What is a coward?

[ZombieHorde]

Google says:

cow·ard
/ˈkou-ərd/

noun: coward; plural noun: cowards

1. a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.

adjective: coward

1. literary

excessively afraid of danger or pain.

2. Heraldry

(of an animal) depicted with the tail between the hind legs.

This has been my understanding of the word, but I often see the word being used to mean "someone did something I didn't care for." For example, school shooters and the 9/11 hijackers. I don't see how their behavior fits the definition.

What am I missing?

[hughee99]

1. I think it's a bit of a reach, but from the standpoint that

these are people who usually die in the process, they can be seen as people willing to commit these horrible acts against the defenseless, but unwilling to deal with the consequences of them.

[ZombieHorde]

8. I could see how authoritarians would feel that way.

They view what they consider to be the proper authorities as correct.

[valerief]

2. Isn't this how Bill Maher lost his Comedy Central show? nt

[11 Bravo]

6. That's the first thing I thought of.

[yallerdawg]

23. It was ABC.

Maher said:

"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

[Boom Sound 416]

3. They killed the defenseless

[ZombieHorde]

9. Yes, but that is not part of the definition of the word coward. nt

[Boom Sound 416]

13. Sure it is.

"1. a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things."

It's either interpretation or extrapolation I suppose, but

Take the shooter. This person is cowardly on a few levels.

Obviously s/he has a problem, serious problem(s) but cannot face them, but deals with them in 'this' manner. It takes courage to face yourself. Take on yourself. Heal yourself. Break yourself.

Or, think about in terms of fair battle. Thoese people vastly choose location where people are likely unarmed, unaware and unable to hide. Take this example back the definition. Should the shooter walk into a gun and range store where everyone under the roof is locked and loaded. The shooter may not achieve the intended carnage.

And lastly the utter savage brutality to murder children. Adults take on adults. Not children.

Thoughts?

[ZombieHorde]

14. "It takes courage to face yourself."

Sure, but this critique is based on assumptions. They could view the situation as a sacrifice. They may see themselves as martyrs.

Or, think about in terms of fair battle. Thoese people vastly choose location where people are likely unarmed, unaware and unable to hide.

Yes, but they seem to have a goal in mind. If the goal is to kill as many people as possible and cause terror, then those are the most logical choices. Killing a dozen children will provoke a greater response of terror than killing three cops.

[Boom Sound 416]

17. On point two

Right. Totally agree. But, while terrorism and body count are the ultimate goals, they choose helpless targets solely for body count.

I think we're kind of talking in circles. I certainly don't disagree with either of your response points, but I define cowardice under those terms.

It could fall under the realm of connotation if not denotation.

[ZombieHorde]

26. Thanks for the rebuttals.

I enjoyed your posts.

[Boom Sound 416]

28. Cheers

[Blue_Tires]

65. The hell it isn't...

coward
noun [C] UK /ˈkaʊ.əd/ US /ˈkaʊ.ɚd/ disapproving
B2 a person who is not brave and is too eager to avoid danger, difficulty, or pain:
They branded her a coward for informing on her colleagues during the interrogation.
cowardly
adjective UK /-li/ US
B2
This was a particularly brutal and cowardly attack.
They are guilty of a cowardly failure to address the problem.
cowardice
noun UK /-ə.dɪs/ US /-ɚ.dɪs/
›
You can accuse me of cowardice, but I still wouldn't fight in a war.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/coward

[ZombieHorde]

67. I was talking about the US usage of the word.

If someone calls me a fag, I am going to assume they are making a gay slur, as opposed to saying I'm a cigarette.

[Blue_Tires]

68. My fault, I didn't know you were a hardline language literalist...

[ZombieHorde]

70. I forgive you.

[ZombieHorde]

78. Do you think people who intentionally kill bugs,

such as ants on the sidewalk, are cowards?

[Boom Sound 416]

79. Are you saying the children at Stony Brook are ants

Or their lives are equivalent?

What kind of point are you trying to make?

[ZombieHorde]

88. I am not making a point.

I am saying ants are defenseless in the common scenario I described.

