Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on November 21, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

Yes, that mainstay of English teachers (actually literature teachers, but they are not smart enough to know the difference), Kurt Vonnegut has decided that his hate for Bush is so great, that the Terrorists must be good people!

"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."

You see how silly and stupid he is?  Dying for self respect can be noble.  Taking out a bunch of innocent women and children has nothing to do with your self respect or cause!  It is purely and simply evil.  Yes, Virginia, evil does exist. 

Vonnegut goes on to proclaim them heros:

 "I regard them as very brave people, yes."

Now you can see why he is completely off his rocker.  A brave person faces a formidable foe.  Blowing yourself up among a bunch of unarmed civilians is not bravery, it is the extreme in cowardice!

But I know I am going to be slammed for this article.  For you see, Vonnegut is a WWII veteran.  So by the law of the left, one can never speak ill about a decorated hero that has gone over to the left side (Oliver North is fine as he did not stray to the left).

This is just pure and unadulterated hate by the loons of the left!  Vonnegut is an over rated author, who cant tell a decent story anyway (he has to make each one a statement, which tends to get in the way of a good story).  Now he has decided that any thing is justified as long as you have hate.

The only difference between him and the suicide bombers is that they at least only perform their hatred once.  Vonnegut is not even that brave (as he would call it), so he cowers behind his hatred secretly (not so any more) egging on those who share his hatred.  Regardless of the collateral damage.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 23, 2005

Gimme a break. I wonder how he'd feel if it were members of his family that were killed in one of these cowardly attacks?

I would not wish that on him, but then look what it took the JOrdanians....

on Nov 23, 2005

Sorry guys, Vonnegut is an entertaining read,

We will disagree.  I like his story line, but his style is just too dry.

on Nov 23, 2005

'Good was my interpretation, and based upon the statements and the article, I stand by it. '
Good for you. And I'll stand by my comments.

Glad you agreed on the good.

on Nov 23, 2005
I've only read a little Vonnegut. Galapagos and Breakfast of Champions. I wouldn't classify either of them as brilliant. Then again, I'm not much of a literary critic.

As for the substance of what you've written...I think too many people blindly praise "courage" without any regard for context. As annoying as I find Bill Maher, I actually agreed with his controversial statement about the courageousness of the 9/11 hijackers. It upset a lot of people because courage has been blindly accepted by many as a positive trait. But the good or bad of courageous acts is determined by what is being done, right? Yeah, it takes a lot of balls to be willing to hijack a plane and crash it into a building. But the act of crashing an airplane into a building is a most horrible, despicable act. That the act is courageous is meaningless. Courage should be praised when someone seeks to do a good thing. There's nothing praiseworthy about courage to commit evil deeds.

The objections made here to Vonnegut's statements are perfectly valid. He is praising courage as such, and acknowledging the depravity of the courageous acts at the same time. What a sack of shit he is. I wonder if he'd have the same congratulatory words for the couragous man who will face the death penalty for fatally slitting his throat at his next book signing.
on Nov 29, 2005

Yeah, it takes a lot of balls to be willing to hijack a plane and crash it into a building.

You confuse suicidal tendencies with courage.  They are not the same.  This is just cowardice.  Even Suicidal people (normally) do not take out a bunch of innocent people with their act.

Courage is sacraficing your life to save innocent others.  It is not using innocent life to make a statement.

on Nov 29, 2005
You confuse suicidal tendencies with courage. They are not the same. This is just cowardice. Even Suicidal people (normally) do not take out a bunch of innocent people with their act.


I disagree, because your typical suicide bomber is not killing himself to take the easy way out of a difficult situation, but to sacrifice for a cause greater than himself. Someone who kills himself because he's $100,000 in debt, his wife and kids left him, and he just got fired from his job has a completely different reason for killing himself than the terrorist in Iraq who drives up to a checkpoint and blows up civilians and soldiers alike.

I looked up "courage" in the American Heritage Dictionary and got this:

courage

SYLLABICATION: cour·age
PRONUNCIATION: kûrj, kr-
NOUN: The state or quality of mind or spirit that enables one to face danger, fear, or vicissitudes with self-possession, confidence, and resolution; bravery.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English corage, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin *corticum, from Latin cor, heart. See kerd- in Appendix I.


http://www.bartleby.com/61/60/C0696000.html


The capacity to face danger with self-possession, confidence and resolution is pretty descriptive of a suicide bomber. But they're still very evil. Courageous and Evil are not mutually exclusive. I think you feel courage is exclusively an honorable trait, which I understand, and why you feel it is morally wrong to call someone who commits evil "courageous.

Kurt Vonnegut also appears to believe courage is exclusively and honorable trait as well, and he's certainly saying suicide bombers are courageous. Like I said, he's a despicable man if that's the case.
on Dec 02, 2005

I disagree, because your typical suicide bomber is not killing himself to take the easy way out of a difficult situation, but to sacrifice for a cause greater than himself. Someone who kills himself because he's $100,000 in debt, his wife and kids left him, and he just got fired from his job has a completely different reason for killing himself than the terrorist in Iraq who drives up to a checkpoint and blows up civilians and soldiers alike.

You are still confused.  You are confusing courage with mental defect.  Was John Hinkley Courageous? No, he was just fucking loony tunes!  As were the Hi jackers.

on Dec 02, 2005

I disagree, because your typical suicide bomber is not killing himself to take the easy way out of a difficult situation, but to sacrifice for a cause greater than himself. Someone who kills himself because he's $100,000 in debt, his wife and kids left him, and he just got fired from his job has a completely different reason for killing himself than the terrorist in Iraq who drives up to a checkpoint and blows up civilians and soldiers alike.

You are still confused.  You are confusing courage with mental defect.  Was John Hinkley Courageous? No, he was just fucking loony tunes!  As were the Hi jackers.

2 Pages1 2