View Full Version : Deceased Marine Awarded the Medal of Honor
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/10/medal.honor/index.html
(CNN) -- President Bush announced on Friday that the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration, will be awarded posthumously to Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham.
In April 2004, Dunham was leading a patrol in an Iraqi town near the Syrian border when the patrol stopped a convoy of cars leaving the scene of an attack on a Marine convoy, according to military and media accounts of the action.
An occupant of one of the cars attacked Dunham and the two fought hand to hand. As they fought, Dunham yelled to fellow Marines, "No, no watch his hand." The attacker then dropped a grenade and Dunham hurled himself on top of it, using his helmet to try to blunt the force of the blast.
Still, Dunham was critically wounded in the explosion and died eight days later at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland.
I actually read a book on him for an English Comp Class. Quite the hero for saving his men the way he did.
Prince of the Poodles
11-10-2006, 21:52
"As long as we have Marines like Corporal Dunham, America will never fear for her liberty," President Bush said Friday.
An American hero. God bless the marines!!
Crazed Rabbit
11-10-2006, 21:54
Happy birthday to the Marines!
Semper Fidelis.
CR
He's already got his own Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Dunham), which is excellent. How many MOH's have been awarded in this conflict?
Mithrandir
11-10-2006, 22:22
:bow:
Now there's heroïsm.
He's already got his own Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Dunham), which is excellent. How many MOH's have been awarded in this conflict?
From the Article:
Dunham will be the second American to receive the Medal of Honor from service in Iraq.
:bow:
Now there's heroïsm.
Throwing yourself on a grenade is not heroism.
Mithrandir
11-10-2006, 22:50
Not per sé, but it is ,in my opinion, when you save lives with it.
Not for me. Not ever. Protect your own neck first, everone else is second.
Kongamato
11-10-2006, 23:02
I always wondered whether a helmet could sufficiently contain a grenade blast. Guess not. I do agree that throwing yourself on a grenade in order to save others' lives is heroism.
Sasaki Kojiro
11-10-2006, 23:05
Not for me. Not ever. Protect your own neck first, everone else is second.
Well, that's kind of the opposite of heroism isn't it? :dizzy2:
Throwing yourself on a grenade is not heroism.
Yes it is, to save the lives of others. Protecting your own neck has nothing to do with being a hero.
I always wondered whether a helmet could sufficiently contain a grenade blast. Guess not. I do agree that throwing yourself on a grenade in order to save others' lives is heroism.
It's not that the helmet wont stop the shrapnel, but the helmet over the top of a grenade is only going to add a seal to an explosive. Sealing explosives tends to make the blast a little worse. But the human body will stop/delflect most of the dangerious shrapnel. A true hero, if only congress would have awarded it sooner.
Throwing yourself on a grenade is not heroism.
Sacrificing yourself so that others can continue to live is heroism.
Read the Post article on this, it's combined with the Marine Corps anniversery and the new Marine Corp museum.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111000859.html
Now I know what that thing is I see over the trees when driving along I-95 near Quantico.
http://www.usmcmuseum.org/
Semper Fidelis and happy birthday!
Well, that's kind of the opposite of heroism isn't it? :dizzy2:
Not nessisarily.
Yes it is, to save the lives of others. Protecting your own neck has nothing to do with being a hero.
Yes it does, everything.
Sacrificing yourself so that others can continue to live is heroism.
No, risking your life to save others is heroism. Tossing your life away is stupid, and a waste of you.
Mithrandir
11-10-2006, 23:27
I'll take the bait.
He risked his life and lost it.
CrossLOPER
11-10-2006, 23:29
Technically, all soldiers can be considered heros since they should be willing to sacrifice themselves for "the greater good" (note the quote). However, one must always bring into question the soldier's intentions and how they evolve over time through experience and the main source of motivation that led the soldier into his or her predicament to begin with. Bluntly put, a title does not make you a hero.
Now, toning down a bit on the philosophy, all one needs to be in order to be a hero is to be considered a hero among his people. Truly, what Dunham did was quite brave, perhaps not the most intelligent thing he could have done for the moment, but very brave none-the-less.
