to "mutally exclude" other possibilities, this since any short time of
thinking reveals that people could be heroes AND dupes, and NIETHER
heros or dupes;
The informal fallacy of false dilemma involves a situation in which
only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other
options. This fallacy is also called false dichotomy, the either-or
fallacy, and bifurcation. Closely related are failing to consider a
range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-
and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma"
means "two". When a list of more than two choices are offered, but
there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the
fallacy of false choice.
...When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not
always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can
lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the
options are (mutually_exclusive), even though they need not be.
Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being
(collectively_exhaustive), in which case the fallacy can be overcome,
or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps
by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
The title should be "What if our heroes have been duped and what
constitues heroism?"
From the text below;
1. what is it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero?
2. Since it obviously depends on the criteria employed, is it possible
that American war heroes are not heroes at all?
3. Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead dupes?
Could be but to argue for that would be an "appeal to ignorance." I
think;
The argument from ignorance ("appeal to ignorance") or argument by
lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that
a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a
premise is false only because it has not been proved true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Famous in the history of science is the (argument _ad_ignorantiam)
given in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of
his time the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen
through his telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced
that the moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian
science had long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see
what appear to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect
sphere, because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an
invisible crystalline substance. And this hypothesis, which saves the
perfection of the heavenly bodies, Galileo could not prove false!
(Copi and Cohen, _Introduction to Logic_, p. 117)
I suppose there is an instinct in people to commit the self serving
bias when it comes to their group, but this is a seperate issue and I
think the missing premise in this argument. Maybe a colussion of group
bias and deception by authority. But even if that is the case, this is
all really an argument about the criteria needed to judge the dup-ers,
those who decieve and are in an authority position. A rather perverted
form of abuse is to mislead those who want to self-sacrifice and help
their communities or country or even all humans. These dupers who
decieve the heros are like a kid prank calling the fire department to
put out a fire that doesn't exist; dispicable! Onto some supports for
this paragraph all in order;
(1) A group of bozos on a city street agree to join a social
experiment.
(2) Subjects (bozos) are divided into groups on basis of trivial
criteria like flipping a coin to deterimine if one is in Group X or
Group Y.
(3) Subjects do not interact, either within or between groups.
(4) Members of own group and other group remain anonymous.
(5) Subjects are then asked to allot money to two other subjects,
designated only by code number and group membership (X or Y). Subjects
own outcomes will not be affected by their allocation decisions.
(6) Despite minimal nature of these groups, subjects allocations
consistently favored other members of their own arbitrarily designated
groups, at the expense of members of the recently typed "outgroups".
[Tajfel] argues that the reason for this allocation strategy is to
create a differentiation between the groups which permits their group
membership to enhance their social identity.
------------------------------------------------
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
Unreflected Ingroup Favoritism
One who reflects does not discriminate?: On the role of unreflected
cognitive processes for the occurrence of ingroup favoritism between
artificial groups; A categorization of individuals in two groups based
on completely trivial criteria like flipping a coin to determine which
group one is assigned (Group X or Group Y), can be sufficient to cause
mutual preferences for one's own group.
Social identity theory assumes a fundamental striving towards a
positive distinction of one's own group from other groups. The
tendency to a preference for one's own group is clearly reduced in a
situation involving intergroup judgments on negative comparison
dimensions or distribution decisions on negative stimuli (burdens,
aversive stimuli), in comparison to those in the positive realm.
These basic judgment processes may be the fundamental determining
factors of and conditions for social discrimination. Of some influence
may be the role which evaluations of oneself play for the positive
evaluation of minimal social groups. It is assumed that an unreflected
cognitive process is critical for this, in the course of which, as a
rule, the positive self-image is transferred to the new ingroup. Due
to the lesser degree of similarity to oneself, an outgroup cannot
benefit from such a generalization process.
Correspondingly, a positive distinctiveness of one's own group can
result solely from the self-ingroup relation, independent of an
ingroup-outgroup comparison. There is a generalized positive attitude
to the ingroup, and demonstrating the role of a low degree of
reflection for the occurrence of favoritism in minimal intergroup
situations and considerations of outgroups.
The randomly assigned individuals generally act as if those who share
their meaningless label are their good friends or close kin. Subjects
indicate that they like those who share their label. They rate others
who share their label as likely to have a more pleasant personality
and to have produced better output than outgroup members. Most
strikingly, subjects allocate more money and rewards to those who
share their labels.