I asked why those murderers were cowards and you said:

They killed the defenseless

So I am wondering if you think the killing of defenseless beings makes someone a coward.

[Boom Sound 416]

91. Keep wondering

[SheilaT]

4. And I agree that although these people are despicable,

the last thing they are is cowards.

Perhaps that's just another example of people being careless with language and vocabulary.

[madamesilverspurs]

5. This guy.

He who has forced a local library to allow guns on the premises. No reason, just because he can. He has never shown up to support anything that actually helps people; but he's front and center every time there's an opportunity to frighten people. In any crisis, he'd be the first one running away instead of sticking around to help. Scum.

[Ino]

7. I don't get it either...

You can call them a lot of things, but coward is not one of them. I never understood that, unless it's the idea that if they are NOT cowardly, they must be the opposite -- brave -- and that's unthinkable because it's generally regarded as a good thing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. The opposite of cowardice is courage. Being a nihilistic, socipath such as mass-murderers

is not courage, it's being a nihilistic sociopath. That falls outside the Cowardice-Courage spectrum. Never mistake a mental/spiritual pathology for a moral state of being.

[LadyHawkAZ]

11. I think the idea is that courage is facing an enemy who knows you're there

in a fair fight, and that attacking those who are unarmed or unable to fight back demonstrates fear and weakness.

[ZombieHorde]

15. The US military doesn't look for fair fights.

If they can kill their targets by launching bombs or using drones, then they will do so, sometimes even if that means killing innocent people. Are they cowards too? Is President Obama a coward for ordering these tactics?

[LadyHawkAZ]

36. A person capable of justifying to themselves the idea of war

will be just as capable of rationalizing whatever needs to be done to win it, including lobbing explosives from a nice safe distance. I don't find this particularly brave or heroic at all; our culture seems to disagree. Soldiers tend to be seen as courageous by default.

It used to be considered a bad thing (i.e. cowardly) to deliberately target civilians who are not participating in the fighting. Supposedly it still is. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

[ZombieHorde]

42. I don't think we use the good/evil model in politics.

We use the good/bad model.

The good/evil model is based on behavior. Some behavior is good and some behavior is evil. Most is neither.

The good/bad model is based on the actor. Some people are good and some people are bad. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things, even if they both do the same thing. US soldiers are good and terrorists are bad, so it doesn't matter what they do, US soldiers will always do good while terrorists will always do bad.

This is one of Nietzsche's concepts.

[CBGLuthier]

12. Timothy McVeigh was a COWARD. He blew up children .

He could have attacked the white house, congress, Janet Reno herself but no, the little shit asshole COWARD blew children up. Do you think he was not a coward?

[ZombieHorde]

16. I don't think that fits the definition of the word "coward." nt

[MindPilot]

18. Looks like you clearly demonstarted your point.

There is another definition -- someone who commits an act which makes me a victim by proxy.

[ZombieHorde]

19. I am not sure what you are trying to communicate. nt

[MindPilot]

20. well, I could have spelled "demonstrate" correctly...

You said upthread that cowardly didn't mean "someone who did something I don't like." Then several posters said that exact thing, example, Tim Mcveigh was a coward because he killed kids.

Not sure how else to explain it...agreeing with somebody shouldn't be this hard!

[TexasProgresive]

22. By your definiton would these be cowardly acts?

The fire bombing of Dresden.
The nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
The nuclear attack on Nagasaki.
The shock and awe of Baghdad.
All killed children.

[GliderGuider]

53. By my definition they would be, yes.

So would sniping.

[beam me up scottie]

73. Snipers.

I never understood why people consider snipers brave, it takes courage to face a battle, picking someone off from a distance is just good marksmanship.

[MindPilot]

61. No, none of those.

But I'm not sure you are asking that of the right person since I agreed with the OP

[TexasProgresive]

62. Sorry, I must've clicked on the wrong post

I meant to reply to # 12 CBGLuthier

[ZombieHorde]

29. Aha! Thanks for clearing that up. nt

[Reter]

63. He blew up a federal building where children happened to be inside

I don't know whether or not he knew they were in there. But he did not specifically target them.

