hero? What does "hero" mean to you? What makes a person deserve the title of "hero"? | |
| | | Tyrlop Chairman of the WR Committee
Posts : 1853 Join date : 2008-06-01
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Sun Apr 19, 2009 4:41 pm | |
| | |
| | | revolution Member of the WR Committee
Posts : 1042 Join date : 2007-10-15 Age : 30 Location : Yanqui central
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Sun Apr 19, 2009 5:18 pm | |
| He/She must have done a good deed that affects or leaves a lasting impression on people indirectly or directly, physically or mentally. | |
| | | Black_Cross Chairman of the WR Committee
Posts : 1702 Join date : 2008-04-04 Age : 35 Location : Sisyphean Hell
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Sun Apr 19, 2009 11:32 pm | |
| Heh, we should put this site's standard of "Hero" in the gulag. | |
| | | Kenzu Chairman of the WR Committee
Posts : 1842 Join date : 2007-08-17 Age : 36 Location : Austria - Vienna
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Tue Apr 21, 2009 12:05 pm | |
| I would say that this person must have committed somehing selfless (risking his own life to help people, even if it means that he will be powerful is selfless too)
It will have to be something which helped a lot of people or something which helped at least one person, but at the same time wouldn't be expected from most of people to do it.
A hero can do many good things, but if this person killed one innocent person on purpose, he/she cannot be considered a hero anymore. | |
| | | Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Tue Apr 21, 2009 1:43 pm | |
| - Tyrlop wrote:
- he must be rly good.
And what qualifies as "really good" for you? - Kenzu wrote:
- I would say that this person must have committed somehing selfless (risking his own life to help people, even if it means that he will be powerful is selfless too)
Help people indiscriminately in any way? Sacrifice life in any circumstance to protect anyone? How can someone powerful (over other people), someone that claims to have the right to determine others' lives be heroic? - Kenzu wrote:
It will have to be something which helped a lot of people or something which helped at least one person, but at the same time wouldn't be expected from most of people to do it. This can be put in an entirely negative context: A soldier sent to protect the factory owned by say, 10,000 shareholders from revolting workers kills a dozen of workers which helps in crushing the revolt and subsequent strikes returning to normal operation thus implying a benefit for the shareholders (or the shareholder). 1. He's helping a lot of people (preserve their power), the shareholders. Or at least one if it's just one shareholder/owner. 2. It wouldn't be expected from most people to kill a dozen people. According to your assertion, that murderous and repressive soldier qualifies as a hero. - Kenzu wrote:
A hero can do many good things, but if this person killed one innocent person on purpose, he/she cannot be considered a hero anymore. Now, it could be argued that this assertion of yours counters my previous arguement, however, you're using here the word "innocent" which really can assume a subjective or relative form. According to legislative frameworks or even from a "purely capitalistic" framework, in the previous example, the workers were far from innocent as they engaged in violation of property rights and breach of contract. An apologist of capitalism would argue that force was initiated by the workers and so the soldier acted properly to counter this force and restore property rights. I think you'd probably have to be more detailed on your hero standards. | |
| | | Lilith Hero of Socialist Labor
Posts : 458 Join date : 2008-07-17 Age : 31 Location : Let me check on googlemap..
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:46 am | |
| - Tyrlop wrote:
- he must be rly good.
This is a complete answer. - Kenzu wrote:
- I would say that this person must have committed something selfless (risking his own life to help people, even if it means that he will be powerful is selfless too)
Sorry Kenzu, but I really don’t get what you are trying to mean. Is doing something in purpose to be more powerful is still selfless? If so, I disagree. - Zealot wrote:
- How can someone powerful (over other people), someone that claims to have the right to determine others' lives be heroic?
How CAN’T someone socially powerful be heroic if this person helped to improve human conditions of life? If that person used of this power correctly, why shouldn’t we consider his acts as heroic if they deserve to be? The social "rank" has nothing to do here with the fact someone is a hero or not. - Zealot wrote:
- This can be put in an entirely negative context: A soldier sent to protect the factory owned by say, 10,000 shareholders from revolting workers kills a dozen of workers which helps in crushing the revolt and subsequent strikes returning to normal operation thus implying a benefit for the shareholders (or the shareholder).
1. He's helping a lot of people (preserve their power), the shareholders. Or at least one if it's just one shareholder/owner. 2. It wouldn't be expected from most people to kill a dozen people.
