Suicide as redemption for dishonour has existed for many centuries in many cultures. The concept of ending your life for a moral position is regarded as a virtuous act. The general concept being that a person has effectively increased their own punishment in exchange for a statement of contrition or defiance, enhancing the statement. In this case his act of defiance was enhanced by taking his life in this manner.
There are large contextual differences between Hitler, Breivik and Praljak that make any comparison to their reasons fairly redundant, but I would say that Hitler clearly did so to escape capture and justice, which isn't the case here or for Breivik who didn't kill himself.
As I said, I can respect the act, simply because of it's cost which was unnecessary. I fully understand people calling it cowardly, and said it would be the case in my original post.
Yeah, but thats not the case with Praljak. He didnt feel that he dishonored anyone and wanted to kill himself because of that. If that was the case, why didnt he do this earlier? The war ended in the 90s.
Praljak took the poison after he got his sentence. He probably believed that killing muslims was the right thing to do, just like Hitler thought killing the jews was the right thing to do. Therefor, in his mind, he didnt consider himself as a war criminal. I dont think the comparisons are redundant at all.
I just dont think theres anything noble about killing one self over something like this, especially when he said that he didnt do anything wrong. If the guy had shown big remorse, then killed himself to take responsibility, then i would have understood the viewpoint better. But i dont feel that a guy who claims innocense after what he did deserves any form of credit for killing himself.
Why mention this in the first place by the way? To me, this comes off as "well, he did a lot of horrible things, but at least he went out with his chin up". Not sure if that is the intention, but this is what rubs me the wrong way.
(Maybe a bit off-topic, but the reason why Breivik didnt kill himself is because he wanted to be captured. He then wanted his trial to be broadcasted, and he wanted to stand there in his uniform, which he was denied. He had this plan, that he first started killing people, making it a catalyst, to start a war against muslims etc. through Europe, and he wanted to use his broadcasted trial as his podium/channel to reach out to people. I dont find anything noble about him turning himself in, because he didnt do this because of remorse or anything like that).
Admirable is not necessarily a positive word. You're making a wrongful assumption there. Stop and consider this for a minute... you think any of Hitler's enemies on the field was ever foolish enough to not respect and admire the man? That'd be a sure fire way of getting yourself killed.
There's no nobility involved in anything here and I'm not trying to put any kind of positive spin on anything, the man was despicable, as were his actions. I wholly respect his resolve though, regardless of how questionable his motivations might've been.
Your analogies are fallacious, by the way.
Here's a fantastic and very well known example of just how wrong you both are regarding the usage of positively charged words in such contexts.
Your behaviour perfectly illustrates how NeoGaf (and now Era) have come to be known as the places where context comes to die. Knee jerk decontextualization and demonizing are very much part of the problem, not the solution.
No no, you're misunderstanding what i'm saying. This isnt about some knee jerk reaction or anything like that, so you're actually the one making the wrongful assumption here. Sorry if i wasnt clear enough, maybe i could be more clear on this, but i know that you're not talking about the man's actions regarding his killing. I dont think you agree or put any positive spin on these actions, of course not. This has absolutely nothing to do with taking things out of context or demonizing anyone here.
What do you mean with my analogy being fallacious? Its about persons who do horrible things, but then should be given credit if they kill themself. What is fallacious about that? You say that my behavior is bad, but this behavior isnt anything better, in my opinion. I'm not here to fight, why do you think i wrote "i dont want to sound rude"? Its much better to get some clearity in whats being said before starting blaming people for taking things out of context.
The only point i'm getting at is to try to make it sound like he did a noble and admirable thing by killing himself, like he is giving credit for killing himself. Maybe spin isnt the best word to use, but it is at least something positive towards the action of killing himself, in my opinion. Not on his other actions, but on the other situation. To me, it basically comes of as "well, he did a lot of horrible things, but at least he went out with his chin up". Why bring such thing up in the first place by the way? Not sure if that is the intention, but this is what rubs me the wrong way.
I can understand why he killed himself, but i'm not going to use the word noble and admirable for someone who doesnt show no remorse for what he/she did, then kill him/herself after getting a sentence of basically life in prison. A person who shows no remorse for doing such things doesnt deserve any type of credits like this.
The example you give from Harry Potter is the word "great". This is likely referring to the measurement definition. The first world war is known as "the great war" because of its size and scope, not because the war was considered good in any way. Another example is "the person went to greath length to reach the goal". That is also talking about size and scope, that the person had to do much in order to reach the goal. So when the guy from Harry Potter said that great, but terrible things were done, its likely referring to big things, not good things. The same thing cant be both great (as in good) and terrible at the same time, unless its referring to two different aspects of the case.
When it comes to admirable and noble, i've only seen these as positive branded words. I've never seen it being used with a negative meaning, do you have any example of that?
The problem is that some people refuse to apply any positive wording towards an otherwise bad person. Hitler was bad so he was bad at math, too, even when he got full scores on his math tests (made-up example). That's what's happening in this thread.
Nobody admires this guy's gruesome acts. He's a piece of shit. BUT staying true to your own (twisted) resolve to the very end, defying the judges confidently, the swallowing poison with a blip of fear - I cannot call this 'cowardly'. I'd be way too scared to do that and instead sit in prison for the rest of my life - like a coward.
Thats not the case, at least not with what i said. I have no problem saying that e.g Hitler was great at manipulating people through his speeches. He managed to get so many people to believe him and follow him, so no one can deny that. He also managed to boost germany's economic situation as well.
The thing i'm getting at is that i dont really see the need to give such persons any form of credit for killing themself.
You're right that killing one self isnt an easy decision, but sometimes that could be seen as an easier way out. It completely depends on what the other alternatives are. Being locked up for the rest of your life could be an a lot stronger fear.
rəb(ə