In other related social experiments at political rallies it has been
noted that researchers faking injuries, were helped more or less
depending on whether their protest sign, and slogans supported or went
against those around them who could help.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
A hero (male) and heroine (female) has come to refer to characters
that, in the face of danger and adversity or from a position of
weakness, display courage and the will for self-sacrifice, that is,
heroism, for some greater good, originally of martial courage or
excellence but extended to more general moral excellence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero
Self-sacrifice, the act of deliberately following a course of action
that has a high risk or certainty of suffering or death (which could
otherwise be avoided), in order to achieve a perceived benefit for
certain others, is a powerful theme with a well-established place in
many cultures, myths, and societies. Self-sacrifice may also be more
broadly defined as selflessness, or the readiness to inflict pain upon
yourself to save others...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice
Community service refers to service that a person performs for the
benefit of his or her local community. People become involved in
community service for a range of reasons — for some, serving community
is an altruistic act, for others it is a punishment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_service
Aside from the main task of extinguishing fires, the goals of
firefighting are (in order) saving lives,. saving property and
protecting the environment. Firefighting is an inherently difficult
occupation. As such, the skills required for safe operations are
regularly practiced during training evolutions throughout a
firefighters career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefighter
A villain is an "evil" character in a story, whether an historical
narrative or, especially, a work of fiction. The villain usually is
the bad guy, the character who fights against the hero. A female
villain is sometimes called a villainess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villain
Americans love their war heroes. It doesn’t matter where the war was fought,
why it was fought, how it was fought, or what the war cost. Every battlefield
is holy; every cause is just; every soldier is a potential hero. But what is
it that turns an ordinary soldier into a war hero? Since it obviously depends
on the criteria employed, is it possible that American war heroes are not
heroes at all? Could it be that, rather than being heroes, they are instead
dupes?
Democrats who loathe John McCain because he is a Republican and Republicans
who consider him to be a lukewarm conservative are united in their belief
that, whatever his politics, McCain is a genuine war hero because he spent
five years as a prisoner of the North Vietnamese. But one does not have to be
a prisoner of war to be considered a war hero. The Department of Defense
maintains a website that highlights "the military men and women who have gone
above and beyond the call of duty in the Global War on Terror." Every soldier
who died fighting in the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, otherwise known as
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, is also considered to
be a war hero.
After McCain graduated from the Naval Academy in 1958, he became a naval
aviator. During the Vietnam War he rained down death and destruction on the
people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions. After being shot down,
he was imprisoned instead of receiving the death sentence his bombs delivered
to the Vietnamese. So why is he considered a war hero? If he got what he
deserved, there would be 58,257 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in
Washington D.C. instead of 58,256. Pilots like McCain who drop napalm from the
safety of their cockpit are lauded as heroes by the government, the media, and
Americans ignorant enough or gullible enough to swallow the myth that there
can be heroism in the performance of evil. McCain was even well received by
the Vietnamese government in 2000 when he traveled to Vietnam in pursuit of a
bilateral trade agreement.
Begun in September of 2006, the DOD "Heroes’ Archive" contains the names of
116 U.S. soldiers who performed some heroic deed fighting in Iraq or
Afghanistan. Of the four soldiers currently featured, two were awarded the
Bronze Star, one was awarded the Purple Heart and the Distinguished Service
Cross, and the fourth was awarded the Bronze Star, the NATO Medal, the Afghan
Campaign Medal, and the Outstanding Service Medal. Now, unlike General
Petraeus, at least these soldiers earned their metals during real combat. Yet,
the fact remains, as Catholic Eastern Rite priest Charles McCarthy has
recently stated, "Murder decorated with a ribbon is still murder."
Both IraqWarHeroes.org and AfghanistanWarheroes.org are "dedicated to our
deceased Heroes that have served in Iraq & Afghanistan." The list of "deceased
Heroes" contains the names of 4,591 U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq and
Afghanistan. I don’t know where these sites are getting their information
from. The "Casualties in Iraq" page at Antiwar.com shows a total of 4,528
deaths. But regardless of the exact number, the point is that every soldier
who died fighting in the war on terror is said to be a hero. It doesn’t matter
if they were killed by enemy fire, roadside bombs, friendly fire, disease,
accident, or carelessness – they are all heroes. But since the war in Iraq is
senseless, immoral, and criminal does it really matter how these soldiers
died? Again, I refer the reader to Father McCarthy:
Authentic heroism is freely taking a grave risk in order to try to do good.
