9/11 Film Premiere Ignites Debate

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Darius871

It's also easy to say fear is so paralyzing sitting at your desk, without facing the situation face to face. Either argument is impossible to respond to.

Imran's claim is based more strongly on observation of human nature though. Face it; most of us would be paralyzed with fear, while a few others would have the courage to do something.

[Darius871]

Sure, I can't deny "most" of us would be paralyzed. That's why only about a half-dozen to a dozen passengers rose up instead of all 33.

That doesn't really have any bearing on whether their action was selfless heroism or simple rational choice between certain death or possible survival.

[MrFun]

Why do you make the claim that selfless heroism and rational decision-making necessarily have to be exclusive of one another?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Darius871
Assuming the movie was incorrect about a few passengers having enough minimal pilot training to think they had a slightly better chance of landing the plane with help from the ground than the 0% chance of surviving otherwise, the 9/11 Commission Report states that pilot LeRoy Homer was still alive at the time of the takeover. Surely he would have been able to land.

If they actually though they could wrest control of the plane before it hit the ground (or was inevitable that it would do so), which seeing as they were flying so low in the first place is a very dubious proposition.

It's also easy to say fear is so utterly paralyzing sitting at your desk, without facing the situation face to face. Either argument is impossible to respond to.

Well seeing as how human history has shown us that it is far more normal to be paralyzed with fear while facing such a threat rather than rising up, I'd say it is the better argument that rising up is a heroic act rather than people making a 'rational choice', which assumes that in such a situation it was easy to even be able to think rationally about things!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MrFun
Why do you make the claim that selfless heroism and rational decision-making necessarily have to be exclusive of one another?

His argument is that since it is the obvious rational choice, it wasn't heroic since anyone would do it... which is shown to be false since everyone on the plane didn't get up and attack. Most were paralyzed with fear while a few rose up against the hijackers.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by MrFun
Why do you make the claim that selfless heroism and rational decision-making necessarily have to be exclusive of one another?

Sorry, I thought they were mutually exclusive by definition, if heroism is to be considered significantly risking one's own survival in order to ensure the safety, liberty, and/or prosperity of others.

If you do something to ensure your own survival and the survival of others would be coincidentally ensured as a result, that's not heroism AFAICS.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If they actually though they could wrest control of the plane before it hit the ground (or was inevitable that it would do so), which seeing as they were flying so low in the first place is a very dubious proposition.

5% is more than 0%, no?

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well seeing as how human history has shown us that it is far more normal to be paralyzed with fear while facing such a threat rather than rising up, I'd say it is the better argument that rising up is a heroic act rather than people making a 'rational choice', which assumes that in such a situation it was easy to even be able to think rationally about things!

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
His argument is that since it is the obvious rational choice, it wasn't heroic since anyone would do it... which is shown to be false since everyone on the plane didn't get up and attack. Most were paralyzed with fear while a few rose up against the hijackers.

So a certain proportion of the population is less prone to fear paralysis than others, and thus more able to think rationally than others in crisis situations. What on earth does that have to do with heroism? Am I wrong in assuming heroism has to involve altruism by definition?

[Imran Siddiqui]

5% is more than 0%, no?

So what? Still extremly minimal chances for success. They knew they'd most likely, unless some miracle occured, die.

So a certain proportion of the population is less prone to fear paralysis than others, and thus more able to think rationally than others in crisis situations.

Um... what?

No, those who can think rationally and not be subject to fear paralysis in such situations are those who are the brave ones.

Am I wrong in assuming heroism has to involve altruism by definition?

Did they not give up 20 minutes of their lives (and don't give me the 5% to 0% nonsense... they knew there was very little chance they'd live) to save others? And of course it would have involved less pain to just sit there and take it rather than risk getting knifed in the belly.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

5% is more than 0%, no?

So what? Still extremly minimal chances for success. They knew they'd most likely, unless some miracle occured, die.

Still the only choice there is. And 5% was just an example, from their perspective they might have seriously believed they could break down the cockpit door, remove the two terrorists, and get the pilot in there in time to pull the plane into control before hitting the ground, or at least have it hit the ground at an angle that wouldn't cause an explosion. Neither of us can know what sort of probabilities they expected.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, those who can think rationally and not be subject to fear paralysis in such situations are those who are the brave ones.

