bill maher

[selftitled85]

hes very smart and makes some very smart comments.

but some of the things he says is ludicrous. and he does not listen to anyones opinion if it is different than his own

[rocktometal]

id agree. some of his political satires are hilarious and then he goes and puts his foot in his mouthe by saying terrorists are very brave right after 9-11, bad timing.

[wrppdarndyrfngr]

I just discovered Real time recently and its amazing. I agree He has a hard time being open minded but alot of the time he makes the best comments.

[selftitled85]

I just discovered Real time recently and its amazing. I agree He has a hard time being open minded but alot of the time he makes the best comments.

true. but it seems he brings people on his show sometimes just for him to bash even if they completely destroy his argument.

[a speedo model]

true. but it seems he brings people on his show sometimes just for him to bash even if they completely destroy his argument.
yeah.

[ThatGuy]

id agree. some of his political satires are hilarious and then he goes and puts his foot in his mouthe by saying terrorists are very brave right after 9-11, bad timing.

he was making a comparison to how the US bombs from far away, but terrorists actually become the bomb and how that act in and of itself is brave, although the outcome hurts others.

he was correct in saying this, he probably just shouldn't have said it so soon after 9/11

[rocktometal]

he was making a comparison to how the US bombs from far away, but terrorists actually become the bomb and how that act in and of itself is brave, although the outcome hurts others.

he was correct in saying this, he probably just shouldn't have said it so soon after 9/11

that was my thought, it is hard to say that terrorist aren't brave, i mean they are killing themselves for some cause after years of preperation.

[EnderDove]

Although I dont agree with him too often, his show is absolutley hilarious.

[FScott]

he molested 3 children in 92

[R7265ab]

he molested 3 children in 92
source that please.

[thatwasamoment]

New season starts today!

[captainhampton]

that was my thought, it is hard to say that terrorist aren't brave, i mean they are killing themselves for some cause after years of preperation.

thats not bravery. that's called being a coward.

[Nevuk]

thats not bravery. that's called being a coward. You and princeton seem to disagree S: (n) courage, courageousness, bravery, braveness (a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger or pain without showing fear) http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bravery

[captainhampton]

You and princeton seem to disagree http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=bravery

oh no princeton disagrees with me. wow, that totally changes my mind. you're right it takes a lot of courage to blow yourself up while killing innocent men, women, and children in the process.

sorry, it's called being a coward.

[Nevuk]

oh no princeton disagrees with me. wow, that totally changes my mind. you're right it takes a lot of courage to blow yourself up while killing innocent men, women, and children in the process.

sorry, it's called being a coward.
...? You can't change a word's meaning just because it has a positive connotation and its being applied to someone you don't like.

[thejetstolehome]

oh no princeton disagrees with me. wow, that totally changes my mind. you're right it takes a lot of courage to blow yourself up while killing innocent men, women, and children in the process.

sorry, it's called being a coward.

what about blowing up innocent men, women, and children with a bomb like every army of every (modern) war has ever done?

[captainhampton]

...? You can't change a word's meaning just because it has a positive connotation and its being applied to someone you don't like.

do you think suicide bombers are brave or cowards? pick one.

also, I could care less what Princeton's bravery standards are.

[captainhampton]

what about blowing up innocent men, women, and children do with a bomb like every army of every (modern) war has ever done?

it's great that you are so misinformed about our military to think that they intentionally go after civilians. it's also great how you switch the blame to us and don't have the guts to call suicide bombers what they are, cowards.

[AP_Punk]

He's pretty hilarious. And I agree/disagree with him on different subjects.

But when him and Michael Moore were on their knees, begging Ralph Nader to not run in the 2004 election made me loose some respect for him.

[Nevuk]

do you think suicide bombers are brave or cowards? pick one.

also, I could care less what Princeton's bravery standards are.
Everyone is afraid, except for psychopaths. So it is kind of an empty adjective, IMO. However, in the common usage of the word, they would be. They are people who were willing to die for their cause. Basically, if you consider a US soldier brave, you should consider them brave as well. No one who is risking their life for a cause typically not their own can be called a coward easily.

...But this is overly simplified, the motives for each person would be different. For instance, the 72 virgins thing, the reason it is such a draw is because of polygamy still being practiced, it reduces the average male's chances of finding a woman greatly. Thus they'll do anything to get a woman, and if you get told the only way you would get any relations with the opposite sex was to blow yourself up.... you get the point.

[thejetstolehome]

it's great that you are so misinformed about our military to think that they intentionally go after civilians. it's also great how you switch the blame to us and don't have the guts to call suicide bombers what they are, cowards.

did i say our military or us? i said everyone does it because, well, everyone has done it. bombing civilians is bombing civilians no matter who does it or how it's done. killing civilians is killing civilians. accidental or intentional, it shouldn't happen.

[captainhampton]

Everyone is afraid, except for psychopaths. So it is kind of an empty adjective, IMO. However, in the common usage of the word, they would be. They are people who were willing to die for their cause. Basically, if you consider a US soldier brave, you should consider them brave as well. No one who is risking their life for a cause typically not their own can be called a coward easily.