According to your assertion, that murderous and repressive soldier qualifies as a hero. Okay, but if someone kills 12 workers to help the shareholder(s) keeping control, it’s obvious this person doesn’t do it selfless (unless it’s a terrific psychopath that really like to kill people, but let considers that psychopaths cannot be recognized as heroes –except certain rare case in which maybe a really intelligent person diagnosticated as a psychopath discovered something that helped progression of sciences or maths or anything else related to humankind social improvement or knowledge acquirement.) So, that would mean that this kind of situation couldn’t be considerated as a heroic action. A heroic action should: 1) Be totally selfless (not in purpose to get power, affection, consideration, etc.) But in case the person received one of those, at least the main goal wasn’t self success, this person is eligible to the hero title. Nonetheless, this act cannot be made “accidentally”. 2) This person must have done something with considerable impacts. It may be knowledge acquirement (as Science, Maths, etc.), a political action (someone that started a revolution, for example. Or someone that defies laws against individual liberty or human rights), social model (as Mother Theresa, for example, who devoted her life to help people in need, or even somone that have been really courageous and is a source of inspirationm like kids that didn't want to abort) 3) If that person killed people, it could only be justified if there wasn’t really an other way to achieve the objective (For example, Hitler’s assassination, it was the only way to end it really fast –but it failed many times. He finally was his own assassin… in this case, we couldn’t really qualify him as a hero because of the wrong things: he did much more bad things than goo things) 4) As mentioned in my third point, the hero title can only be given to a person who considerably did more good things than bad things. 5) Someone can be considerated as a hero considering the geo-politic context, the values, the culture and the society of his epoch, as long as if it’s a step to social improvement. I think this is complete | |
| | | Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:20 am | |
| - Lilith wrote:
How CAN’T someone socially powerful be heroic if this person helped to improve human conditions of life? If that person used of this power correctly, why shouldn’t we consider his acts as heroic if they deserve to be?
The social "rank" has nothing to do here with the fact someone is a hero or not. You're already determining a kind of power. Kenzu talked about that person becoming powerful through heroic acts. Now, what do you refer to as "social power"? Something like being the main shareholder of a transnational enterprise perhaps? If so, how can his actions be heroic if not an effort to destroy the socio-economic condition that has given him that power? - Lilith wrote:
Okay, but if someone kills 12 workers to help the shareholder(s) keeping control, it’s obvious this person doesn’t do it selfless (unless it’s a terrific psychopath that really like to kill people, but let considers that psychopaths cannot be recognized as heroes –except certain rare case in which maybe a really intelligent person diagnosticated as a psychopath discovered something that helped progression of sciences or maths or anything else related to humankind social improvement or knowledge acquirement.) So, that would mean that this kind of situation couldn’t be considerated as a heroic action. I was adressing exclusively Kenzu's parragraph as he put it. Within the structure of his arguement, that soldier would be a hero in such a context. Even if we get selflessness into account, if the soldier is a fervient apologist of capitalism he'll see his action as an action to preserve the integrity of the economy and rights to property and all other religious babble. - Lilith wrote:
2) This person must have done something with considerable impacts. It may be knowledge acquirement (as Science, Maths, etc.), a political action (someone that started a revolution, for example. Or someone that defies laws against individual liberty or human rights), social model (as Mother Theresa, for example, who devoted her life to help people in need, or even somone that have been really courageous and is a source of inspirationm like kids that didn't want to abort) Seems ok... Though I have a comment to make on Mother Theresa. All churches intrinsicly do more damage than good for they assist in the preservation of the status quo the impacts of which they just diminish in appearence through charity and other such seemingly good acts. That aside the propagandistic effects that of course end up ion revenue for the church as people donate more and more considering it goes to charitable acts. Also, in regards to Mother Theresa, there are a lot of critics that argue how she didn't even care about the ill and severla other things. Since I haven't checked deeply I won't present arguements so I'll add up later. - Lilith wrote:
3) If that person killed people, it could only be justified if there wasn’t really an other way to achieve the objective (For example, Hitler’s assassination, it was the only way to end it really fast –but it failed many times. He finally was his own assassin… in this case, we couldn’t really qualify him as a hero because of the wrong things: he did much more bad things than goo things) Justifying murder is quite difficult, specially considering that a person was brought up into what he/she is due to that person's material conditional and societal development. In other words, a "flawed" individual is pretty much product of a flawed societal framework. - Lilith wrote:
4) As mentioned in my third point, the hero title can only be given to a person who considerably did more good things than bad things. Which is entirely subjective. - Lilith wrote:
5) Someone can be considerated as a hero considering the geo-politic context, the values, the culture and the society of his epoch, as long as if it’s a step to social improvement. Yes, the problem is that we 1) fall again in subjecivities here and 2) who was a hero in the middle ages for killing muslims couldn't possibly be considered a hero in the XXI century, that is, rationally. - Lilith wrote:
I think this is complete Yeah, it pretty much was, thanks | |
| | | Lilith Hero of Socialist Labor
Posts : 458 Join date : 2008-07-17 Age : 31 Location : Let me check on googlemap..
