1 edit
.....when i see gyros offered for sale i just drive by....i drive onto a
place that sells real food....i don't eat goat....i like food that hasn't
been cooking for 45 days on a rotating stick ( but i will eat a churro now and then but in secret )....i think people who want to eat gyros are going
to college to learn how to dress mannequins for department stores...
2 edits
Originally posted by royalchickenWhen I use 'hero', I am using it as a culturally accepted term which defines a person or persons, or maybe even fictional character(s), whom you set above yourself in terms of status and whose position you idolise. Now they may be in that position through good, decent and morally correct actions such as justice, bravery, virtue etc. and this is surely how the term was first used. But they may also be there for the wrong reasons, reasons of opportunity or amoral action.
I don't know what you and Sister Nordwhale mean by 'hero'. If you mean 'person to emulate', then I agree. If you mean 'person to respect and think is awesome' or 'person whose actions are admirable and can be learnt from' or 'people who embody valued ideals' then I don't see how having heroes is indicative of unwillingess to follow individual desires. ...[text shortened]... ov, whose lectures I attended last term and who fits all three of those definitions.
But to idolise is to covet and I think two things happen; either the idolising becomes some sort of tainted envy, where the goal is more important than the journey and people act, not in a way that stems from intrinsically heroic virtue, but instead in a awya that brings the quickest parallel to the actions of their hero. Celebrity is a prime example of this and has even fed back into the celebrities themselves.
Alternatively heroism becomes something to use as an excuse for a lack of action. To have a hero can give you a pinnacle of status from which to deem all your personal deeds unworthy; you look at them and say 'they're amazing, I could never do that' and somehow you convince yourself your mediocre, half-hearted attempts at the pursuits of your dreams are falling short, not because of a lack of effort, but because your hero has something you will never have, so to dream of coming close to them is futile. As it says in my profile, 'apathy is a fear of consequence', an idea I carry from falling into this exact same trap.
As far as I'm concerned, having people you admire is fine as long as you do not place them outside of your reach. To have 'heroes' is to set yourself up to fail, and needlessly, or to make a mockery of that which you admire. I used to have heroes, but they made me depressed.
Originally posted by chancremechanicROTFFLMAO! That's about the funniest thing I have read yet........ He he he..... All of these three clowns would be the first to run outa a burning building leaving small children in harms way to save their own butts. That's funny because it's true. Now I will giggle about this all the day long. Thanks for the light hearted humor.
Bill O'Reilly
Pat Buchanan
Tom Tancredo
Geewiz I hope you were kidding though or you have some real issues with your personal ideals about truth and freedom which of course these three don't believe in or stand for... same as the current president and his admin.
RTh
Originally posted by StarrmanI agree to some extent, but I think it's possible to recognise when the capabilities or qualities of an admired person are, realistically, beyond one's reach without affecting one's motivation. In fact, exaggerated self-belief can be more dangerous for some than self-underestimation; I find myself thinking most sharply and acting most carefully in all aspects of life when I feel a need to prove to myself that I don't suck.
When I use 'hero', I am using it as a culturally accepted term which defines a person or persons, or maybe even fictional character(s), whom you set above yourself in terms of status and whose position you idolise. Now they may be in that position through good, decent and morally correct actions such as justice, bravery, virtue etc. and this is surely how ...[text shortened]... mockery of that which you admire. I used to have heroes, but they made me depressed.
where the goal is more important than the journey
This is a good observation. However, I think valuable personal journeys tend to happen when people start off with some goal in mind and remain open to influences that arise in pursuit of the goal. As you suggest, it hardly matters if they reach it provided they encouter worthwhile things in the process, but it's hard to start any sort of journey without some bias about where one would like to end up. Columbus wouldn't have been able to commit acts of outrageous genocide in the Caribbean if he hadn't risen one day and said 'Right, I'm off to Asia!' 😛. A healthily respected 'hero' can provide such a goal, and as long as you remain open to possibility, this is a good thing.
I don't think you're objecting to heroes as much as to rigid values and inability to adapt to the unique set of circumstances in which each person finds themself. This discussion might be about a special case of the general problem of trying to impose some sort of order on our lives without getting too far downwind of opportunities.
1 edit
Originally posted by RingtailhunterKeep laughing because I wasn't kidding. From some of your "conservative" approaches to the problems facing America, it would seem to me that you wouldn't be so quick to prejudge these men. After all, wasn't it you who said to shoot illegal aliens? Neither of these men advocate this drastic measure. All they desire is tight border control and control of immigration. Your response to my three choices confuses me. Are you a closet liberal?
ROTFFLMAO! That's about the funniest thing I have read yet........ He he he..... All of these three clowns would be the first to run outa a burning building leaving small children in harms way to save their own butts. That's funny because it's true. Now I will giggle about this all the day long. Thanks for the light hearted humor.
Geewiz I ho ...[text shortened]... ree don't believe in or stand for... same as the current president and his admin.
RTh
[Quote from Ringtailhunter from the illegal immigration debates forum]: "No, I look at it as a military problem. We are being invaded plain and simple and there is nothing more about it. I feel we are being too soft on this crap and it's time to take a stand. Lets say we put up signs stating that if they intend to try and get accross our border we will shoot to kill, would that be fair? I guess that I don't care, I figure after the first wave is laying on the ground being picked at by vultures the second wave will turn around and go back to their own country and fill out the paper work, just as my family did so many years ago." Unquote]
From chancremechanic: Mr. O'Reilly professes to be neither liberal or conservative and endorses using troops on the border; Buchanan, obviously is conservative but not dangerously so; after all, he is on "Face the Nation" on Sunday mornings, and his opinions are sought after. He, too, advocate military use on the border. Tom Tancredo, while conservative, doesn't advocte illegal immigration and does advocate using troops on the border just as you do. So, while you are "laughing", please don't have a mirroe close by...
😉 by the way, no offense was taken from your post, and I hope none was taken from my post to you. Peace