...But this is overly simplified, the motives for each person would be different. For instance, the 72 virgins thing, the reason it is such a draw is because of polygamy still being practiced, it reduces the average male's chances of finding a woman greatly. Thus they'll do anything to get a woman, and if you get told the only way you would get any relations with the opposite sex was to blow yourself up.... you get the point.

no, it is that simple. you blow up women and children, then you are a coward.

i'll ask again, do you consider them to be brave or cowards?

[AP_Punk]

:hitself:

[thejetstolehome]

no, it is that simple. you blow up women and children, then you are a coward.

i'll ask again, do you consider them to be brave or cowards?

why do you see life as so black and white? do you not understand the concept of relitivism? your cowardice is someone else's bravery and vice versa.

[captainhampton]

did i say our military or us? i said everyone does it because, well, everyone has done it. bombing civilians is bombing civilians no matter who does it or how it's done. killing civilians is killing civilians. accidental or intentional, it shouldn't happen.

ok, i see that you are pretty much against all wars since it's impossible to have a war without civilian casualties. fine. that's your opinion. so do you think suicide bombers are cowards? yes or no.

[thejetstolehome]

ok, i see that you are pretty much against all wars since it's impossible to have a war without civilian casualties. fine. that's your opinion. so do you think suicide bombers are cowards? yes or no.

i think they are neither cowards nor brave.

if a soldier, of any nationality, kills a civilian on purpose, is he a coward or is he brave and just "doing his job?"

EDIT: you're right, my last statement was a tad too idealisitc.

[captainhampton]

why do you see life as so black and white? do you not understand the concept of relitivism? your cowardice is someone else's bravery and vice versa.

i don't believe in moral relativism. i believe killing women and children is wrong. it is cowardly in any situation.

[Nevuk]

no, it is that simple. you blow up women and children, then you are a coward.

i'll ask again, do you consider them to be brave or cowards?
I'm a relativist. Bravery doesn't exist.

[thejetstolehome]

i don't believe in moral relativism. i believe killing women and children is wrong. it is cowardly in any situation.

you may not believe in it but the mere fact that it exists shows that it is more or less correct. if you find something right but someone else finds it wrong, that right there is relativism...

[thejetstolehome]

I'm a relativist. Bravery doesn't exist.

better answer.

[captainhampton]

you may not believe in it but the mere fact that it exists shows that it is more or less correct. if you find something right but someone else finds it wrong, that right there is relativism...

yeah i understand that. but just because people may think it is brave to blow up women and children doesn't mean it's right. that would make them wrong and supporters of cowards.

[thejetstolehome]

yeah i understand that. but just because people may think it is brave to blow up women and children doesn't mean it's right. that would make them wrong and supporters of cowards.

and those same people would consider you a supporter of cowards. it works both ways and it's a terribly stupid semantics battle.

[captainhampton]

and those same people would consider you a supporter of cowards. it works both ways and it's a terribly stupid semantics battle.

but sometimes one group really is correct and the other really is incorrect. haha whatever, we're gonna disagree on this one, this is going nowhere.

[thejetstolehome]

but sometimes one group really is correct and the other really is incorrect. haha whatever, we're gonna disagree on this one, this is going nowhere.

haha, at least we both hate Duke? :shrug:

[captainhampton]

haha, at least we both hate Duke? :shrug:

true that. can't wait till College basketball season.

[thejetstolehome]

true that. can't wait till College basketball season.

/checks to see if Hasheem Thabeet is still on UConn's roster.
/confirms that Hasheem Thabeet is still on UConn's roster.
yup, i can wait for college basketball season. ugh. here comes another non-post season season for UConn....

[boykosaurus]

/checks to see if Hasheem Thabeet is still on UConn's roster.
/confirms that Hasheem Thabeet is still on UConn's roster.
yup, i can wait for college basketball season. ugh. here comes another non-post season season for UConn....

Can't wait to play you guys this year
<3 Villanova

[x togepi x]

no, it is that simple. you blow up women and children, then you are a coward.

i'll ask again, do you consider them to be brave or cowards?

So i guess you'd call WW2 vets cowards, since we firebombed Tokyo, and Dresden, as well as dropped nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. why do you hate the greatest generation?

Not only are you committing a huge logical fallacy with this post (either the terrorists are brave or they're cowards...ignoring the fact that they could be something else), but you're using the basic propaganda techniques that any statist power uses. It's common for propagandists to equate the acts of the enemy with cowardice, even when that would make little to no sense. I've never seen a definition of coward that would stick to someone who died for their belief system. You're just saying they're cowards because they're enemies.

I can definitely see you making a strong argument against using the term brave to fit suicide bombers since brave always has a positive connotation, and suicide bombings aren't positive actions.

[Nowisnotthetime]

Tim Robbins made a fucking fool of himself on the new episode. He didn't have any facts so he was stammering and making long-winded speeches to get crowd applause.

[Intertwined]

did i say our military or us? i said everyone does it because, well, everyone has done it. bombing civilians is bombing civilians no matter who does it or how it's done. killing civilians is killing civilians. accidental or intentional, it shouldn't happen.