I'll take the bait.
He risked his life and lost it.
If he had died after the grenade went off in his helmet while trying to use the helmet to toss the thing or put it under the car and use the helmet to direct the blast up, I might agree. But that's not what happened. The only way I'd athrow myself on a grenade is if it was to keep the other guy I'd just tossed on it in place.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-10-2006, 23:50
Yes it does, everything.
No it has nothing to do with it. Most heroes wind up dead like this Marine.
Tossing your life away is stupid, and a waste of you.
He didnt toos his away. He saved others by his actions.
If he had died after the grenade went off in his helmet while trying to use the helmet to toss the thing or put it under the car and use the helmet to direct the blast up, I might agree.
Duh? Thats exactly what he did.
The attacker then dropped a grenade and Dunham hurled himself on top of it, using his helmet to try to blunt the force of the blast.
If he had died after the grenade went off in his helmet while trying to use the helmet to toss the thing or put it under the car and use the helmet to direct the blast up, I might agree. But that's not what happened. The only way I'd athrow myself on a grenade is if it was to keep the other guy I'd just tossed on it in place.
The grenade only has what 5 seconds to burn till boom. Trying to throw it means it could blow up right above your head. Trying to carry it and toss it under a car also means it stands a goodchance of going boom while its near your chest. He acted to save his felows with the only thing he could think of, using himself. He didn't just throw his life away, he more then likely had bodyarmor and used his helmet, he wasnt planing on dieing but he risked and lost.
Dutch_guy
11-10-2006, 23:52
If he had died after the grenade went off in his helmet while trying to use the helmet to toss the thing or put it under the car and use the helmet to direct the blast up, I might agree. But that's not what happened.
That isn't what happened, indeed. And because that didn't happen, because he sacrificed himself, 98 percent of the people define such an act as heroisme.
I don't see how dying in an act to save your friends and comrades by throwing yourself on a live nade, isn't considered heroisme - but dying whilst throwing the nade away (out in the open?) is...
:balloon2:
If he had died after the grenade went off in his helmet while trying to use the helmet to toss the thing or put it under the car and use the helmet to direct the blast up, I might agree. But that's not what happened. The only way I'd athrow myself on a grenade is if it was to keep the other guy I'd just tossed on it in place.
Give me a break. It was a split second decision. Trying to toss it under a car might have been detremental and killed some of his squad mates. It's easy to go back and say "Rationally thinking about it, he should have done this." Yes, thank you captain obvious,but he lacked the luxury of time. He did what he thought was best to protect his soldiers which included risking and giving his own life. That, in my eyes and most other people's eyes would make him a hero.
The grenade only has what 5 seconds to burn till boom. Trying to throw it means it could blow up right above your head. Trying to carry it and toss it under a car also means it stands a goodchance of going boom while its near your chest. He acted to save his felows with the only thing he could think of, using himself. He didn't just throw his life away, he more then likely had bodyarmor and used his helmet, he wasnt planing on dieing but he risked and lost.
Depends on the type. NATO grenades have a 5 second fuse. But do Soviet ones from the 80's (or more recent Russian/Chinese ones)? Cause that's what were talking about. Also 5 seconds is enough time to boot a greande under a car and run.
Duh? Thats exactly what he did.
Completely not what he did.
I don't see how dying in an act to save your friends and comrades by throwing yourself on a live nade, isn't considered heroisme - but dying whilst throwing the nade away (out in the open?) is...
Easy you die. Your life and limb is more important than 6 other dolts who you may or may not even like. Throwing your stupid self on a live grenade is near certain death. It's a bad death, as it's so pointless.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-11-2006, 00:04
Completely not what he did.
The only part of your post he didnt do was your stupid and idiotic idea of throwning it under a car or directing the blast up with his helmet. What he did was the best way to protect his fellow Marines.
