MovieChat Forums > Sully (2016) Discussion > Just how is he a hero?

Just how is he a hero?


He was in the same danger as everyone else.
He didn't take a risk to help others, or make a sacrifice to help others.
He acted out of self-interest.

reply

one easy thing that comes to mind (and i'm sure there are dozens of other reasons), is that he was calm under pressure, came up with a plan which he felt was best, and didn't panic or freak out. It was his idea to fly into the river, mind you.

If someone else was in charge, and they panicked and crashed, would you not agree that what Sully did was more heroic?

Hell... some people look to pro wrestlers or fictional characters like Indiana Jones to find their hero.... And you're honestly objecting to a guy who calmly changed the deathly fate of some 150 people?

reply

It was his idea to fly into the river, mind you.


No sh!t? This genuis thought it better to crash into water than concrete and buildings? He didn't need a crack team of physicists and technicians to work that out for him? He just came up with that all on his own? Well when you put it that way...

If someone else was in charge, and they panicked and crashed, would you not agree that what Sully did was more heroic?


I would not. I would say Sully was a better pilot.

Sully is a great pilot. Some might say a good pilot might have avoided the birds; but it probably wasn't possible at that low altitude. But he was on the same plane as everyone else. He was saving his own ass; everyone else just happened to be there. Great pilot. Not a hero.

A hero is someone who puts themselves at risk to help/save others. He didn't put himself in danger. Soldiers, Firemen, that guy who jumped onto subway tracks to save the girl from getting hit by a train - all heroes. None of them need to be doing any of that. But they put themselves in danger for the benefit of others.

With all that said if I wasn't terrified of flying I'd like Sully to be the pilot on any flight I was on. I hear a lot of scary stuff about how pilots basically coast on auto pilot and the planes more of less fly themselves. Most pilots couldn't deal with an anomaly. That's insane. Sully's a great pilot and deserves all the credit in the world for being a very very good pilot.

reply

No sh!t? This genuis thought it better to crash into water than concrete and buildings? He didn't need a crack team of physicists and technicians to work that out for him? He just came up with that all on his own? Well when you put it that way...


*face palm* Jesus Christ...

His other option was to fly back to the airport he just left - which was an option - not saying it would've worked, but it was considered. Try to think a little bit.

reply

I don't know about that. I'm don't know everything about this story because I hate how much attention and adoration it's getting/has gotten. I think it's dumb.

But I think he was pretty low to the ground and he was going down. It's not a mini-cooper pulling a U-turn. I will give him some credit and say it would have been difficult to quickly turn the plane around without crashing it on the off chance he could safely land it on a runway.

I'm not sure if you're being mocking or not though. You say "try to think a little bit" but before that you say "not saying it would've worked" - so you think a little bit.

It seems like you don't know what you're talking about; but you act like you do.

I'm admitting I don't know everything about that whole situation. I'm just using common sense from what I've heard.

Seems like it would have been harder and more dangerous to bring the plan back to the runway. And nobody died. So, it's hard to say he made the wrong choice.


I still say he's not a hero. Just a good pilot.

reply

Well then watch the movie and it goes over his options and how they were challenged. Jesus you sound dumb.

reply

I read the summary in mad magazine. I got the gist. No interest in the movie.

I have more empathy for him. Still not a hero.

reply

I think you are confusing hero and superhero.
He is not a hero for staying calm and making correct decisions but for putting with the *beep* afterwards.

reply

I'm aware of both definitions.

I just disagree with you. If he's a hero for putting up with bullsh!t than I'm super hero. Kal El ain't got sh!t on me.

And most people are arguing that the staying calm and decision making thing is what made him a hero. But you yourself just said it doesn't. And I agree with you. That's what I've been saying.

reply

I doubt you have done anything or will ever do anything new worthy and put you in the public eye so you have no chance to ever be a hero.

reply

You dont have to be in the public eye to be a hero. Most real heroes never get any recognition. And they dont seek it out. And nobody's calling me a hero, so.....

Thanks for weighing in, Superman. I'll try to do better. Promise. Keep up the good work.

reply

You just called yourself a superhero

reply

I didn't. But English is hard. You'll get the hang of it. Just keep at it.

reply

I just disagree with you. If he's a hero for putting up with bullsh!t than I'm super hero. Kal El ain't got sh!t on me.