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:39 pm | |
| - Zealot wrote:
- You're already determining a kind of power. Kenzu talked about that person becoming powerful through heroic acts.
Now, what do you refer to as "social power"? Something like being the main shareholder of a transnational enterprise perhaps? If so, how can his actions be heroic if not an effort to destroy the socio-economic condition that has given him that power?
Here, I refer more to leaders than shareholders but I also include non-lucrative corporations/organisms that try to change the world in their way (Green Peace as example). Being a shareholder is perhaps not enough to be considerated as a hero, in any case, because it doesn't help anyone except for himself and other shareholders. Though, someone that did other considerable acts, but once was or still is a shareholder could be consirated as a hero, only, this according to other aspects. - Zealot wrote:
- I was adressing exclusively Kenzu's parragraph as he put it. Within the structure of his arguement, that soldier would be a hero in such a context.
Yeah, that's why I added sertain specifications about that, so the definition is less general. I also wanted to point out that a person like that doesn't act selfless, so your example was contradictive to what he meant. - Quote :
- Even if we get selflessness into account, if the soldier is a fervient apologist of capitalism he'll see his action as an action to preserve the integrity of the economy and rights to property and all other religious babble.
Well, I would be surprised if that guy had the intention to "ameliorate" human conditions as he'd preferto help those rich shareholders that don't really need help instead of trying to ameliorate human conditions of work for people who really need help. Automatically, this guy is then ineligible to hero title. A hero is also defined as someone that help people that need help. - Zealot wrote:
- Though I have a comment to make on Mother Theresa. All churches intrinsicly do more damage than good for they assist in the preservation of the status quo the impacts of which they just diminish in appearence through charity and other such seemingly good acts.
That aside the propagandistic effects that of course end up ion revenue for the church as people donate more and more considering it goes to charitable acts. Yeah, you're right about the church, even if fundamentally, it's really supposed to be "good". Nonetheless, people that believe in church, even if they don't always notice the bad things about it, aren't necessary like the church; they can be selfless. - Quote :
- Also, in regards to Mother Theresa, there are a lot of critics that argue how she didn't even care about the ill and severla other things. Since I haven't checked deeply I won't present arguements so I'll add up later.
Yeah, maybe, but she was only taken as example in this context, to illustrate what I tried to mean. If she's not as good as we think it doesn't really matters as long as my example gave an idea of "Social model" - Zealot wrote:
- Which is entirely subjective.
Then we would need to open a new tread to debate about it. To me, "good" and bad just cannot be given a definition. Until it is debated, we could use "vice" & "vertue" to define "bad" & "good". - Zealot wrote:
- Yes, the problem is that we 1) fall again in subjecivities here and 2) who was a hero in the middle ages for killing muslims couldn't possibly be considered a hero in the XXI century, that is, rationally.