Give me a break. It was a split second decision. Trying to toss it under a car might have been detremental and killed some of his squad mates. It's easy to go back and say "Rationally thinking about it, he should have done this." Yes, thank you captain obvious,but he lacked the luxury of time. He did what he thought was best to protect his soldiers which included risking and giving his own life. That, in my eyes and most other people's eyes would make him a hero.
If that's how you see it you must have pretty slow reaction time. 5 seconds is a long time when adrenaline is pumping.
The only part of your post he didnt do was your stupid and idiotic idea of throwning it under a car or directing the blast up with his helmet. What he did was the best way to protect his fellow Marines.
No. He put the helmet on the grenade them himself on the helmet. Leaving the force 2 ways to go through him or the ground. Stupid, your more important than your fellow marines.
Tsk Tsk Lars your arguement is a false one. The Marine did what he thought was necessary to save his fellow marines, at the expense of his own life. Go back and read military history throughout the ages and you will find this Marine's actions is consistent with other recoginized military heros of the past.
Prince of the Poodles
11-11-2006, 00:15
Throwing yourself on a grenade is not heroism.
Spoken like a true coward.
"Woohoo I said something different and insulting, give me attention!!" ~:rolleyes:
The man sacrificed himself, whether he knew he would die or not, to protect his squadmates. Who could argue with the heroism of that? :shame:
No. He put the helmet on the grenade them himself on the helmet. Leaving the force 2 ways to go through him or the ground. Stupid, your more important than your fellow marines.
That is the fundmental flaw in your postion. The squad is more important then the individual. The platoon is more important then the squad. And so on and so on up the chain. Individuals that attempt to save the unit at the risk to themselves have been consistently award medals of valor. Some higher then others.
I guess you would call my grandfather a non-hero for driving his dozer over a Japanese sapper that was trying to destroy the bunker which housed his SeaBee command bunker and platoon, while the Japanese soldier was activiting the charge. He was award the Bronze Star, and spent 12-18 monthes learning to walk again afterwards.
Your arguement is false and your understanding of military heroism is completely distorted.
Spoken like a true coward.
"Woohoo I said something different and insulting, give me attention!!" ~:rolleyes:
The man sacrificed himself, whether he knew he would die or not, to protect his squadmates. Who could argue with the heroism of that? :shame:
I can and will. Choosing yourself over others isn't cowardice. It scares me that some people think it is.
I guess you would call my grandfather a non-hero for driving his dozer over a Japanese sapper that was trying to destroy the bunker which housed his SeaBee command bunker and platoon, while the Japanese soldier was activiting the charge. He was award the Bronze Star, and spent 12-18 monthes learning to walk again afterwards.
He lived, probably minus a limb. So he is a hero. That situation is not a no-win situation like throwing yourself on a grenade.
Kralizec
11-11-2006, 00:28
I wish I could say I'd do the same thing without hesitation. The man is a hero, any attempt to say otherwise is ridiculous.
Prince of the Poodles
11-11-2006, 00:29
If that's how you see it you must have pretty slow reaction time. 5 seconds is a long time when adrenaline is pumping.
That is 5 seconds after the pin is pulled. I dont know tons about grenades but I would suspect you can subtract a second or two for it to be thrown and land near the marines.
Also, Ive noticed in video games that grenades are sometimes "cooked" so the enemy doesnt have time to throw them back. I dont know if this is common in real life, but that could also knock some time off that long(~:rolleyes:) 5 seconds.
A 5 second fuse is so you don't have to cook it. Now if you spoon it before tossing then it might less than 5. But we don't know what kind of grenades the insurgents use.
Goofball
11-11-2006, 00:43
I would strongly suggest that everybody take everything lars says with several grains of salt.
He supports the NDP.
Really nothing else needs to be said about the value of his opinions.
Sorry. A little Canuckian humor there for those of you who didn't get it. And lars, that was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
But I do think you are way out in left field on this one.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-11-2006, 01:11
A 5 second fuse is so you don't have to cook it. Now if you spoon it before tossing then it might less than 5. But we don't know what kind of grenades the insurgents use.
