CNN Anchor Refers to Dallas Gunman’s Actions as ‘Courageous and Brave’

Connotation should be taken into account when choosing the words one speaks. Especially someone doing the news.

 

I am not sure she is inciting violence against police. In the same way video games incite violence I guess?

Fair enough. I would say the name "Progressives" is a terrible misnomer.

It is anything but progressive.

 

Yes, you could absolutely say that. It does not go against the definition of the words themselves. The words can be used in different contexts. It might not be the popular context, but does not make it incorrect.

The issue is the assumption of context.

In fact the word Brave has numerous definitions. One that is considered "Obsolete" based on usage is the definition of "Brave" as a noun - meaning "A bully"

No definitions of the word brave however propose a positive value. So that value is just assumed.

In fact if you look at the origin of the word, I believe it began with a negative connotation in it's use describing " A warrior of the North American Indian tribes". In that form, as used by Europeans, was negative, and yet that "Bravery" was still admired. This was a time where values were quite different of course. Where you can admire a brutal enemy. A time when "honor" was a substantial thing.

 

Yes, I know, progressives lie almost continuously

 

No it was quite brave and fooled the Japanese into withdrawing allowed the larger fleet time to escape and regroup for the final attack. That was their duty as expendable units.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
So if I break into a home where I know the people own guns and are quite adept at using them, murder the husband and rape the wife and the little girl they have and then murder them, I was brave and courageous because I knew of the danger I faced?

Just amazing the rationalizations being made.

 

Yea, that was stupid. she's getting what she deserves.

 

First of all, bravery is pushing forward in the face of fear. If you have no fear, you are not brave. Heroism requires courage and bravery. Terrorism and suicide are usually carried out by mentally disturbed people who are not brave, but either religiously devout or depressed and suicidal...

Bravery and courage are implicit of valiance, of heroism. It is a positive attribute, a powerful quality that bares actions which one takes pride in. They absolutely have positive connotation and mean the complete opposite of being without fear.

 

Most heroes will tell you they were scared to death so I think brave and courageous are poor word choices for the guy in Texas. The guy isn't a hero by any stretch so I think his action could be described as "fool-hardy". Or "nutso".

 

CNN is a ratings dumpster. They even lose to MSNBC.

 

`
Fredricka Whitfield (looking hot at 50) has something in common with Megyn Kelly; both attractive airheads.

 

I guess not every liberal is a fan of the left's war on cops...

 

not the words I would choose as in today's society those do seem to describe heroic people, stone cold killer that did not fear police or something like that would of described him better

.

 

The problem with this whole thread is that people keep making up their own private definitions. I will continue to put more value in standard dictionary definitions than those espoused by anonymous PF members.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brave

 

it's kinda like saying cigarettes without carpet glue are healthier for you then those with carpet glue included, many would not say that and would attack those that did say that, though "healthier" would be a correct definition...

I heard one person say the fact that one is more harmful then the other is irrelevant as both are bad for you

.

.

 

Then use a real dictionary. Words matter.
Brave:

www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/brave

Courage:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/courage

 

Conflict theory sociology, created by Karl Marx, is such a huge part of the left-wing perspective that many just can't help admiring any "oppressed" force rising up and fighting the "oppressors", no matter what the circumstances. There are some who respect Islamic insurgents for the same reason.

 

Oh, so Mirriam-Webster is not a "real" dictionary? Says who? Webster's is more of an American-English dictionary vs. Oxford's British-English, making Webster's more appropriate here. Words matter, after all, and we are not in the UK.

But as to your first cited definition, "Ready to face and endure danger or pain", how did he not meet that definition?

 

The Oxford American English Dictionary is the defacto standard of the language, and that I have to even explain this wears my patience. "Webster's" was never copy-written and as such anyone can make a "Webster's" dictionary. You can make one tomorrow. Merriam-Websters dictionary holds credibility amongst the hordes of Websters dictionaries in collegiate circles because they bend very quickly to include socially engineered terms and adapt existing terms to soften social acceptance of concepts like "gender" (a grammatical term... sex is the biological term), but I digress.

Yes... use a real dictionary. Words are important.

The term bravery is implicit of heroism. It is synonymous in certain uses. What I was arguing, is that the term does not mean that you are unafraid... but quite the opposite, you overcome your fear to do what is right.

There were brave Nazis. There are brave ISIS fighters I imagine. This guy wasn't brave. He was homicidal and suicidal. Brave would have been sucking it up so he could be there for his kids. He was not brave.

 

OK, so let's use YOUR dictionary. I ask again, how was he not, "ready to face and endure danger or pain"

Wait, what? Bravery is implicit of heroism, but there were brave Nazis and ISIS fighters? So they're heroic?

 

Some undoubtedly acted heroically. Some do the right thing at great peril to themselves because it is the right thing. Yes, sometimes our enemies show valor. There was no valor in this mans actions. Again, the brave thing to do was endure, and be a role model to his children. He had a psychotic episode. That isn't bravery.

