Is it better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees? (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

i mean, i was on my knees for much of this morning

LOL gay

 

[Iron]

youre gay

 

[SylviaB]

youre gay

That's..not what she said.

 

[Iron]

Very few armies have ever fought until they were annihilated and even fewer societies have fought until the entire society were dead - women and children inclusive*.

Even groups with a stated intent of fighting to the bitter end such as the Japanese in WWII ultimately surrendered in the face of insurmountable odds (e.g. the threat of nukes).

So at what point is the rational decision made? In the spirit of economists fascinated with the marginal cost v marginal benefit what is the tipping point? When is the cost low enough and the benefit high enough that we capitulate?

Using the original example, if 10% of children is unacceptable, is 5% acceptable? What about just 1 single, solitary child?


*Only example from the top of my head is the fall of Masada

I agree that the society would likely not fight to the last man, but the important thing is that an evil agreement would only come about after the good are fallen. We should leave nothing for the enemy or the cowardly civilians who lacked the resolve to win. Scorched earth.

 

[JClamp]

it is better to be comfortable

 

[justanotherposter]

I reckon BOSers are going to overwhelmingly vote "die on your feet" but chances are that irl they'd take the latter option.

 

[Iron]

I reckon BOSers are going to overwhelmingly vote "die on your feet" but chances are that irl they'd take the latter option.

Well uv left no secret as to which option you would take
Coward.

 

[settle*precious]

Not me

I mean, I was on my knees for much of this morning

paging townie.


I think, ultimately, there are some things worth dying for but there are times when even though your beliefs are being threatened, you need to step down.

E.g. if someone's life is in danger.

 

[Serius]

paging townie.


I think, ultimately, there are some things worth dying for but there are times when even though your beliefs are being threatened, you need to step down.

E.g. if someone's life is in danger.

Yes.

The ultimate goal is survival, if fighting back will get you nothing but killed, what is the point? just capitulate, survive, bide your time and strike when you will actually be effective and cause a difference, rather than being a courageous yet ultimately foolish and dead warrior.

It might be heroic to die fighting for your beliefs, but history is written about the men who chose the RIGHT time to fight and actually won, rather than dying needlessly.

 

[Iron]

It might be heroic to die fighting for your beliefs, but history is written about the men who chose the RIGHT time to fight and actually won, rather than dying needlessly.

There are greater things than egotistical obsessions with writing 'history'

 

[loquasagacious]

Yes.

The ultimate goal is survival, if fighting back will get you nothing but killed, what is the point? just capitulate, survive, bide your time and strike when you will actually be effective and cause a difference, rather than being a courageous yet ultimately foolish and dead warrior.

It might be heroic to die fighting for your beliefs, but history is written about the men who chose the RIGHT time to fight and actually won, rather than dying needlessly.

This assumes that there will be a better chance later....

As hopeless as it may be I would imagine that a war still has better odds than a slave revolt...

 

[Serius]

This assumes that there will be a better chance later....

As hopeless as it may be I would imagine that a war still has better odds than a slave revolt...

If that is the case, then name half a dozen times where people of a city or nation have done exactly that, rejected surrender terms and chosen to fight to the last woman and child. If it is clearly such a better choice, then it shouldnt be hard to find examples of cities making that choice.

 

[Uncle]

As a soldier I would rather die on my feet than live upon my kness.

 

[katie tully]

Is it better for an individual to die fighting for their beliefs or to accept subservience?
Is it better for the entire species to die fighting for a belief or to live in subservience?

tbh I think there needs to be a balance of the two. how this is achieved idk.

 

[loquasagacious]

If that is the case, then name half a dozen times where people of a city or nation have done exactly that, rejected surrender terms and chosen to fight to the last woman and child. If it is clearly such a better choice, then it shouldnt be hard to find examples of cities making that choice.

As I said earlier the only example I can think of from the top of my head is the fall of Masada, which is interesting given the 3:1 ratio in favour of it on here.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

You're all underestimating our profoundly engrained survival instincts. Humans will naturally submit/follw orders if they feel their life is threatened (S.Freud notes that many religions derive their greatest strength from this very crux).
I think the vast majority of people will only 'die on their feet' if they are a part of a larger, collective movement of dissidents.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

As much as I'm wary to paraphrase a peasant revolutionary I think it is an interesting question to ponder whether or not it is better to die fighting or live in subservience.

The question I think is interesting on both a personal-level and a species-level:

• Is it better for an individual to die fighting for their beliefs or to accept subservience?
• Is it better for the entire species to die fighting for a belief or to live in subservience?

Obviously the former is more likely to occur than the latter however the latter probably makes for a more stimulating discussion. To use an example from Torchwood - Children of Earth (which incidentally was excellent):

If a powerful alien species arrived and presented the ultimatum of us giving them 10% of the children of earth or a war in which humanity could reasonably be expected to struggle for it's very survival and perhaps even be extinguished as a species. Which would you chose?

Is there a rational cost-benefit to be performed or are there beliefs, standards, morals, etc for which the entire species should be prepared to fight to the death to defend?

Freedom or death.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

You're all underestimating our profoundly engrained survival instincts. Humans will naturally submit/follw orders if they feel their life is threatened (S.Freud notes that many religions derive their greatest strength from this very crux).
I think the vast majority of people will only 'die on their feet' if they are a part of a larger, collective movement of dissidents.

Freud wanted to fuck his own mother.

 

[justanotherposter]

Well uv left no secret as to which option you would take
Coward.

I didn't vote for either option.