And we dont know how long after pulling the pin and releasing the saftey he held it for nor did the Marine know this. He did what again was the best way to protect the lives of his men. And that is the first duty of a commander, To the saftey and well being of his men not himself as you seem to think.
So, according to lars, sacrificing your life to save the lives of your peers, friends and fellow soldiers makes you stupid. :dizzy2:
Normally, I'd tend to think he was trolling- but it sounds like he actually believes this.
I can and will. Choosing yourself over others isn't cowardice. It scares me that some people think it is.
It is self-preservation over concern for others. Its not heroism either regardless of what you believe.
He lived, probably minus a limb. So he is a hero. That situation is not a no-win situation like throwing yourself on a grenade.
Again my grandfather did not know that - he chose to risk his life to save his comardes. The Marine and my grandfather did the same type of event with the same overall effect - the risk of one's self to protect and defend one's comrades
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-11-2006, 04:11
Throwing yourself on a grenade is not heroism.
Yes it is. When you give up your own life to save others, that's heroism. Define Heroism for Me then Lars, if you like to say that stuff.
So, according to lars, sacrificing your life to save the lives of your peers, friends and fellow soldiers makes you stupid. :dizzy2:
Normally, I'd tend to think he was trolling- but it sounds like he actually believes this.
So you get it then. Sacrifice is stupid, risk is fine though.
Again my grandfather did not know that - he chose to risk his life to save his comardes. The Marine and my grandfather did the same type of event with the same overall effect - the risk of one's self to protect and defend one's comrades
But he took a resonable risk. Sure he could have died, but it's not for sure. Like throwing yourself on a live grenade is.
CrossLOPER
11-11-2006, 05:45
lars has the old "me first" belief. Not too noble, but what the hell does that mean to you and your family if your meaty bits are splattered everywhere?
Just saying that there are other ways of performing heroics than hopping on top of grenades. I would have opted to kick it out of the way had there been a chance. I'm not going to get myself killed when I'm unsure that my actions will even do any good.
Whether it was stupid or not, Dunham did what he did because he thought it would save his fellow soldiers.
I do find it strange that he tried to use his helmet. The thing's made out of hard kevlar, hardly good enough to stop the small handgun rounds it was made to stop.
Crazed Rabbit
11-11-2006, 05:50
Lars, you are obviously ignorant of the true meaning of heroism. You seem to have deluded yourself into a false understanding.
Crazed Rabbit
But he took a resonable risk. Sure he could have died, but it's not for sure. Like throwing yourself on a live grenade is.
The standard is exactly the same as heroism is defined - the willingness to sacrafice oneself for others. Wether one survives the risk - does not equate to the heroic act.
Audie Murphy recieved his medal after doing what was considered a sucidial move by many of his contempory soldiers. Your attempt still arguing a false premise about what makes a hero.
For the record - that you believe throwing yourself on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers not being a heroic act is not a major dilemia for me - its the concepts expressed in post #10 and Post #15 which demonstrate your lack of understanding about what defines a heroic act.
Grow a damn heart Lars...quite frankly you disgust me. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this garbage! This man did what was for the better of the whole...doing what you would do, thats like sacrificing your arm to save a finger on the arm!
Lars, you are obviously ignorant of the true meaning of heroism. You seem to have deluded yourself into a false understanding.
I have my own definition, it doesn't include suicide. Or sacrifice if you prefer. That marine was handed the highest military award for commiting suicide.
The standard is exactly the same as heroism is defined - the willingness to sacrafice oneself for others. Wether one survives the risk - does not equate to the heroic act.
It's not the same. Heroism is about risking yourself to help others. Not sacrificing.
Grow a damn heart Lars...quite frankly you disgust me. You should be ashamed of yourself for posting this garbage! This man did what was for the better of the whole...doing what you would do, thats like sacrificing your arm to save a finger on the arm!
I was mostly giving hypotheticals. What I would have done with 90% certainty was, kick the greande at the car and bolt in the other direction. Better someone else than me.
