[ SECRET POST #6349 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6349 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
[Justice League]



__________________________________________________




















07. [WARNING for discussion of weight loss/potentially EDs]




__________________________________________________



08. [WARNING for discussion of underage ships/pedophilia]























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #907.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

SA

To add: my main issue with defining cowardice as the unwillingness to risk anything is twofold.

One, does that then make bravery = the willingness to risk? Is gambling then brave? Is it brave to do heavy contact sports?

Two, is an evil person who is simply selfish and deciding logically to not risk anything, without a hint of fear, but because they simply don't want/care to, a coward?

[meadowphoenix]

I am defining coward in all the ways I have defined it. so when i say it's an unwillingness to risk that is within the context of social responsibility as defined by the media. running from conflict is often called cowardly, but its simply not true that running from conflict is automatically cowardly-worthy. it is a term that implies a common social understanding of what is and what isn't actionable. for instance, the people who run from monsters or zombies or whatever are almost never considered cowards, because the media usually doesn't imply that this is unacceptable. many many many post-WWII and Vietnam novels either do imply that deserters are cowardly, or make the case that desertion itself is not (and only from that are those deserters not cowardly). Those novels never imply that civilians running from battles are cowardly but they might imply that civilians who don't provide succor to soldiers (either those on the "right" side or simply because they should recognize their humanity) are cowards. I think Catch-22 makes a very cogent point that avoiding that conflict is not cowardly. Either way, it is a designation of what we owe society. But that's also why I said it's about how the media itself is building out the environment, because it changes depending on what the media is saying.

Secondly, personally i think the direction of obligation is what determines a moral judgement of two opposites. if you're obligated to do something, not doing it is perhaps negative, doing it is neutral, going above your obligation is perhaps positive. if you're not obligated to do something, doing it is perhaps positive, but not doing is neutral, and not doing it to the point of harm for instance, is perhaps negative.

but that's an issue of obligation which is usually arguable.