Bravery =/ heroism, unless I'm mistaken. Apparently we only differ on subjective definitions.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Did they not give up 20 minutes of their lives (and don't give me the 5% to 0% nonsense... they knew there was very little chance they'd live) to save others?

It's no less likely that they hoped to gain control of the plane and not get dead. Since we weren't there with mindreaders at hand it's a pointless discusson; I'm just annoyed by the automatic assumption altruistically saving lives was the foremost thing on their minds.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Still the only choice there is. And 5% was just an example, from their perspective they might have seriously believed they could break down the cockpit door, remove the two terrorists, and get the pilot in there in time to pull the plane into control before hitting the ground, or at least have it hit the ground at an angle that wouldn't cause an explosion. Neither of us can know what sort of probabilities they expected.

So it is belief that they were just simply deluded folks who thought they could accomplish the impossible? Murphy's Law... they had to realize that it was a slim to none chance they were getting out alive.

And saying "it is the only choice" assumes that they had the mental ability to make a rational choice in such a pressure packed situation.

Bravery =/ heroism

How can it not be? If anything heroism is exceptional bravery.

Why do you assume they had any concern for saving others?

Why not assume such? They knew they were going to die, but instead of doing the easy thing, they did the much harder, more difficult thing. I doubt that all of the passengers, or even most of them, thought they'd succeed in saving their own lives (which you can see from how many passengers said their goodbyes to their loved ones before the rising up)

[Sikander]

Originally posted by nostromo
In other news, it seems Moussaoui will get the death penalty. They should do something special, just for him. How about drowning the stupid bastard in hot pig fat?

French Fry anyone?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Darius871


The difference is that Iraq hostages are bound, unarmed, and facing a half-dozen AK-47s, as opposed to at least a dozen out of 33 passengers armed with scalding water, fire extinguishers, blunt objects, and blankets against TWO skinny punks with razors.



Again, clear strength in numbers would nullify this in most people.

Strength in numbers can certainly buoy some people's morale, but when it comes down to it someone has to face that first punk before the numbers can really tell. While I couldn't keep myself from this sort of existential combat, I believe many / most people would not be able to overcome their reflexive habit for self-preservation. I've seen people incur a greater risk many times because they were incapable of dealing with an immediate lesser risk.

[Ramo]

This is one of the most surreal things I've seen on TV in recent memory. Lou Dobbs showed a clip from Colbert's performance, and one of his insane guests responded...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/03.html#a8147

Colbert: The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will.

Zoller: What came to mind after seeing "United 93" this weekend is 9/11 was a Tuesday, so that was -- and he probably didn't even think about a that, but for me, having lost friends in the World Trade Towers that was the first thing I thought of.

Worthy of teh Colbert Himself.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Bravery =/ heroism

How can it not be? If anything heroism is exceptional bravery.

I shouldn't have used =/ as it technically means they're mutually exclusive; I only meant they are two different things. An act of bravery (overcoming your fears) may or may not also be heroic (deliberate self-sacrifice with the sole purpose of saving others).

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why not assume such?

Why assume anything?

Originally posted by Sikander

Strength in numbers can certainly buoy some people's morale, but when it comes down to it someone has to face that first punk before the numbers can really tell. While I couldn't keep myself from this sort of existential combat, I believe many / most people would not be able to overcome their reflexive habit for self-preservation. I've seen people incur a greater risk many times because they were incapable of dealing with an immediate lesser risk.

That's a good point I haven't thought of; I guess you could call the guy in front a hero, or just the sucker whose seat was furthest forward. But all this nitpicking is a waste of time anyway.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Darius871

But all this nitpicking is a waste of time anyway.

So why did you start this nitpicking?

[Darius871]

I've just been sick to death of the circle-jerk over heroism incarnate that's been going on since this movie came out, and wanted to just throw into the discussion that people are making too many assumptions. The second we delve into a serious debate over petty semantics it becomes nitpicking.

Let's just say I personally think the definition of heroism has become way too broad in our society. Could be wrong.