But as was said a million a millon times lars, he lost the risk. How was he supposed to reckon in that short amount of time that putting the helmet over the greanade would not help? He lost his gamble Lars, and he died saving his squad, so it was not a suicidal act.
I was mostly giving hypotheticals. What I would have done with 90% certainty was, kick the greande at the car and bolt in the other direction. Better someone else than me.
I suppose you do have a point there. I appologize for what I have said.
I have my own definition, it doesn't include suicide. Or sacrifice if you prefer. That marine was handed the highest military award for commiting suicide.
Incorrect once again.
It's not the same. Heroism is about risking yourself to help others. Not sacrificing.
You have defined yourself into untenable postion. Risk of life and sacrifice of oneself to protect others have long been considered heroic.
Since your having a problem with your definition - here is one from Websters
Main Entry: 1he·ro·ic
Pronunciation: hi-'rO-ik also her-'O- or hE-'rO-
Variant(s): also he·ro·ical /-i-k&l/
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, resembling, or suggesting heroes especially of antiquity
2 a : exhibiting or marked by courage and daring b : supremely noble or self-sacrificing
3 a : of impressive size, power, extent, or effect <heroic doses> <a heroic voice> b (1) : of great intensity : EXTREME, DRASTIC <heroic effort> (2) : of a kind that is likely only to be undertaken to save a life <heroic surgery>
4 : of, relating to, or constituting drama written during the Restoration in heroic couplets and concerned with a conflict between love and honor
and
Main Entry: he·ro
Pronunciation: 'hir-(")O
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural heroes
Etymology: Latin heros, from Greek hErOs
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heros : SUBMARINE 2
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion : IDOL
I bolded the two revelant parts of the definitions for you. As stated before - your definition is incorrect. I don't have a issue with your stating the marine is not a hero, its the method and arguement that you are currently presenting that is a fallacous and ignorant of history of the events that constituted the award criteria . Under no logical criteria can you state that the act not heroic because of the very nature of the definition of heroic, self-sacrifice is one of the key elements of an heroic act. The Marine's primary element in his act was to sacrifice himself to prevent the wounding and killing of his comrades. Serving one's self interests over all others is not by definition heroic either.
So you missed the part where I said my definition of heroism has no mention of sacrifice. Risk yes, sacrifice no.
But, when risking your life, there is a great possibility of losing it. So in this case, sacrificing yourself is just a very high risk.
Guys, it doesn't matter. Let Lars have his dillusional idea of what a hero is. Who cares. It seems the majority of us recongize what Dunham did.
Yes, but it would help if we helped him get to know what true heroism is. I know his isnt right, but its not far off. He just needs to start thinking of others, instead of himself. Unless he a mule, it wont be that hard to convince him, because there is a heart within that body of his.
So you missed the part where I said my definition of heroism has no mention of sacrifice. Risk yes, sacrifice no.
hince the statement of
Since your having a problem with your definition - here is one from Websters
and
As stated before - your definition is incorrect
I guess in your desire to defend an untenable definition and postion you failed to realize that I have alreadly address the issue that your definition is incorrect
Guys, it doesn't matter. Let Lars have his dillusional idea of what a hero is. Who cares. It seems the majority of us recongize what Dunham did.
And ruin my amusment of having him make himself look even worse in his attempt at defending such a postion.
which would by defination make you a bad person...just lay off him for a while...lets help him to find out what heroism defines, not constantly make him look like a fool.
which would by defination make you a bad person...just lay off him for a while...lets help him to find out what heroism defines, not constantly make him look like a fool.
Lars is a big boy. We've tried, he isn't going to listen.
youve been going about it in the wrong way...youve been constantly berating him and his posts, which is obviously not doing any good. You need to take what he believes and convert it using what we believe untill you have something he can respect. Wording is key here.
Samurai Waki
11-11-2006, 07:59
A Lot of times there isn't much choice in the matter. A Marine in Combat doesn't have the time to meticulously weigh the benefits and Banes of a Certain Decision, he makes split second decisions, and whether for better or for worse has to live with the consequences.