1) Yeah, of course it's subjective, because values are different from a person to another anyway. This is a good topic to debate about though. 2) To me, killing muslisms never was a step to humanity improvement, so I don't see in how it could be considerated as a heroic action Thanks for this reply | |
| | | Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:02 pm | |
| - Lilith wrote:
Here, I refer more to leaders than shareholders but I also include non-lucrative corporations/organisms that try to change the world in their way (Green Peace as example). Well the leaders of countries, as I argued in Kenzu Milagro-Socialist Thought, act exactly like shareholders with he difference that they "get elected by the people" and have the capability to exert force (although defacto many enterprises might as well). I honestly think that so far no national leader could qualify as a hero if we're to talk about bringing disproportionally more benefit to his community than damage. As for leaders of organizations, it certainly depends on the organization I'd say. You mention Green Peace. Green Peace literally does nothing but to trouble whalers, obstruct bulldozers and such things... but they have no consideration whatsoever about the impact of the economic system on nature. Given that fact, I wonder how could green peace members, acting within just the framework of action of Green Peace, be heroic to the cause of preserving the environment. - Lilith wrote:
Being a shareholder is perhaps not enough to be considerated as a hero, in any case, because it doesn't help anyone except for himself and other shareholders. Though, someone that did other considerable acts, but once was or still is a shareholder could be consirated as a hero, only, this according to other aspects. What I meant is how could a shareholder, for example, be considered heroic if not fighting (in a considerable way) against the condition that allowed him to be a shareholder in the first place? Some may argue (capitalism apologists) that capitalists could be even heroic for "creating job sources" and giving their "innovations" to the world (capitalism's apologists often confuse "innovator" with "capitalist"). - Lilith wrote:
Yeah, that's why I added sertain specifications about that, so the definition is less general. I also wanted to point out that a person like that doesn't act selfless, so your example was contradictive to what he meant. Again, I adress Kenzu's parragraph which is rather unspecific. And the following parragraph you replied to adresses selflessness. - Lilith wrote:
Well, I would be surprised if that guy had the intention to "ameliorate" human conditions as he'd preferto help those rich shareholders that don't really need help instead of trying to ameliorate human conditions of work for people who really need help. Automatically, this guy is then ineligible to hero title. A hero is also defined as someone that help people that need help. Actually, the shareholders do need the help of guys like that for that's the only way through which they can defend their "right to property" mainly once workers have realized such a "right to property" is illegitimate. As I said, from a capitalist perspective this guy could be completely eligible as a hero and since Kenzu's parragraph was pretty general in all senses I wanted to demonstrate that given his own definition this man, who for most of us is nothing but a murdererous thug, could qualify as hero. So if you say that a hero is one that helps those who need help, well shareholders need the help physical force to enforce their right to property. And this physical force is represented exactly by armed thugs. The sleflessness of his action is found within his intention "to preserve the integrity of the capitalist system, battle laziness (or even worse, "soldiering" a broader concept if we're to use Frederick Taylor's terminology) and restore property rights". Here's a great problem with the subjectivity of heroism. - Lilith wrote:
Yeah, you're right about the church, even if fundamentally, it's really supposed to be "good". Nonetheless, people that believe in church, even if they don't always notice the bad things about it, aren't necessary like the church; they can be selfless. I was not adressing those who are faithful but the church. And I sincerely don't think that the church is fundamentally or even conceptually "good" (or let's better say "with the intention to help majorities") since it is entirely based on domination and exploitation through faith which can translate into domination by disemination of fear, ignorance and the notion of salvation through submission. - Lilith wrote:
Yeah, maybe, but she was only taken as example in this context, to illustrate what I tried to mean. If she's not as good as we think it doesn't really matters as long as my example gave an idea of "Social model" Yeah unless we start assesing even the most accepted role which is essentially charity which comes from the goodwill of thousands if not millions of people which are actually the ones who are providing that assistance as opposed to the person being considered heroic. - Lilith wrote:
Then we would need to open a new tread to debate about it. To me, "good" and bad just cannot be given a definition. Until it is debated, we could use "vice" & "vertue" to define "bad" & "good". "Good" and "bad" are subjective. What I asked here was for an objective definition of what people considered to be heroic and started debating Kenzu's too general standards. The "good and bad" discussion is entirely another topic. What I want to assess here is merely what each of us consider to be heroic. I started debating when Kenzu brought a definition that could literally be applied to what he may consider opposite to heroic. I invited him to be more clear about his standards by demonstrating they were expressed in too general a way. Until that point, we hadn't even touched "good" or "bad" and we should avoid such terminology. - Lilith wrote:
1) Yeah, of course it's subjective, because values are different from a person to another anyway. This is a good topic to debate about though. The important thing here is to avoid subjective terms and focus in objective definitions. For example: I believe a hero is someone that sacrifices himself for the cause of socialism, that is, who risked or gave his life or put at stake his integrity struggling for the stablishment and preservation of a system where the workers control the economy democratically. Or: I believe doctors to be heroes because the objective of their profession is to save lifes while they assume the great responsability of having the future of those lives in his hands and dedicating sometimes massive ammounts of time, effort and concentration to the end of saving those lives. Or: I believe that a worker who works extra time to gain surplus resources to give them exclusively to support disabled people is a hero because he's "sacrificing" his free time to benefit other people than can't look for themselves. Etc. No good or bad, just concrete concepts. - Lilith wrote:
2) To me, killing muslisms never was a step to humanity improvement, so I don't see in how it could be considerated as a heroic action Well, what I mean is that within the context of the crusades and from either a Christian or Muslim point of view, one that hath slayed many infidels deserved to be called hero, a condition that could no longer be within a rational context. - Lilith wrote:
Thanks for this reply To you too | |
| | | comrade110397 New Party Member
Posts : 569 Join date : 2008-11-11 Age : 38 Location : IDK
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:07 am | |
| There are no heroes, only people and villans. | |
| | | MightyObserver World Republic Party Member
Posts : 670 Join date : 2008-09-30 Age : 31 Location : Earth
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:08 am | |
| - comrade110397 wrote:
- There are no heroes, only people and villans.