 

So now, we muddy the waters by introducing another term...valor. Rather than getting caught up in yet another definition dispute, why don't we stay on point? Can you answer the question, now asked for the third time, how does he not meet the definition of brave put forth by YOUR source: "ready to face and endure danger or pain".

 

Because psychosis is not applicable to readiness. Suicide is not "brave" as such. These words I use are all synonymous. That is my point in their use.
Valor:

It is the most appropriate word for the circumstance I was describing. Each of these words has subtle differences, though mean effectively the same thing, or are used to define the others. The common motif is being used to demonstrate the positive connotation which seems to escape you.

Mania is not bravery. There is no fear which is a prerequisite. Death was the goal. Homicide the means. Bravery is the courage to act in the face of fear. If death is the goal, there is no enduring... that is why it does not fit the definition.

 

"Psychosis is not applicable to readiness". With this unsupported assertion, you make a blanket statement that one cannot be brave AND crazy, that they are mutually exclusive. I disagree.

 

I disagree. Just because a word is synonymous with a different word in certain context does not mean it is the same as the other word or fully used in the context of the other word. This statement "but quite the opposite, you overcome your fear to do what is right." is not true. It does not say that. There is NO moral judgment within or implied by that definition. Bravery might be implicit within the word heroism, but heroism is not implicit within the definition of the word "brave". You are connecting dots that are not there.

Now I will agree that bravery is often used as a positive term, that positive judgment is not a necessary aspect of bravery. I believe this is a case where you are using false implication to prove a point rather than having the definition speak for itself.

Let me directly quote the reporter so we can get an idea of the context she was implicating.

"It was very courageous and brave if not crazy as well to open fire on the police headquarters and now you have this scene, this standoff."

That is an exact quote. That is what she said and the piece that is in question.

Firstly, what was the context she was putting it in. Well, she directly followed up the use of those words with "if not crazy as well." Simply put, she is stating that he was crazy and that it was a crazy thing to do.
If someone were describing an act of heroism, it's unlikely that it would be put in the context of being "crazy" because heroism requires sacrifice generally, knowing that you are doing something that is quite likely NOT going to work, in other words risk. However, that risk is not described as crazy because if someone is crazy they are not making the same choice that an act of heroism would require; taking a conscious risk. If someone did something because they are "crazy" it would not really be heroic.

Further, if you want to use Oxford, they describe "heroism" as "Great bravery". Not just "bravery" but a specific type of "bravery" that which is "Great". This implies there is more than one kind of "bravery".

Also, if you listen to everything she said, there is absolutely no way to confuse her statement for "support" of the shooter in any way as the bullies are implying. The entire basis of this issue is that she was "glorifying" this issue. The subtext of her statement is unequivocal. She is stating the guy is nuts and this is an insane thing to do. Anyone who perceives a different subtext in her words, or think she implies glorification or support, or any positive connotation, has to have the absolute worst language perception ever.

I honestly don't even understand how so many could misread this situation or why so many are so adamant about being so wrong. I really don't understand the motivation behind any of these people suggesting this reporter was in the wrong, especially those calling for her job. The only possible explanation seems to be ignorance and stupidity. How else can you explain such a reaction? Why else? What else could possibly be going on here. Does it make people feel better about themselves somehow? Are there so many people out there who just NEED to put others down and correct others? Even if they are wrong about that correction?

This is just a great example of the time we live in. The mass public, at least in this country, has a great need to be judgmental. There is some sick and horrific movement to force opinions on the rest of the world. There are so many fearful people out there that actually believe they are doing the right thing and taking part in a positive action by using defamation and absolutely bullying others into group-think. It's absolutely disgusting.

It's the same with the Caitlyn Jenner issue. There are so many who openly ridicule, mock and publicly shame anyone with a different opinion on the transgender issue. The vast majority who are simply not intelligent or educated enough to actually understand the philosophical complexity behind the issue, resort to vitriol, hate and bullying in order to enact their ignorant version of justice.

This should have been an absolutely non issue. Perhaps she could have chosen different words to describe this situation, but there was nothing inherently wrong with the words she chose to use. Yet she was forced into recanting her statement and publicly apologizing to the maniacal mass idiocracy. And in doing so, she has supported their behavior and furthered the loss of logical thinking in our society.

I don't say this lightly. This situation is absolutely horrific from an objective standpoint. It exemplifies the pettiness and eagerness to knock someone else down, to destroy them, to make a public mockery of a human being. That is what these "correctors" are doing, that is what makes them feel as if they have a purpose and as if they are taking part in the development of a "better world".

Just absolutely horrific and disgusting. Anyone calling for this woman to lose her job should be publicly called out and ridiculed for such actions. They are in the wrong. They are hateful and they are everything that is wrong with a "politically correct' culture.