If You see a guy drop a grenade in front of you, and you look to your left and right and see five of your buddies standing around you, the chances of you having the luxury of thinking "hmmm...maybe I should throw the grenade back." or "Maybe I should Jump out of the way" or "I'm going to jump on it and save my friends." isn't that likely.
What he did was noble, and brave. And ultimately suffered the consequences, but alas, he could've suffered just as fatal results, as well as maiming or killing other comrades if his decision was to try and find cover...in 3 seconds.
which would by defination make you a bad person...just lay off him for a while...lets help him to find out what heroism defines, not constantly make him look like a fool.
Some comments deserve ridicule - it just so happens that lars definition falls within that scope.
hmmm...true that he has brought it upon himself but {insert last post here}
DemonArchangel
11-11-2006, 08:06
Honestly, I personally would have just taken a dive to the side and let the grenade kill my buddies. But I'm not exactly heroic.
Semper Fidelis Corporal Dunham.
hmmm...true that he has brought it upon himself but {insert last post here}
good thing I have never claimed to be a good person - only a human being.
you just got a little carried away is all.
you just got a little carried away is all.
Not at all - what has been written is rather tame - very little ad hominem, or emotional appeal arguement used
I dont feel like arguing right now, im about ready to pass out as it is.
also, you have been debating this very nicely, and although they were mostly tame, they were still very stubbornly trying to force the concept of heroism down his throat.
by me,
youve been going about it in the wrong way...youve been constantly berating him and his posts, which is obviously not doing any good. You need to take what he believes and convert it using what we believe untill you have something he can respect. Wording is key here.
I do find it strange that he tried to use his helmet. The thing's made out of hard kevlar, hardly good enough to stop the small handgun rounds it was made to stop.
The hard kevlar is about as good as it gets for stopping multiple handgun rounds and slow shrapnel. The bad part is its not going to stop supersonic razor sharp shrapnel. Jumping on the helmet sealed the explosion more then likely the helmet too was turned to shrapnel. Ironically I'll bet that just throwing the helmet over the top of it and ducking would have cuaght, and disapated most of the debree.
Lar's your logic here is quite sickening. What he did was heroic, the squad is his life. If the squad die's you die. At the time all he could think to do to save his fellow's was sacrifice himself, very brave very heroic, well deserving of the Medal of Honor.
Redleg, what your father did was heroic. His deed will be remembered on veterans day. I hope he enjoy's the 11th.
Gawain of Orkeny
11-11-2006, 17:45
Redleg, what your father did was heroic. His deed will be remembered on veterans day. I hope he enjoy's the 11th.
Reds not Canadian, The 11th isnt our veterans day,
CrossLOPER
11-11-2006, 17:57
The hard kevlar is about as good as it gets for stopping multiple handgun rounds and slow shrapnel. The bad part is its not going to stop supersonic razor sharp shrapnel. Jumping on the helmet sealed the explosion more then likely the helmet too was turned to shrapnel. Ironically I'll bet that just throwing the helmet over the top of it and ducking would have cuaght, and disapated most of the debree.
...or the crippling shockwave that went right into his chest. I can imagine how it felt. Quick thinking's not alway's a luxury, though I bet Dunham half-expected that situation.
KukriKhan
11-11-2006, 18:14
Reds not Canadian, The 11th isnt our veterans day,
:Looks at the post:
:Looks at the calendar:
:Looks at the post:
:Looks at the calendar:
:Scratches head:
But, when risking your life, there is a great possibility of losing it. So in this case, sacrificing yourself is just a very high risk.
An unacceptable risk.
I guess in your desire to defend an untenable definition and postion you failed to realize that I have alreadly address the issue that your definition is incorrect
My definition is mine. I don't give a crap what a dictionary says.
Yes, but it would help if we helped him get to know what true heroism is. I know his isnt right, but its not far off. He just needs to start thinking of others, instead of himself. Unless he a mule, it wont be that hard to convince him, because there is a heart within that body of his.
