poor we bugger rip wee man "BUT"

[Moll. 1,793]

Much more complex BH, but there is only so much you can write without turning it into a thesis

 

How many fighters professional or otherwise have at some stage submitted.

How many soldiers throughout the ages have gone into battle knowing they were outnumbered and faced death.

 

All people are different and have different levels in different situations....much like our dogs

 

I think the problem in discussing something like this is very, very few people will have actually felt REAL fear or REAL anger, they may think they have but would definitely know it when they did. Untill then you can only surmise what you would do in any given situation.

[Born Hunter 17,960]

Much more complex BH, but there is only so much you can write without turning it into a thesis

 

How many fighters professional or otherwise have at some stage submitted.

How many soldiers throughout the ages have gone into battle knowing they were outnumbered and faced death.

All people are different and have different levels in different situations....much like our dogs

 

I think the problem in discussing something like this is very, very few people will have actually felt REAL fear or REAL anger, they may think they have but would definitely know it when they did. Untill then you can only surmise what you would do in any given situation.

 

How many of them knew they were facing impossible odds to survive alone (I believe facing it with others changes human mentality) and had the choice to walk away? Fighting when you have no choice is different.

 

Very complex issue, and to an extent very subjective. Your second paragraph sums it all up for me, alot of sense!

 

Im waffling now....

Edited June 27, 2011 by Born Hunter

[Moll. 1,793]

Very true, we could go on forever without ever finding a definite answer

[SLiP tHe DoG ! 129]

I would die trying for my boy

[blan89 159]

poor lad,like was said i hope it was quick.

 

moll: would you not say courage whether physical or moral is just a personality trait?

that would not make it completely genetic or nurtured,imo its all about levels of distress and the ability to cope with/channel it which can imo be conditioned.

 

you've only to look at soldiers,i believe it was estimated that during world war 1 only 1-50 of the soldiers fired their weapon with the intention of killing,compare that with the soldiers of today with the main difference being modern training techniques.

[Moll. 1,793]

I believe it is genetic rather than personality Blan.

But it is not as straight forward as that. Life experiences, nurture etc will dictate how we use what we have.

You can have courage without having the 'fight' response...it is not that simple, remember we are talking about an immediate response to a dangerous situation.

 

You can go into all levels of this sooo deeply, your example of WW1 soldiers vrs today's. Their way of life, their understanding of things, what they had to lose would have been so different from today's soldiers, that could dictate how they behave...and that could swing both ways.

The fact that if they died who would look after their families, no pensions, benefits, etc then, women were at home with the children, men earned the money. Or you could look at it from another angle. Compared to today they had less to lose because they simply had less. And that discussion alone with many more variables between WW! vr's today could go on and on and on But that is a completely different discussion about a completely different thing, and could have nothing whatsoever to do with an immediate response to a dangerous situation.

[blan89 159]

I believe it is genetic rather than personality Blan.

But it is not as straight forward as that. Life experiences, nurture etc will dictate how we use what we have.

You can have courage without having the 'fight' response...it is not that simple, remember we are talking about an immediate response to a dangerous situation.

 

You can go into all levels of this sooo deeply, your example of WW1 soldiers vrs today's. Their way of life, their understanding of things, what they had to lose would have been so different from today's soldiers, that could dictate how they behave...and that could swing both ways.

The fact that if they died who would look after their families, no pensions, benefits, etc then, women were at home with the children, men earned the money. Or you could look at it from another angle. Compared to today they had less to lose because they simply had less. And that discussion alone with many more variables between WW! vr's today could go on and on and on But that is a completely different discussion about a completely different thing, and could have nothing whatsoever to do with an immediate response to a dangerous situation.

I cant find where i read the study now

but it wasnt that the soldiers were putting themselves in less danger,they were firing there rifles with no conscious intention of killing the enemy,they still put themselves in the dangerous situations.

 

maybe the situation regarding families,pensions etc added to the distress.