Gun owner poll

[Dill]

(10-04-2019, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I most likely doubt that....but I do see you keep changing the criteria. It's when from successful, to honorable, to unnecessary..who knows where it will go next.

I haven't changed any criteria. How can an unnecessary sacrifice be a "successful" one--unless the point of the sacrifice was ideological, i.e. unless sacrifice was the point.

You are clearly dodging my question about Custer. Was disobeying orders and leading hundreds of men to their death in a quest for personal glory a "true sacrifice" or not?

(10-04-2019, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Remember this all started with your questioning the success of King Leonidas' sacrifice and just kinda morphed from there.

LOL didn't realize I was NOT supposed to do that. 

You seem pretty uninterested in the historical record and what can or cannot actually be inferred from it.

Someone said "sacrifice" and you saluted. How dare someone else not!

(10-04-2019, 01:11 AM)bfine32 Wrote: But my answer to your question remains unchanged. The "success" of a sacrifice is measured simply on the sacrifice. How dare you to call one unsuccessful. 

Your answer to my question remains a non answer and a dodge.

And I do "dare" to call some sacrifices "unsuccessful," and most especially where judged simply on the sacrifice--from Custer to Kamikaze pilots to Tamil Tigers to a variety of contemporary suicide bombings.

The advantage of a circular definition of your sort is that people can deploy it according to all manner of ideological criteria, and defend it the way ideological criteria are usually defended----appealing to historical record when it suits them and trying to shut the other guy up when it does not. Historical comparisons tend to bring out the real ground of definition, as sacrifices for the wrong cause are deemed not really "true sacrifices." even when they are truly sacrifices.