Your really naive. I've never though of others. From the time I was very young. You can't convince me.
KukriKhan
11-11-2006, 18:36
An unacceptable risk.
My definition is mine. I don't give a crap what a dictionary says.
Your really naive. I've never though of others. From the time I was very young. You can't convince me.
So, you would not enter your mother's burning house to try and save her, because it was an unacceptable risk?
Kralizec
11-11-2006, 18:42
Ah I see Lars, since you know for yourself that you're not a hero, you can't stomach that others are honoured as such?
An unacceptable risk.
My definition is mine. I don't give a crap what a dictionary says.
Your really naive. I've never though of others. From the time I was very young. You can't convince me.
a risk not thought out in a split-second decision.
Your the being naive here, you selfish lout!
So, you would not enter your mother's burning house to try and save her, because it was an unacceptable risk?
If it was an unacceptable risk then yes.
a risk not thought out in a split-second decision.
Your the being naive here, you selfish lout!
Ah but it is. There may or may not be much higher though processes but it is evaluated. The whole fight or flight reaction that happens as soon as you percieve danger.
Crazed Rabbit
11-11-2006, 19:22
Ah I see Lars, since you know for yourself that you're not a hero, you can't stomach that others are honoured as such?
Hmm, seems plausible.
CR
yes, but it is evaluated poorly, and you disgust me more with every post you make, thus I take back my apology, as you deserve every word I have said, rotten though it may be. The only thing keeping me from saying more is the guild rules! And a man who would not risk his lfe to save his own mother...is completely wrong-headed, and very selfish.
Ah I see Lars, since you know for yourself that you're not a hero, you can't stomach that others are honoured as such?
Not quite. What I can't stomach is that the surest way to be rewarded and lauded as a war hero is to commit pointless suicide.
Ser Clegane
11-11-2006, 19:44
What I can't stomach is that the surest way to be rewarded and lauded as a war hero is to commit pointless suicide.
That's an odd statement - he saved other people's lives by risking/sacrificing his own - seems to be quite the normal reason for being lauded as a war hero.
Keeping yourself safe might ultimately beneficial for yourself, however, it is hardly a reason to be honored.
My definition is mine. I don't give a crap what a dictionary says.
If you just make up your own definitions that contradict the commonly accepted meaning of a term, discussion about the meaning of heroism seems to be a waste of time, don't you think?
You might as well start an argument about sunflowers being blue, because you have your own definition of blue and don't care about the commonly accepted definition of the word.
Lars, you relly are the pinnacle of what modern society has become. His death was not pointless, as it saved the lives of others. You being the selfish and greedy pitiable wretch you are, its no wonder you cant determine the true meaning of heroism.
the way this arguement is headed...it would probably be for the best if this thread was locked...
I agree with Lars - at least on the "whats the point of being a hero" thing - quite honestly if i thought the risk of harm to myself existed, then i would not try to help someone else - its not very nice (and im not proud of it) but very very few people would have the guts to risk themseleves for another person.... its all very well saying you would on an internet forum, but if it happened in real life - human nature would kick in, and you'd be running for the nearest cover (i'd be running fastest of all) - i just think its mean to critisize Lars for being honest... heroism is something that i find odd, because i admire it in those that have it, but realize that they are basically being "stupid" -
in terms of the medal, of course the soldier should have it. He has saved others, in an act of extreme bravery, which as i have just stated the vast majority of people would never consider. Yes, he died, but he saved others - his death wasn't pointless, if his action had been pointless (ie. heroic but to no obvious purpose) then he shoudlnt get a medal , however his actions completely justify the honor.
:2thumbsup:
That's an odd statement - he saved other people's lives by risking/sacrificing his own - seems to be quite the normal reason for being lauded as a war hero.
Keeping yourself safe might ultimately beneficial for yourself, however, it is hardly a reason to be honored.
He saved a few disposible lives. It's not like he saved someone or something important. He tossed his life away on the side of the road for nothing.