Back at you
And it is THEN I am a super hero. Not than.

reply

The area around the Hudson (and three nearby airports) is very densly populated. If the jet were to crash there would be fire, buildings and people would be affected. Traffic would be a problem for emergency vehicles.

The Hudson is big, flat area with minimal people but full of boats made to move people quickly to the shore and nearby hospitals.

He made the best choice but I'm not sure that made him a hero - just a quick thinker and a good pilot.

reply

No sh!t? This genuis thought it better to crash into water than concrete and buildings? He didn't need a crack team of physicists and technicians to work that out for him? He just came up with that all on his own? Well when you put it that way...


Well the morons who questioned him felt it was far better to have risked flying over one of the most populated cities in the world at low altitude with both engines on fire back to Laguardia Airport.

So yeah, Sully was a genius for doing it his way.

Sully is a great pilot. Some might say a good pilot might have avoided the birds; but it probably wasn't possible at that low altitude. But he was on the same plane as everyone else. He was saving his own ass; everyone else just happened to be there. Great pilot. Not a hero.


As for avoiding the birds, you're kidding, right? Should he have dove 5,000 feet, possibly creating many injuries onboard due to the lack of warning just to avoid them and what if he'd dove only to encounter an even greater flock of birds? And he wasn't at that low an altitude when the strikes occurred.

When driving a car, you can sometimes successfully swerve to miss a deer running across the road. But often times, just the swerve, made in panic and fear, does far more damage than would have been caused by the accidental striking of the animal with the vehicle. You could lose control of the car, run off the road, crash into a tree, etc.

Many pilots have lost engines due to bird strikes. Sully had the unfortunate luck to have had both engines get struck. It was a freak accident and one that no one was likely to believe but it did happen.

A hero is someone who puts themselves at risk to help/save others. He didn't put himself in danger. Soldiers, Firemen, that guy who jumped onto subway tracks to save the girl from getting hit by a train - all heroes. None of them need to be doing any of that. But they put themselves in danger for the benefit of others.


You've been watching too many movies. The definition of a hero is:

A person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.

They do not necessarily have to put themselves at risk in order to save others. But they do have to do something extraordinary, something that demonstrates selflessness, courage, calm under fire, and a clear mind to see what needs to be done.

Too often people stand on the sidelines and play quarterback with other people lives without lifting a finger to do anything themselves. Yes, your examples are heroes because they did not need to do any of those things to save others.

But it's easy to forget that pilots just like bus drivers and train conductors, also are charged with delivering the people they are conveying safely to their destinations. And when disaster strikes, in those moments of chaos, the hero manages to find a way to get those people to safety.

With all that said if I wasn't terrified of flying I'd like Sully to be the pilot on any flight I was on. I hear a lot of scary stuff about how pilots basically coast on auto pilot and the planes more of less fly themselves. Most pilots couldn't deal with an anomaly. That's insane. Sully's a great pilot and deserves all the credit in the world for being a very very good pilot.


I find your final paragraph to be a bit hypocritical. He's not a hero in your eyes but you'd want him to be your pilot because he's a great pilot. And what makes him great? That he managed to save the lives of everyone onboard? But that doesn't make him a hero in your book, just a very good pilot.

So if you had to fly somewhere and you had some mediocre pilot who couldn't be bothered to use his brain and he runs into a similar situation and everyone expects him to turn back to the closest airport for an emergency landing but he doesn't quite make it. He loses most of his passengers, some do survive thanks to some miracle but he's dead. Then what? He's a jackass?

Sully is a great pilot. One who decided that following the book would not save lives in his unique situation. He ditched the plane in the Hudson and saved EVERYONE. And that still doesn't make him a hero in your eyes.

Incredible.

reply

Just because other people are stupid that doesn't make him a genius.

Yes, I was kidding. Nice catch.

Ok cool. If that's your definition. Still no outstanding achievement. I do not believe he is a hero. He himself has said he's not a hero. I bet his dick tastes so good though doesn't it? Mmmmmm sully flavored!

He did not save the lives of everyone on board. He just didn't kill them by being a *beep* pilot. He was a good pilot and everyone lived. He was doing his job. That's all. And of course I would want a good pilot flying my plane. Wouldn't you? If you got pulled over by a cop would you want it to be a good, calm cop who knows the law and knows what he's doing? Or would you prefer a panicky gun nut who is terrified to be out there?