There are at least two heroes: Dr. Martin Luthor King and Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi. | |
| | | Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:15 am | |
| - MightyObserver wrote:
There are at least two heroes: Dr. Martin Luthor King and Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi. I dare to say you have some scary hero standards. | |
| | | MightyObserver World Republic Party Member
Posts : 670 Join date : 2008-09-30 Age : 31 Location : Earth
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:17 am | |
| - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- I dare to say you have some scary hero standards.
Define 'scary hero standards', then. | |
| | | Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:22 am | |
| - MightyObserver wrote:
Define 'scary hero standards', then. By scary hero standards I mean that you may have hero standards that neglect or actually rely on some traits of the individual that may be harmful to other individuals within society. Considering Ghandi was a pedohpile who promoted pacific resistance and thus a bunch of onesided bloodshed, and that he is a hero to you then I assume that such traits are either not relevant to the individual's heroism for you, which is scary or, even scarier, that you consider such traits to be part of his heoric character. | |
| | | MightyObserver World Republic Party Member
Posts : 670 Join date : 2008-09-30 Age : 31 Location : Earth
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:25 am | |
| - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- Considering Ghandi was a pedohpile who promoted pacific resistance and thus a bunch of onesided bloodshed, and that he is a hero to you then I assume that such traits are either not relevant to the individual's heroism for you, which is scary or, even scarier, that you consider such traits to be part of his heoric character.
It shouldn't be too hard to have guessed that I didn't know those things. I'm a sixteen year old american kid. Adrian Veidt was a (fictional) hero. Is that scary enough? - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- I dare to say you have some scary hero standards.
Oh. I thought you said 'I dare you to say you have some scary hero standards,'. | |
| | | Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:33 am | |
| - MightyObserver wrote:
It shouldn't be too hard to have guessed that I didn't know those things. I'm a sixteen year old american kid. Just wanted to seem dramatic about those not so well known facts - MightyObserver wrote:
Adrian Veidt was a (fictional) hero. Is that scary enough? Just if all who knew what he did considered him a hero which perhaps they'd do considering Rosharch's diary could be published and the impacts on world's stability. Maybe some redneck or two would oppose but not much. | |
| | | MightyObserver World Republic Party Member
Posts : 670 Join date : 2008-09-30 Age : 31 Location : Earth
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 3:38 am | |
| - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- Just if all who knew what he did considered him a hero which perhaps they'd do
I doubt it. It would just be a way bigger 9/11. Maybe outside of America, somewhere. | |
| | | Liche Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4613 Join date : 2008-01-30 Age : 30 Location : USA-Virginia
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:22 am | |
| I once wrote a paper trying too say I had no heroes (It was very good Im proud of it ) but it ended up being about Rosa Parks!!! (it was "Who is your Hero?") I put that I have no heroes because when ever anyone did something heroic they are glamorfied and dont say the bad things they did. So it is impossible to judge them. But, when ever Rosa Parks was interviewed she said too leave her alone, and took no credit for her actions "I simply wanted too sit down, Im glad it lead to the bus boycot, but that was never my intention" also its funny cause Martin Luther King Jr tryed saying the whole thing was staged, but Rosa Parks told the press he was lying (which is why MLK is not one of my heroes) | |
| | | MightyObserver World Republic Party Member
Posts : 670 Join date : 2008-09-30 Age : 31 Location : Earth
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:49 am | |
| | |
| | | Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:40 am | |
| - MightyObserver wrote:
- Humanity sucks
I disagree. Regardless of that, how would that be relevant to the discussion?
Last edited by Zealot_Kommunizma on Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:27 pm; edited 1 time in total | |
| | | Liche Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4613 Join date : 2008-01-30 Age : 30 Location : USA-Virginia
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:13 am | |
| My family's hero is Anthony Bourdain. | |
| | | comrade110397 New Party Member
Posts : 569 Join date : 2008-11-11 Age : 38 Location : IDK
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:15 am | |
| - Liche wrote:
- My family's hero is Anthony Bourdain.
