What's better: Being noble or being weak?

[Deja Q]

Just curious. :silly:

[Blue-Jay]

1. I don't get it.

The two choices aren't mutually exclusive. You can be both or neither.

[Deja Q]

2. How does that connect with "which is better"?

Being weak has its good points.

So does being noble.

I could do another poll: Comparing 'brash' with 'feeble'. Which is better?

I could alternatively add a context to this currently inane poll: "In death, which is better?" Being weak implies being a vegetable or otherwise unable to do much of anything. :scared: The alternative thoughtline here is suggesting that dying for a noble cause is "way kewl, man!"

But I can't add that context, or any other context, because that would invalidate the poll. The poll, as it is, is undefined in context - allowing people to conjur up what they want before making a decision. If I did use it with a 'death' context, you can bet your sweet bippy that the results would be rather different... Of course, that would make the poll depressing... and depression is the last thing people need right now.

[Blue-Jay]

3. In that context, I'd have to vote for "noble".

"Weak" can mean many things. Physically, emotionally, morally, socially...

"Noble" is rarely a bad thing, depending on your definition of the term.

Then again, Don Quixote was a noble figure, but totally misguided and possibly schizophrenic.