Example: the police in my city are mostly terrible. About a month ago my wife and i were pulled over in her car because her vehicle matched the description of a hit and run car. The cop was nice. Friendly. Checked everything out. Made sure it wasn't us that did it and off we went. Super polite. This was in a neighboring town. Then about 2 weeks ago we're driving my car. the panikcky idiots in my town pull us over. Again, suspicious vehicle (please don't ask me why our cars are so suspicious. And no I'm not making this up. Super weird coincidence) one guy pulled me over and another speeds alongside the passenger side. The cop on the passenger side gets here first and starts talking. Then the other guy, with his hand on his gun status coming up. Now, the first cop is already there. He's not going for HIS gun. My wife and I look super non threatening. No reason to have his hand on his gun. So he comes to the window and starts talking over the other guy. I understand they were just doing their job. I was glad they did it. I understand that the guys in my car may have been more dangerous than the hit and run girl. But they still handled themselves poorly. Not bad. Not good. Especially compared to the first cop from a month ago.

So yes. I would want a good pilot. I would want good cops. Good doctors. good engineers. why wouldn't I? I wouldn't call them heroes (except the GOOD cops, who put themselves at risk every day to protect people)

reply

Well too bad you just have to latch onto someone. You most likely never been in a situation like this. Its pretty clear if someone less experienced tried to land it they would have crashed into buildings trying to get to the runway like a good pilot would. Any fool would know landing on water is better than crashing into a building.. key difference can that fool actually pull it off.

reply

Sure, why not? It's *beep* water.

I don't know why people are so upset and defensive over this guy. He's a great guy. Just not a hero.

reply

Maybe not a hero to you, but he is a hero to a whole lot of people, and rightfully so.

reply

Wrongly. Yeah. He flew the *beep* plane. His job. Job well done. Amazing pilot. Good call on becoming a pilot. It really suits him. Again, fantastic *beep* PILOT.

If the pilot was knocked unconscious and a plumber came up from coach and landed the plane without any casualties then, yeah, hero.

If a pilot lands a plane and we praise that as heroism then we're setting that bar pretty *beep* low.

reply

Ted, that's not for you to decide. OK, you can believe he is not a hero if you want, that's fine. But you don't decide for others. People reach their own opinions, and most see Sully as a hero. You can't change that. You may think they are wrong in believing that, and that's your opinion too.

The jury is not out on the subject of Sully being a hero: he is. Accept that you just have an opinion that is counter to what most folks think. He did a lot more than just land the plane; his judgment saved 150 lives.

And yes I know that Sully doesn't think of himself as a hero. Ironically, if he did, he probably wouldn't be!

And your *beep*'s don't add anything to the discussion, by the way.


reply

Shep, him being a hero is also opinion. I'm not going to argue. I genuinely don't care.

*beep* *beep* *beep*

reply

him being a hero is also opinion


agreed.

reply

No ... it is a FACT that he is a hero. You changing the definition of the word 'hero', to be someone who puts themselves into danger to save others - just to suit your idiotic opinion - doesn't change that FACT. It is your opinion that he is not a hero but you are wrong. You quite obviously do care, otherwise you wouldn't go to so much trouble to try to convince people of something that is completely and utterly wrong. Are you really so stupid and so ignorant that you think all the medals for heroism that have been handed out by the military - the world over - have only been given to people who put themselves into danger when they didn't have to? If so then you are wrong again. Thousands and thousands and thousands of medals for heroism have been given to soldiers who, when they and their comrades were in trouble, remained calm and did what they had to do to save themselves and others. That is what a hero is. Contrary to your incorrect assertion, the fact that they also saved themselves is irrelevant and does nothing to diminish a heroic act. Yes, there are people who have put themselves into danger when they didn't have to and they are heroes too, but they are NOT the only heroes and that is NOT the definition of 'hero'.

As for landing the plane on water after losing both engines at low altitude, contrary to yet another of your incorrect assertions, that is NOT a pilot's job. They do NOT train for it because it is a one in a billion thing. There have only been four ditchings in the entire history of jet airliners. They do NOT even train for losing both engines at low altitude because that alone is incredibly rare. The tragedy here is that Sully did so well, and made the whole thing look so easy, that ignorant imbeciles like you think that what he did was some simple, by the book thing that any pilot could and would have done; as opposed to being a one in a billion miracle, pulled off by a real life hero, which is what it was. You even admit to being ignorant about the whole situation, but continue to maintain your idiotic stance!

