|
Post by MugiwaraBlair on Mar 19, 2014 18:37:51 GMT
It's because the "hero" had willpower too, compassion alone doesn't make heroes, it makes those who stare horrified at the scene.
Indifference means you're unaffected by whatever makes the weak react the way they do, which makes it strength. That's how opposites work. To be strong is to be not weak, to be weak is to be not strong, that's all there is to it.
I guess you can call courage a strong trait too, since it's shrugging off fear to act despite it (which is still willpower) but one who isn't afraid in the 1st place is stronger. Or a idiot in some cases I'll grant you but I meant the non-foolish kind of fearless
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ruliya on Mar 19, 2014 18:44:05 GMT
Fear keeps you on your toes, fear keeps you alive, anyone who's seen real action'll tell ya that. Fools rush in, where Angels fear to tread. Though you're right, it's not just compassion, because there's never usually just one emotion happening at once.
Indifference is neither weak nor strong.
Indifferent.
adjective 1. without interest or concern; not caring; apathetic: his indifferent attitude toward the suffering of others. 2. having no bias, prejudice, or preference; impartial; disinterested. 3. neither good nor bad in character or quality; average; routine: an indifferent specimen. 4. not particularly good, important, etc.; unremarkable; unnotable: an indifferent success; an indifferent performance. 5. of only moderate amount, extent, etc.
|
|
|
Post by MugiwaraBlair on Mar 19, 2014 18:54:35 GMT
It's like I said, if you're unaffected by something that makes others horrified/stressed/afraid/etc then that means you're stronger than them. And being unaffected means being indifferent. Indifference is psychological invulnerability, no one with half a brain would argue that invulnerability isn't an advantage. Sure you could that as with physical invulnerability there are drawbacks, but they're far outweighted imo
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ruliya on Mar 19, 2014 19:02:07 GMT
Not necessarily. Being cold and indifferent means you'd give up and walk away long before anyone who cares would give up. Just because what you're seeing shocks you doesn't mean you give up and do nothing, a lot of times it spurs you on to kick more ass. Much stronger.
|
|
|
Post by MugiwaraBlair on Mar 19, 2014 19:05:46 GMT
Indifference isn't giving up, giving up means you're trying in the 1st place. However you act is mostly irrelevant, being unfazed is the part that means you're strong, if you're unfazed and still choose to save them you might not make sense but you're still strong
|
|
|
Post by michael50210 on Mar 19, 2014 19:10:22 GMT
.............. Well, I'll make sure to not start dying anywhere around you Mugi.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ruliya on Mar 19, 2014 19:12:05 GMT
If you're indifferent and don't care at the get go, as soon as things get tough, and indifferent person would be like, well I don't give a fuck, see ya.
I wouldn't call being unfazed strong exactly, depends on the situation, if you're unfazed that bullets are whipping past your head in a fire fight, that's some steel you got, but if you're unfazed by a house burning down, then that's not strong, that's just indifferent.
|
|
|
Post by MugiwaraBlair on Mar 19, 2014 19:20:24 GMT
I saw a house on fire with people screaming inside, the onlooking "crowd" (actually 10 people tops) was panicking and horrified, they were weak people. I wasn't panicking nor horrified, I'm a strong person. That I chose to keep walking is irrelevant, I didn't give up saving them, I chose not to try because I'm a misanthrope
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ruliya on Mar 19, 2014 19:22:32 GMT
I'm sorry but, that didn't make you strong, it's a nice self justification, but it didn't. Whilst panicking where they seeing if there was anything to do, did they phone for emergency services? They were doing something they were strong, you weren't. And yes you did, by doing nothing, you gave up on them.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ruliya on Mar 19, 2014 19:32:49 GMT
Ah, sorry. I didn't mean to get carried away into it. Probably best if we leave it though. Differing opinions and all.
|
|
|
Post by MugiwaraBlair on Mar 19, 2014 19:42:57 GMT
How we acted is irrelevant, it's the fact they were panicking and horrified that makes them weak. They weren't doing anything, they were a crowd, and like I said, panicking and horrified is what they were doing.
Your definition of giving up needs work. It means to stop trying. I didn't stop trying, I chose not to try because I hate people, why would I try saving something I hate ?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ruliya on Mar 19, 2014 19:49:55 GMT
No, doing nothing to help, means you're not tying to help, however you justify that is up to you. But by the very notion of panicking and horrified does not make them weak.
Like I said, you got your moral compass and settings on shit, and I got mine.
Btw, actions speak louder than words or emotions how you acted means way more than how you felt. If they were panicking and helping, they're doing something. If they're indifferent and ignoring, than they're not.
Who seems weaker to you, the one acting, or the one not?
|
|
|
Post by Knukails on Mar 19, 2014 19:53:10 GMT
To elaborate that quote. It was told to me when i was a kid by a soldier.
The context is war.
Some parts i did take into my personal life but the quote is about war.
|
|
|
Post by MugiwaraBlair on Mar 19, 2014 19:54:20 GMT
Depends why. Those people weren't acting either, the difference is they stayed there and stared horrified while I was unfazed and kept walking.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ruliya on Mar 19, 2014 19:58:53 GMT
Most likely, it's the bystander effect. Really nasty piece of work that. The more people there are, the more likely it is that no one will help. Why? Because everyone thinks someone else is doing something, so they don't.
|
|