You can't win a war without killing AT LEAST a few civilians.. The opposing army just doesn't go out in broad daylight and say "I'm here, not a civilian but a soldier, so you can kill me," I'm sorry, it just doesn't work like that.

he molested 3 children in 92

I actually believe that. Haha. With or without a source, it seems probably with the things he says but I'm just talking out of my ass here.

[selftitled85]

So i guess you'd call WW2 vets cowards, since we firebombed Tokyo, and Dresden, as well as dropped nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. why do you hate the greatest generation?

Not only are you committing a huge logical fallacy with this post (either the terrorists are brave or they're cowards...ignoring the fact that they could be something else), but you're using the basic propaganda techniques that any statist power uses. It's common for propagandists to equate the acts of the enemy with cowardice, even when that would make little to no sense. I've never seen a definition of coward that would stick to someone who died for their belief system. You're just saying they're cowards because they're enemies.

I can definitely see you making a strong argument against using the term brave to fit suicide bombers since brave always has a positive connotation, and suicide bombings aren't positive actions.

well in all honesty this is a very flawed argument. i agree some of these terrorists are truly brave...there is a BIG difference between ww2 and now. first off we dropped the nuke for numerous reasons...not 1 being cowardice...the first reason is that it would save us and them a lot of lives. it is said that japanese women were told to drop their children off cliffs if the americans got on shore and then kill themselves. not to mention the hundred of thousand us soldiers that would be put through the gauntlet. maybe dropping the bomb is not the most "heroic" thing to do...but it saved countless american lives.

many of these suicide bombers dont have to kill themselves. they do it for a belief that suicide bombing gets them closer to the target and a more direct strike. yes they kill themselves for a belief...so in a way its brave...but the rationale is anything but. there is no honor in striking the innocent, and sometimes your own brethren to make a point.

there is at least some honor in protecting your own soldiers. none in blatantly attacking the innocent because you will get 70 or so virgins in the next world. its more selfish than anything.

[Love As Arson]

first off we dropped the nuke for numerous reasons...not 1 being cowardice...the first reason is that it would save us and them a lot of lives. it is said that japanese women were told to drop their children off cliffs if the americans got on shore and then kill themselves. not to mention the hundred of thousand us soldiers that would be put through the gauntlet. maybe dropping the bomb is not the most "heroic" thing to do...but it saved countless american lives.
Actually, it has come to light that it was unnecessary to drop the atomic bomb, and this was known to administration at the time.

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.


almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

When he was informed in mid-July 1945 by Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson of the decision to use the atomic bomb, General Dwight Eisenhower was deeply troubled. He disclosed his strong reservations about using the new weapon in his 1963 memoir, The White House Years: Mandate for Change, 1953-1956 (pp. 312-313):

During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face."

Similarly, Admiral Leahy, Chief of Staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, later commented:

It is my opinion that the use of the barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan ... The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html


many of these suicide bombers dont have to kill themselves. they do it for a belief that suicide bombing gets them closer to the target and a more direct strike. yes they kill themselves for a belief...so in a way its brave...but the rationale is anything but. there is no honor in striking the innocent, and sometimes your own brethren to make a point.
If they had the sort of funding that the American military had, then they'd use similar methods. I would argue that those, too, are terrorist acts. Their brand of terrorism is used as tactic because it is simple, cheap and effective.


there is at least some honor in protecting your own soldiers. none in blatantly attacking the innocent because you will get 70 or so virgins in the next world. its more selfish than anything.
What is the difference between killing for a belief about virgins and killing innocents because of some adherence to patriotism?

[x togepi x]

well in all honesty this is a very flawed argument. i agree some of these terrorists are truly brave...there is a BIG difference between ww2 and now. first off we dropped the nuke for numerous reasons...not 1 being cowardice...the first reason is that it would save us and them a lot of lives. it is said that japanese women were told to drop their children off cliffs if the americans got on shore and then kill themselves. not to mention the hundred of thousand us soldiers that would be put through the gauntlet. maybe dropping the bomb is not the most "heroic" thing to do...but it saved countless american lives.

many of these suicide bombers dont have to kill themselves. they do it for a belief that suicide bombing gets them closer to the target and a more direct strike. yes they kill themselves for a belief...so in a way its brave...but the rationale is anything but. there is no honor in striking the innocent, and sometimes your own brethren to make a point.

there is at least some honor in protecting your own soldiers. none in blatantly attacking the innocent because you will get 70 or so virgins in the next world. its more selfish than anything.

You're missing some key points in why i posted this. One being that, in many people's conceptions of bravery, the act has to be something good for it to count as brave. I was only stating that half of his equation might work.

More importantly, whether or not it's different between WW2 and now is irrelevant. My point with those examples was to show how over simplistic his analysis of the question was. He said "anyone who targets women and children is a coward". In these cases, we targeted civilian targets. Knowing that he would never call WW2 vets cowards, I was pointing out how his analysis was weak. He made a giant broad statement anyone who targets civilians is a coward without thinking of cases where saying that would make no sense.

My point here is to show that he doesn't believe his own words and that he has double standards when it comes to what counts as cowardly. This double standard backs up my position that his idea of cowardice is merely propaganda.