The FACT of the matter is that ditching an Airbus A320 in water - without engines - whilst managing to keep the fuselage intact, and causing no fatalities as a result, is an incredibly difficult thing to do. If, on the approach, you slow down too much the wing stalls and the plane crashes into the water, uncontrolled, with fatalities being almost certain. If, on the approach, you don't slow down enough the plane hits the water too quickly and breaks apart, with fatalities being almost certain. You have to judge airspeed perfectly, as Sully did, so that you are going as slow as possible, without stalling, just as the plane hits the water. The pilot has to guess when the plane will first touch the water because they are used to landing at a different angle and having the landing gear down; which means the plane touches down sooner under normal circumstances. If, on approach, the angle of attack is too steep then the fuselage smashes down onto the water after the tail hits, breaks apart, and fatalities are almost certain. If, on approach, the angle of attack is too shallow, the engines dig in too soon and the fuselage breaks apart, with fatalities being almost certain. You have to get the angle of attack exactly right, within 1 or 2 degrees - as Sully did, without having trained, or being told the correct angle - or fatalities are almost certain. You have to make sure that both engines hit the water at the same time, otherwise when the first one hits it digs in and rips the wing off, which tears open the plane and makes fatalities almost certain. The list of requirements goes on and on and on with everything needing to be perfect so as to avoid fatalities.

That is all to say nothing of the fact that most pilots would not have chosen to ditch in the Hudson - because water landings are so incredibly difficult and are not trained for - and would have ended up crashing the plane on land while attempting to reach an airport. That's why the NTSB spent time looking into that and running so many simulations you cretin; because trying to land at an airport was the natural thing to do and the thing most pilots would have tried, with fatalities being almost certain. That's why Sully himself even had doubts about what he chose to do. Even with the 30 second human factor included, the plane almost made it to the various runways; which shows how close the whole thing was, and makes it likely that many other pilots would have attempted that instead. Are you really too stupid to comprehend that?

Most other pilots would not have turned on the APU almost immediately; yet another factor which saved lives. Sadly, in a way, for Sully - who is unquestionably a HERO - he remained so calm and did such an outstanding job, making the whole thing look so incredibly easy, that ignorant imbeciles like you think that what he did was in no way heroic. Why do you think it's called the MIRACLE on the Hudson you moron??? Why do you think it's known as the most successful ditching in aviation history? Why do you think the Master's Medal they were awarded states "this emergency ditching and evacuation, with the loss of no lives, is a heroic and unique aviation achievement"? You know better than the aviation experts of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators do you? You know better than George W Bush and Barack Obama, both of whom called him a hero do you? You know better than everyone else except a small minority of loathsome, bitter losers such as yourself do you? No ... you don't. You're an ignorant idiot who never has and never will achieve anything worthwhile and you have nothing better to do than try to diminish the feat of a genuine hero. What a world we live in...

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

reply

No

reply

I think the problem may be that he made it look too easy ( a testament to his skill ). It helped me a great deal to have seen a video of a similar water landing attempt by an aircraft of roughly the same size. That aircraft simply broke apart the second it hit the water, and if memory serves, everyone onboard died.

While water standing still may be soft, hitting water or being hit by water at a decent speed is a different matter. Any one at the beach who got hit by even a moderate sized wave can attest to that. If you ever did a belly flop off a diving board, same thing.

An airplane simply isn't designed for hitting water at high speed, the structural stresses involved are just too great.

reply

Sully is a great pilot. Some might say a good pilot might have avoided the birds; but it probably wasn't possible at that low altitude. But he was on the same plane as everyone else. He was saving his own ass; everyone else just happened to be there. Great pilot. Not a hero.


So a water landing, and NO one dying at all which is uncommon, well according to the movie, and he saved every single person and barely a scratch does not a hero make?

WOW.

Definition of hero:


[heer-oh]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun, plural heroes; for 5 also heros.
1.
a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of character:
He became a local hero when he saved the drowning child.
2.
a person who, in the opinion of others, has special achievements, abilities, or personal qualities and is regarded as a role model or ideal:
My older sister is my hero. Entrepreneurs are our modern heroes.