Evil does not become a scintilla less evil because a person put his or her
life in jeopardy to do it and is subsequently designated a hero.
This means that whatever we call U.S. soldiers fighting in Iraq, we should not
call them heroes.
Some of these "heroes" are mercenaries. The "large Armies of foreign
Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny" that our
Founding Fathers protested against in the Declaration of Independence are now
fighting for the United States in Iraq. Since 9/11, the United States has
granted citizenship to over 32,000 foreign soldiers. All it takes now is one
year of service in the military to be granted citizenship.
Many of these "heroes" are killers for hire. For them, the enlistment bonuses,
the tuition assistance, the student loan repayment plans, the assignment
incentive pay, the career training, the thirty days of vacation each year, the
free medical and dental care, and the generous retirement benefits are enough
to erase any concerns about the morality of traveling thousands of miles away
from U.S. soil to kill people they have never met or seen, and that posed no
threat to America or Americans.
Most of these "heroes," however, are dupes. They think they are fighting for
our freedoms when instead they are helping to destroy our freedoms. They think
they are retaliating for 9/11 when instead they are paving the way for another
terrorist attack. They think they are preventing terrorism when instead they
are making terrorists. They think they went to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda when
instead al-Qaeda came to Iraq because of them. They think they are protecting
Israel when instead they are contributing to increased hatred of Israel. They
think that our cause is just when instead it violates every just war principle
ever formulated. They think they are fighting injustice when instead they are
committing a crime against the Iraqi people. They think they are defending the
United States when instead they are helping to destroy it.
One of the saddest cases of a duped hero is that of Marine Staff Sergeant
Marcus Golczynski. He died fighting in Iraq on March 27 of last year while
assigned to the Marine Forces Reserve’s Third Battalion, 24th Marine Regiment,
Fourth Marine Division, in Nashville, Tennessee. He had been in the Marine
Reserves for twelve years, and was thirty years old when he died.
About a week before he died, Golczynski sent home this e-mail:
I want all of you to be safe. And please don’t feel bad for us. We are
warriors. And as warriors have done before us, we joined this organization and
are following orders because we believe that what we are doing is right. Many
of us have volunteered to do this a second time due to our deep desire to
finish the job we started. We fight and sometimes die so that our families
don’t have to. Stand beside us. Because we would do it for you. Because it is
our unity that has enabled us to prosper as a nation.
At his funeral in Lewisburg, Tennessee, the eight-year-old son he left behind
was presented with the flag from his father’s casket. This was captured in a
heart-rending photograph that has circulated around the Internet. But
Golczynski was not the only one who was duped. Instead of being outraged about
his son’s death, his father said that "we owe a debt of gratitude that we will
never be able to pay." And instead of resenting the government that sent the
father of her son to fight and die in a senseless foreign war, his wife said
that her husband "made the sacrifice for my freedom."
The terrible truth, of course, is that Sergeant Golczynski, like all of the
other soldiers who died in Iraq, died for a lie. He was duped by his commander
in chief who said our cause was just. He was duped by the secretary of defense
who said the war would be over quickly. He was duped by his commanding
officers who said he should obey orders. He was duped by veterans who said he
was fighting for our freedoms. He was duped by Republicans who said he needed
to follow the president’s leadership. He was duped by politicians who said we
should trust them. He was duped by pundits who said we had to fight them "over
there" lest we have to fight them "over here." He was duped by preachers who
said we should obey the powers that be. He was duped by Christians who said we
must fight against Islamo-fascism. He was duped by Americans who said he was a
hero. He was duped by the lying and killing machine known as his own
government.
Marcus Golczynski was not alone. Millions of Americans were duped as well.
Millions of Americans remain duped. The fact that McCain can talk about being
in Iraq for a hundred years and still be greeted by cheering crowds and
receive millions of votes says a lot about just how much Americans are duped.
The love affair that Americans have with all things military must be ended.
The United States has become a rogue state, a pariah nation, an evil empire –
all made possible by the dupes in the U.S. military we call heroes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
April 18, 2008
Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest book
is a new and greatly expanded edition of Christianity and War and Other Essays
Against the Warfare State. Visit his website.
Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com
Find this article at:http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance140.html
> to "mutally exclude" other possibilities, this since any short time of