[FSogol]

21. Language is a living breathing thing. It is not the static object as represented by the dictionary.

Dictionary.com adds this caveat:

The identification of coward & bully has gone so far in the popular consciousness that persons & acts in which no trace of fear is to be found are often called coward(ly) merely because advantage has been taken of superior strength or position .... [Fowler]

[ZombieHorde]

31. That definition would fit the examples I used.

Though that makes many soldiers cowards, such as those who fly drones.

[FSogol]

41. The enemy might call drone pilots cowardly (they are not facing the enemy squarely in a fair fight

for example), however gaining advantage thru non-traditional attacks (think minutemen vs red coats or the Troy's Trojan Horse) is a long established principle in war. A country seldom calls the actions of its armies cowardly.

[ZombieHorde]

44. Yes, but when we use the definition used for the other violent people,

US soldiers are clearly cowards. President Obama is also a coward when we use that definition, for he just orders others to be violent for him. Unless of course we add "wrong faction" to the definition being used.

I don't use that definition for the word coward, so I don't personally consider US soldiers or the President to be cowards.

[FSogol]

48. Except that US soldiers are a group, not individals. An army itself cannot be cowardly,

however individuals in that army can commit cowardly acts, such as deserting. Even in retreat, an army is not being cowardly, they are merely bidding time for a future engagement or change in plans. And Obama is a leader, not someone issuing cowardly orders. Are Gen. McArthur or Eisenhower cowards for not fighting personally and only issuing orders? No one would make that case.

Neither of your examples fits that definition under "persons & acts."

[uppityperson]

24. Are you seeking a discussion or an argument?

[ZombieHorde]

30. I'll take either. nt

[uppityperson]

49. OK. Some do not consider their own death as awful. Some consider the "easy way" is to simply

kill themselves, sometimes in a dramatic fashion while killing others who were not directly related to the person's problem.

Taking your first definition " a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things", it may be unpleasant to directly face people you have problems with, can take a lot of time, energy, both physical and emotional, while death is simply bam, shock which doesn't let you feel much and dead. Risking yourself by facing your inner demons, now that can be painful for a long time. Which is more unpleasant, to go off the deep end or to try and pull yourself back?

It depends. And brings us to your definition 3 &quot of an animal) depicted with the tail between the hind legs" and more definitions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowardice
linked to dictionary.com

Cowardice is a trait wherein fear and excess self-concern override doing or saying what is right, good and of help to others or oneself in a time of need—it is the opposite of courage. As a label, "cowardice" indicates a failure of character in the face of a challenge.[1]

A failure of character in the face of a challenge is the high point of that one, imo

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coward

: someone who is too afraid to do what is right or expected : someone who is not at all brave or courageous

This is getting more how it is used like in your OP.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/coward

The definition of a coward is a person who lacks courage and turns away from danger.
An example of coward is a man who runs the other direction after seeing a person who needs help.

In this case, it is about altruism, or not putting aside your own fears of danger to help someone else.

This is an interesting question, being interested in words, language history, etymology. I return to my thought of death not being the awfullest thing there is, combining it with facing challenges, difficulties, by hurting others rather than risking your own mental well being by facing your own demons, or working to change other demons beyond harming (innocents? bystanders?) not sure of the correct term. Which then opens up the field to what about drones?

All in all, an interesting question, thank you.

[Recursion]

39. I'm sorry, you want room 12A

(Had to add that for the Monty Python fans.)

[uppityperson]

50. +++

[treestar]

56. lol

thanks!

[polly7]

25. Fighting, bullying, causing harm to anyone you well know lacks the capability

to fight back, for whatever reason.

[ZombieHorde]

32. Are soldiers cowards for using drones? nt

[closeupready]

57. The decision-makers who sanction liberal drone usage and

who do so with little to no accommodation to the principle of protection of innocent civilian lives (mostly in the form of collateral damage) - yes, most definitely. That could serve as a textbook illustration of lots of bad things, cowardice being probably the most obvious.