You have a really strange definition for hero if Sully is not one.

((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))

reply

My god. This is STILL going on? Every other week someone pops up with a serious problem with some sh!t I said months ago. I can't have an opinion? You're right and that's the way it is? I just disagree with you I didn't murder your children.

I still maintain he's a very good pilot but not a hero. If he parachuted into a crashing plane and put himself in danger to save others then he'll yes he's a hero. He was in the plane too. If it went down so did he. I'm not saying he's a bad guy. He's a great guy and a fantastic pilot.

Thanks for the phonetic spelling and thesaurus and dictionary entries. I guess you thought maybe that's what was missing? Maybe I just didn't know ? You enlightened me and taught me something? Thanks so much.

Well in example 1 a man saved a drowning child. Maybe he was in the water already. Maybe not. Either way, have you ever tied to save someone from drowning? Expert swimmer or not, they'll pull your a$$ down in a panic without meaning to.so I would call example 1 a hero.

Example 2. In the OPINION OF OTHERS .... in my OPINION sully is not. And if you mean "well because so many people think is is then he is". I say nope. Not to me. I don't care what anybody else thinks. I form my own opinions.

For instance. I think you have a strange definition for hero. I mean, I see where you're coming from. I just think you're technically wrong and I disagree. I'm not hounding you for thinking the way you do. I don't think you're an idiot. I just think you think differently than I do. And that's ok.

Can we be done now?

reply

He's not really a hero. He was just doing his job.

reply

cool.... then i guess firemen and police can't ever be considered heroes, either.

reply

Firefighters are heroes and so are cops who don't shoot innocent people...

reply

i agree... but i was remarking to the other guy who said Sully wasn't a hero because he was just doing his job.

Police and fireman are just doing their job, as well.

reply

Well that is the line of reasoning Sully uses, for he does not see himself as a hero.

HI-F___ING-YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall

reply

He acted out of self-interest.
Everyone on board survived because of his flying skills. Is this being selfish?

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

Imagine he were flying solo.
Imagine he had the same exact problem.
Would his actions have been any different?
No, they wouldn't have. He would have done what he had to to save himself, just as he did in reality. That he saved others was coincidence.

reply

You can imagine all you want. What happened, happened.

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

I know. He did what he had to to save himself. Saving others was coincidental.

Was Jayne really the Hero of Canton? He dropped that box of money so he could get away and it just happened to benefit the mudders, but he wasn't concerned with helping them.

reply

It sounds like you're condemning Sully for surviving. To qualify as your idea of "hero," did he need to die in the process of saving the others?

I have no idea what your second statement is about.

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

He's not condemning him, no one is, he's saying he's not a hero in the true sense of the word. Heroism by definition requires sacrifice. People are so giddy in throwing the word around left and right it's lost all meaning. He did good, for sure. When he found himself in a terrible position he came through. He deserves our applause and our condemnation and he has it.


reply

he·ro
ˈhirō/
noun
noun: hero; plural noun: heroes; noun: hero sandwich; plural noun: hero sandwiches

1.
a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities
"a war hero"

2.
North American
another term for submarine sandwich.

No it doesn't.

reply

I'm not condemning him nor praising him.
He did what he had to in order to survive, and it happened to save others.
He didn't do anything to help others that didn't help him just as much.

The second statement is another example. Jayne tossed the money to save himself, but it happened to benefit others who then hailed him as a hero.

reply

You said "condemning Sully for surviving". No, I think the person just does not understand why he is being called a hero. I have not seen the movie but I think the answer to the question of why he is a hero is the most important thing I want to see and sounds like the movie failed to do that.

I wish someone could answer the question why he is a hero with a better answer than I am seeing in this discussion instead of simply criticizing anyone that disagrees.

reply

Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of hero

1
a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability
b : an illustrious warrior
c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities
d : one who shows great courage
2
a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work
b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement

Doesn't the real Sullenberger fit 1C, D and/or 2B?

"I’ve had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn’t it." - Groucho Marx

reply

Are you a pilot? I ask because it seems you don't quite understand the responsibilities taken by one. I have lived my entire life around pilots, both private and military. While I am not one myself (more's the pity), I do know how pilots think and act.

