Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:25:22 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2000 at 15:07:08, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On May 18, 2000 at 14:21:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >>On May 18, 2000 at 14:10:08, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>On May 18, 2000 at 13:38:21, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>On May 18, 2000 at 12:09:19, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>>>On May 18, 2000 at 11:08:59, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>>Which is it? Is it both? Is it neither? >>>>>> >>>>>>I think it's both. >>>>> >>>>>I fail to see the bravery/cowardice issue. He is entitled to reject the >>>>>participation of a computer program in his national championship, isn't he? >>>> >>>>*Why* do you think he is rejecting the option of playing? >>> >>>For the reasons he stated. Why should I interpret him? He opposed the >>>participation of Fritz. Playing against it would be doing as told, against his >>>own judgement. His privilege. >> >>And yet you are willing to interpret me, even diagnose me as someone who labels >>people. >> >>>>>Refusing to play Fritz is only being coherent and has nothing to do with being >>>>>a coward, "play like a man" (other posts on this issue), etc. >>>> >>>>Coherent in regard to what? >>> >>>See above. >>> >>>> If someone decides not to play are you saying that >>>>the decision is neither brave nor cowardly? >>> >>>Nothing to do with being a coward, a hero, a "man", a "sissy". >> >>He is sticking to his principles. You see no bravery in that? > >This particular adjective didn't even cross my mind. He seems convinced, he acts >coherently, both fine with me. Brave, coward, man, sissy? Come on... > >>>>>I find this sort of >>>>>macho talk more revelaing about the poster than about van der Sterren and >>>>>Bosboom. >>>> >>>>What does it say about me then, if it is revealing? >>> >>>That you think in these terms. >> >>Was it Kierkegaard or Dick Van Patten who said, "You label me, you negate me." > >Nice quotation, and I agree with it. But disagreeing with you or with your way >of thinking in a specific issue is not labeling you, I think. > >>>>>It reminds me of the pacifists that refused to go to war and were >>>>>accused of cowardice. >>>> >>>>Then you think it is bravery. That's what I was wondering. >>> >>>Nope. I don't think that being a pacifist has anything to do with bravery or >>>lack of it. Same applies to van der Sterren. >> >>But taking a stand in relation to your pacifism does. Or do you simply not >>believe that bravery or cowardice even exist? > >What I think is that this dicotomy has nothing to do with this issue, in the >same way that I find absurd telling van der Sterren and Bosboom to be a "man", >not a "sissy", as it has been posted before. I don't know about being a man or being a sissy. In fact, despite the fact that I do believe in cowardice and bravery, I don't believe that people are brave or people are cowards. I believe that individual actions are brave or cowardly, however. I did not read the message about 'be a man and not a sissy' and so perhaps I don't know where you are coming from in this debate. Cowardice and bravery... A man's house catches on fire. Terrified, he runs out. Then he thinks of his love for his family and runs back in. He extracts his entire family and even goes back in and retrieves the family cat. Is he brave? Is he a coward? Running out may have been cowardly. Saving the family may have been brave. But bravery and cowardice are individual actions. I have no idea why the notion of bravery and cowardice should be so repellant to you. All of us exhibit *both* properties at different times of our lives. And what one person "sees" as brave, another person "sees" as cowardly. That's because our interpretation of situations is different. And also because we do not hold all of the facts of those who made the decisions. Martin Luther King Junior made a march and a speach against hatred, making himself a target of (perhaps) millions of hate mongers. I view this as brave. Lieutenant William Calley shot unarmed women, old men, and children. I view this as cowardly. Warrant officer Hugh Thompson tried to stop them. I view this as brave. I view lots of things as cowardly that may or may not be: 1. Running away from a challenge from fear of losing 2. Oppressing someone weaker than you are because you are able 3. Watching injustice in silence 4. The list goes on and on. I could never label them all. I view lots of things as brave that may or may not be: 1. Facing a challenge with supposedly insurmountable odds 2. Standing up for someone weaker when it is extremely unpopular to do so 3. Speaking out or acting against injustice 5. The list goes on and on. I could never label them all. For the current matter -- refusing to play computers... I view the individual refusals to play as brave. People are sticking to their guns about their principles. I view the cause itself as cowardly. People are afraid to play against computers. In short, I find the struggle to be intensely ironic. Now, it is clear to me that the subject itself has touched some very sore nerves indeed. Be that as it may, I do think I am entitled to my opinion.
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.