Individual soldiers? Here my ignorance of military operations shows - who makes decisions to drop drone bombs - the soldiers as individuals, or individuals further up the chain of command? War councils?

[Uncle Joe]

35. Precisely, polly.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coward?s=t

The identification of coward & bully has gone so far in the popular consciousness that persons & acts in which no trace of fear is to be found are often called coward(ly) merely because advantage has been taken of superior strength or position .... [Fowler]

[polly7]

51. Thanks, Uncle Joe. And I agree with your quote completely. nt.

[REP]

27. Those are two random definitions; there are others

Here's two school shooters: Charles Whitmore and Brenda Spencer. Both shot unarmed, unaware and defenseless students (Spencer shot children) from concealed spots. They shot people who were unknown to them and posed no threat; they did it with weapons more powerful than needed to kill their targets; they did not kill their victims face-to-face. That seems a bit cowardly to me. Attacking anyone who is smaller, weaker and unarmed who is not a threat with force or weapons guaranteed to kill or maim - especially at a distance, or in hiding - is not the act of courageous person.

The 9/11 attacks could be argued either way, since the people actually killed were largely civilians. On the other hand, it was a small group carrying out an attack against a large, well-armed country and they did it, knowing they'd die doing it. I personally can't get over all the people who died just going to their jobs that day and I come down on cowardly. I do know the US government's reaction was one of cowardice.

[Recursion]

33. Both of those cases attacked defenseless people without warning

I think that's the basis of it. I might call someone suckerpunching someone else "cowardly" even if he gets his ass kicked after that. "Coward" hasn't always just meant "lacking physical or moral courage"; it also has a sense of "contemptible" or "beneath reproach".

[ZombieHorde]

34. "it also has a sense of "contemptible" or "beneath reproach"."

That seems to be the popular usage of the word.

[alphafemale]

37. Because "weasel" has fallen out of common vernacular. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

38. funny you brought this up

I've been wondering that since 9/11.

Certainly there is nothing cowardly about anyone risking their own life in the pursuit of a cause even if that cause is horrible and the methods evil. The only thing I can account for such an odd accusation is something I read in a book of fiction ages ago...

Long story short, the heroine is invited to some sort of celebratory feast by the evil all powerful and terrifying leader of some kingdom/tribe/group or whatever it was and having noticed the people are starving other than the leader's selected few confidantes decides that she'll make a big pot of stew since she knows where edible and tasty foods grow and how to find them and these people have forgotten such things and have tried to acquire food only by hunting but game has become scarce, and with winter coming are too lean to provide much meat or essential fatty portions. She brings the pot of stew to the feast and insists that it be dolled out to everyone rather than horded and devoured by the leader and her select few. She does this to show that food is plentiful if one knows where to find it and how to prepare it so that no one need starve.

This act of wisdom, skill and generosity both angers and frightens the leader who like all leaders who rule by force is not wise nor skillful nor generous, which is what a competent leader needs to be in order to not HAVE to rule by force, and this poor leadership is reflected in the people who are not only starving before winter has even arrived but can no longer recall how they used to feed themselves and not depend on the leader for everything, and thus being bent to the evil leader's harsh rule. She is frightened of this act by the heroine because of course the people automatically side with her though she is a stranger to them... they recognize her as being the wise, skillful and generous leader they know they need and WHY they need such a leader as that pot of delicious stew demonstrated. And of course, the evil leader recognizes that this simple act stripped her of her power so that all she has left in her arsenal is even harsher treatment in order to maintain her place.

The best bit though was what I think is as similar as I can think of as to why calling out these evil terrorists by naming them cowards is that in the story since the leader is incensed she demands that only her and her few minions as well as the heroine since she's a guest and brought the stew could partake because there wouldn't be anything left nor would everyone get a big portion if it was dolled out equally to all. The heroine oe would expect to call out the leader as horrible, evil, the spawn of Satan and everything else and giving a good speech on how despicable the leader was, but instead calls her discourteous and inhospitable toward an invited guest who even brought food for the feast out of the goodness of her heart.