If you just make up your own definitions that contradict the commonly accepted meaning of a term, discussion about the meaning of heroism seems to be a waste of time, don't you think?
Different dictionaries can have different definitions. Plus my deifinition of heroism is how I see it. That your no hero is you have to die.
You might as well start an argument about sunflowers being blue, because you have your own definition of blue and don't care about the commonly accepted definition of the word.
Colour (unless your colourblind) is far more quantifiable than than a idealogical concept like heroism.
Lars, you relly are the pinnacle of what modern society has become. His death was not pointless, as it saved the lives of others. You being the selfish and greedy pitiable wretch you are, its no wonder you cant determine the true meaning of heroism.
His death was pointless. Just protecting the lives of others is not worth dying over.
He saved a few disposible lives. It's not like he saved someone or something important. He tossed his life away on the side of the road for nothing.
if all lives are disposable, (ie. of the sam importance) then one death instead of several is preferable - therefore it wasn't pointless, it's a matter of numbers :2thumbsup:
But preservation of your own life over rides all our disposibility. You have to look out for your own arse first, as no one else should be.
He saved a few disposible lives. It's not like he saved someone or something important. He tossed his life away on the side of the road for nothing.
Different dictionaries can have different definitions. Plus my deifinition of heroism is how I see it. That your no hero is you have to die.
Colour (unless your colourblind) is far more quantifiable than than a idealogical concept like heroism.
His death was pointless. Just protecting the lives of others is not worth dying over.
but could you have lived with yourself...all you sqaudmen being blown up by a grenade while you rune for cover? It would have been your duty as a soildier to deflect the grenade. Granted, there were better ways of doing than by jumping on it, but he did what he reckened was right. If you dont thhink that dying for other people is worth dying, than you have definitely got to get a different perspective on life. His life was not thrown away, it was risked (a very large, and unlikely to win risk, but a risk all the same) and he lost his wager for his life, but it was for his comrades. Would you not agree that having 6 soldiers is better than having one? They may not have been the best, but they were his comrades, and thus it was his dudty to protect them, regardless of the consequences.
but could you have lived with yourself...all you sqaudmen being blown up by a grenade while you rune for cover? It would have been your duty as a soildier to deflect the grenade. Granted, there were better ways of doing than by jumping on it, but he did what he reckened was right. If you dont thhink that dying for other people is worth dying, than you have definitely got to get a different perspective on life. His life was not thrown away, it was risked (a very large, and unlikely to win risk, but a risk all the same) and he lost his wager for his life, but it was for his comrades. Would you not agree that having 6 soldiers is better than having one? They may not have been the best, but they were his comrades, and thus it was his dudty to protect them, regardless of the consequences.
I could certainly live with myself (and therefore Lars certainly could :laugh4: ), at least i'd be alive, if there was a risk of loss of life, then the vast majority would run for it...or at least dither. I think the more important factor is that in the vent he did save lives... if he hadn't then it would be far easier to be scornful. Duty has little to do with it in that kind of situation. He has a duty, but human insinct and self preservation would normally take precedant (in my opinion) duty until death is a horrible concept, because most people wouldnt be able to carry it off. - bad post, im watching the rugby highlights
I suppose human instinct would take over, but what makes us truly human is our ability to overcome that instinct to run in terror. Thus the concept of bravery, and self-control.
mercian billman
11-11-2006, 22:06
It's been awhile since I've posted, but I saw this thread and will just comment that, Cpl. Dunham's, Medal of Honor is long overdue and President Bush timed it well to coincide with the Marine Corps Birthday.
I'm not going to try and argue with people who place self preservation over the lives of others, believe that my fellow Marines are worthless, and can't understand why Marines would fight to the death. There are things more important than one's own life and if you don't feel that way, no explaining that I do can possibly change your mind.
Anyways, Happy belated birthday
Mithrandir
11-11-2006, 22:54
Let me take an unacceptable risk and close this thread.
Further discussion can take place in a new thread either about the marine, or about the definition of heroïsm. Not on both.
:bow:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.