NO WAY | |
| | | MightyObserver World Republic Party Member
Posts : 670 Join date : 2008-09-30 Age : 31 Location : Earth
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:22 am | |
| - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- MightyObserver wrote:
- Humanity sucks
I disagree. Regardless of that, how would that be relevant to the discussion? My response to this new information. I already felt that way to a certain extent, but it is stronger now. | |
| | | Lilith Hero of Socialist Labor
Posts : 458 Join date : 2008-07-17 Age : 31 Location : Let me check on googlemap..
| Subject: Re: You hero standards Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:58 am | |
| Sorry Zealot, it was long before I answer, I didn't have lot of time this weekend. I'll have difficulties to answer fast this week too, I'm really buzy >.< - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- As for leaders of organizations, it certainly depends on the organization I'd say. You mention Green Peace. Green Peace literally does nothing but to trouble whalers, obstruct bulldozers and such things... but they have no consideration whatsoever about the impact of the economic system on nature. Given that fact, I wonder how could green peace members, acting within just the framework of action of Green Peace, be heroic to the cause of preserving the environment.
This is only the first example I found but you’re right in fact. I wouldn’t really consider Green Peace organization as heroic. They try to change society but it’s not enough. Maybe “Equita”‘s a better example, but it didn’t change the world –yet!-. It’s a pretty good idea though, but it was made by the workers to benefit themselves so that couldn’t really be “heroic”, but they illustrate well the example of “trying to change the world into something better”, in my views. - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- What I meant is how could a shareholder, for example, be considered heroic if not fighting (in a considerable way) against the condition that allowed him to be a shareholder in the first place?
Some may argue (capitalism apologists) that capitalists could be even heroic for "creating job sources" and giving their "innovations" to the world (capitalism's apologists often confuse "innovator" with "capitalist"). Then I would argue that creating job isn’t enough to be considered a hero. It helps the capitalist economy, not the society and its people to evolve or nothing. It’s just part of the “natural cycle” of capitalism, which doesn’t really concretely change anything. - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- The sleflessness of his action is found within his intention "to preserve the integrity of the capitalist system, battle laziness (or even worse, "soldiering" a broader concept if we're to use Frederick Taylor's terminology) and restore property rights".
Yeah, but those arguments are nil in fact. They don’t really support the common well-being as they encourage exploitation. Then, it cannot be considered as heroic. - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- I was not adressing those who are faithful but the church. And I sincerely don't think that the church is fundamentally or even conceptually "good" (or let's better say "with the intention to help majorities") since it is entirely based on domination and exploitation through faith which can translate into domination by disemination of fear, ignorance and the notion of salvation through submission.
It changes all then! Yeah, I think the same about church. The only thing they did was stealing poor families and do other atrocities (priest raping women, burning women because they said they were witches, etc.) They used this stolen money to buy golden sculptures as people were dying in the streets because they didn’t have enough to feed themselves. They sold “allegiances” that were supposed to reduce the time people had to spend at the purgatory before they go paradise. This is really stupid. They are the best “power abuse” example of whole time. Just take a look to their golden sculptures and marbled floor. Disgusting. - Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:
- The important thing here is to avoid subjective terms and focus in objective definitions.
For example: I believe a hero is someone that sacrifices himself for the cause of socialism, that is, who risked or gave his life or put at stake his integrity struggling for the stablishment and preservation of a system where the workers control the economy democratically.
Or: I believe doctors to be heroes because the objective of their profession is to save lifes while they assume the great responsability of having the future of those lives in his hands and dedicating sometimes massive ammounts of time, effort and concentration to the end of saving those lives.
Or: I believe that a worker who works extra time to gain surplus resources to give them exclusively to support disabled people is a hero because he's "sacrificing" his free time to benefit other people than can't look for themselves.
Etc. No good or bad, just concrete concepts. Ohww, I didn’t know that’s what you expected to receive as answer ^.^ Nonetheless, it restricts a lot the nuance of the meanings “hero” could have. I mean, I don’t personally think that doctors, someone with a certain quality or people who defend a certain type of ideology are all necessarily heroes. And even if I think, for example, that doctors are all heroes, it doesn’t necessary means they are the only one that could be considered as heroes in my view. What I wanted to point out is mainly that those examples, even if the meaning is concrete, cannot be generalized. Thanks ^.^ | |
| | | Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: You hero standards | |
| |
| | | | You hero standards | |
|
Similar topics | |
|
| Permissions in this forum: | You cannot reply to topics in this forum
| |
| |
| |