Discourteous and inhospitable. When I first read that bit I was sorely disappointed since they were hardly the appropriate accusations. But then the story goes on to say that once she delivers them before the entire group at the feast the peons snigger and even laugh out loud. By calling this evil leader merely discourteous and inhospitable toward an invited guest rather than naming her as the horror that she was the evil leader was stripped of the her only power since it was only her evilness that bestowed it on her, and she knew she lost it when the peons sniggered and even laughed out loud when before they had cringed in terror of her.

Discourteous and inhospitable. Ridiculously weak, wrong and almost silly words that don't convey at all the horror that the leader was. Yet they had the power to strip her of her power and so much so that the peons actually laughed right at her. She became diminished to the point of nothing by those words whereas had the heroine named her for what she really was the evil leader would have only become somewhat more powerful than she was already ruling with the iron fist.

I can't even remember what the hell book this was or the characters or the general story since the heroine's encounter with this group of people was a mere chapter in whatever the adventures of the heroine were in the book and the only part I recall, but it was a powerful lesson that explained a lot to me about evil dictators. Though I doubt that this is anything that would remotely work in real life it makes for a hell of a philosophy at least on paper. Take away an evil leader's only weapon and they're reduced to nothing. Just doesn't seem to work well in the real world though.

That's the only explanation I could come up with for the use of the "cowardly" word toward these horrid terrorists. Maybe it would work better to call them discourteous and inhospitable instead and see if their followers snigger. Somehow I'm not seeing that happening. In the real world evil dictators and those similar just crack the whip harder when their power ebbs for whatever reason.

[ZombieHorde]

43. That is interesting.

Thanks for the post.

[TorchTheWitch]

47. You're very welcome

I'm not sure I was putting across what I understand in my head. That one chapter of whatever that book was has always stuck with me, and after all these years wondering about that use of the word "cowardly" the two seem to be much the same thing.

Ha! I'm not sure that made much sense either!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. posting here to bookmark your post, thank you.

[NuttyFluffers]

74. "Plains of Passage" by Jean M. Auel

fourth book of the Earth Children series, famous for the first book, "Clan of the Cave Bear."

[TorchTheWitch]

75. Was that it?

Wow, I'm surprised you could recognize it! I don't even remember reading it. I liked the first three books, but that one must have bored me or I would have re-read it. Or at least remembered more of it. Did she ever finally finish the series? Seemed like decades went by since the third one.

[NuttyFluffers]

94. last i saw she has released a 6th, and supposedly final, book in the series.

5th was The Shelters of Stone and got them back to the home clan of Jondalar.

but just like Diana Gabaldon's Outlander and any of those types of series, are they ever really done? a touch Harlequin romance fantasia, a touch James Clavell historicity, a touch heroics through oblique means "i defeat you with sensible fashion, herbalism, and wistful endurance..."

the formula is too delicious & precious, and thus profitable, to really put away.

[TorchTheWitch]

95. I should probably read them again from the beginning

I think after the third book I just gave up since it was taking her so long to write them. It really ought not to take an adult lifetime to finally finish a 6 book series. I likely don't remember anything much about the fourth book either because it was boring or I'd forgotten so much of the previous three books I wasn't into it anymore.

Thanks for the info. I always did wonder if the author just gave up on the series or what.

[NuttyFluffers]

96. perhaps just enjoying the profits from her dynasty.

Dune is going on its umpteenth book, keeping the son and descendants clothed and fed. i sorta get the idea to retire, live life, leave something for the future, cement dynastic inheritance stability.

not terribly surprised about J.K. Rowling returning to Harry Potter at middle age, either. follows same human nature pattern.

[ZombieHorde]

46. Ha! nt

[closeupready]

52. I'm K&Ring this thread for the good discussion it's prompted.

Thanks, Zombie.

[Nye Bevan]

54. Was the underwear bomber a coward?

How many people would be prepared to conceal a bomb adjacent to their genitals and then try to explode it in flight because of their religion?

Probably best as suggested above to just assume that "coward" now also means "contemptible".

[Rex]

55. Well the 9/11 hijackers were all ready for suicide.

HOWEVER, something dangerous and unpleasant TO THEM would be a secular movement that crushes their extremest views...so when faced with that kind of dangerous and unpleasant notion - they would rather take the easy way out by killing themselves and as many people as possible.

Hence they are most assuredly cowards or would have taken the more difficult road of change and progress via peaceful means. IOW, they didn't have the courage to face progress and fight it...much easier to blow up in an airplane.

My 2 cents

[treestar]

58. I see the point. No one wants the 911 hijackers to be considered "brave"

because that's seen as a good thing. Yet it did take a lot of nerve, especially knowing they were going to die. It's that there are not enough bad names in the world to call them, so we grab every bad one we can, even if it is not really an issue or consideration. "Religious fanatics" and "terrorists" "enemies" "narcissistic sociopaths" "warmongers" etc. are not satisfying enough to vent the spleen over the terrible things they did. "Coward" sounds very bad and must apply to them.

[Nye Bevan]

59. If anything, Osama Bin Laden was the coward.

Having others do the dirty work for him while he skulked in his little house surrounded by women and children, knowing that they would be at risk when he was tracked down and captured.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

64. Perhaps, one who doesn't do what they bellieve is the right thing for fear of the consequences. nt

[merrily]

66. There are two aspects. One is shooting unarmed kids.

That certainly is not a brave deed.

The other aspect is that they kill themselves. Some would say suicide is a coward's way out, but I don't know if I agree. Or, someone else takes them down. Getting taken down takes guts. Does it also take bravery? I think reasonable people can disagree about that.

I am of the view that people who shoot up schools are not necessarily thinking the way you and I think. Who knows? They may not even expect to be taken down, as unrealistic as that is

[ZombieHorde]

72. "I am of the view that people who shoot up schools are not necessarily thinking..."

I also suspect this. I don't think they are using the same value system we generally use.

[merrily]

90. Maybe not even the same brain cells.

IOW, I think you have to be pretty eff'd up to think shooting a bunch of school kids is a good idea from any perspective.

[cwydro]

69. Shooting children?

Uh, yeah, that is the act of a sick coward.

[ZombieHorde]

71. I understand why people find the behavior disgusting.

I am just not sure why so many people in the US use the word "coward" for those who shoot children, commit suicide bombings, etc.

Of all the names we can call those folks, we chose one that doesn't really seem to fit.

[orpupilofnature57]

77. Misanthropes might be a better description

The members of the KKK, are cowards .

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

81. "I understand why people find the behavior disgusting."

What is this....this passive detachment from everything you display? Is this some kind of schtick?

[cwydro]

82. Shooting children is cowardly.

On the others. I agree with you.

Perhaps a different description.

But targeting children, the elderly, animals....no, in my opinion that is pure cowardice.

More particularly, monstrous. But still cowardly.

[orpupilofnature57]

76. A person who would swipe candy from a baby's mouth, because they can.

[Avalux]

80. Their behavior does not fit the definition of coward.

A coward will avoid pain and difficulty and are overcome by fear. Such as "I am a coward when it comes to going the dentist, so I don't go".

People who uses the word coward to describe a terrorist or a bully, or behavior that inflicts harm on others, are using it incorrectly.

[cwydro]

84. Disagree.

A bully is a coward. Period.

Bullies are always cowards.

[Avalux]

85. You may disagree, but it is still incorrect. n/t

[cwydro]

86. In your opinion. nt

[Avalux]

87. Uh no. According to the dictionary. n/t

[rustydog]

83. Dictionary: Coward= see Ted Nugent

[ZombieHorde]

89. Ha!

[ileus]

92. Neither seem willing to take the fight to someone able to defend themselves.

They don't seem to be walking in to police stations or crashing the gates of military bases in most instances. (there have been 2 instances in America lately I suppose)

[Orsino]

93. Coward is one of the worst insults, so we misapply it to people who do the worst things.

There's no bravery involved in attacking the defenseless, but giving up your life to do it takes some sort of courage. Or insanity. There's probably a lot of overlap.

[Live and Learn]

97. Good point and cowardice by its very definition

is a mental disability. So I guess we shouldn't be using either term to denigrate or acclaim anybody.