Sully's primary responsibility was to get the passengers safely on the ground in whatever way was necessary. If that meant the pilot and perhaps other crew members died doing so, then that's what he would have done. A commercial pilot (actually, any pilot) takes the responsibility for the lives of his/her passengers, just as a ship's captain does, and just as a firefighter or a police officer takes responsibility for saving lives. You put others first and, if you happen to survive as well, so much the better.

I believe that he would have done what he did to save the passengers even if it had meant him dying to do it. That is the job and, frankly, it is no less dangerous than any other protective profession. Does that make him a hero? It's hard to say because it depends on whether you believe that "doing the job" makes anyone, regardless of profession, a hero.

reply

I believe that he would have done what he did to save the passengers even if it had meant him dying to do it.


But since this didn't happen, it is immaterial. He didn't even (willingly) risk his own life, much less actually gave it up for real.

For the record, I think he is a decent good man. Just not a hero in this specific context.

reply

You have to die to be a hero. Other lives were in danger and his correct decision makes him a hero to everyone that survived.

reply

Perhaps they consider him a hero. Nonetheless, I disagree that this is so. On the simple basis that he did not willingly risk his life.

reply

Wow...the arguing here just overwhelms me. The guy himself stated he was no hero and did his job but folks on here bash him. What have you done? Shame on the haters.

reply

Me, too. I don't know why people like this still manage to amaze me with their ignorance and boorish behavior. SMH. And I can't believe I just read through that sludge (AND commented on it!). People really need a life. Clearly, me, included.

reply

When did he bash him? He just said that he wasn't a hero, and according to you Sully agrees with him, so it's seems the OP and Sully have no problems with each other doesn't it?


reply

Saying he isn't a hero isn't "bashing him" or being a "hater". Thin skinned people like you can't even listen to the point being made. Grow up. The issue is with those calling him a hero, not Sully himself.

reply

Why do you have an issue if people calls him a hero? I don't get the negativity.

You can waste your life drawing lines or live your life crossing them.

reply

You don't understand Hoffhammer. What Hoffhammer said is nearly neutral about whether he is a hero. Hoffhammer is primarily commenting on how frustrating all these discussions of the subject are.

reply

You sound like a philosophy major - overly argumentative to make a point no one cares about.

In a sense you are correct. Lifeguards, firefighters, police, and military personnel are all "doing their jobs" when they win medals for valor, etc. A parent is just "doing their job" when they work 2 shifts to support their kids.

Yet, When someone is in these positions and performs well under pressure, we tend to call them "heroic."



The "heros" i think are miscast are those who are heavily compensated and get a huge personal benefit from their efforts. The orthopedic spine surgeon who earns 850k a year and charges you/your insurance 120k for an operation is hardly a "hero" - he/she went to medical school to get that high paying career as much if not more than to help others. (after all, may go into life-long debt because of these surgeries)

Also, the olympic athlete is not really a "hero" when it is all about themselves and glory.

reply

coolslowhand, you said "You sound like a philosophy major - overly argumentative to make a point no one cares about." and then you are overly argumentative to make a point no one cares about.

reply

So what heroic deeds have you done?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOQbX5YpcdE&feature=youtu.be

reply

Why are you people so brain dead? If you order a pizza and someone brings you a cheeseburger, do you politely sit there pretending it's pizza thinking "what right do I have to argue about this, I never made a pizza"?

If I tell you Adele is a wonderful opera singer, will you tell me she isn't? Even though you don't sing opera yourself.



I'm no hero. And neither is Sully. That doesn't make either of us bad people, it doesn't even mean we aren't capable of heroism, it just means that this story has nothing to do with either.


reply

Because you're a slob on a couch trying to cut down a guy who saved 150 lives to make yourself feel tall. If comparing Sullenberger to a pizza delivery boy and saying you're both "capable" of heroism helps you sleep at night, good for you, but I find it pathetic.

reply

lol, what? I'm neither a slob nor on a couch and I never tried to "cut down" this man (If I did, quote me).

If comparing Sullenberger to a pizza delivery boy and saying you're both "capable" of heroism helps you sleep at night, good for you, but I find it pathetic.
What're you actually talking about? I didn't "compare Sullenberger to a pizza delivery boy" it's an analogy. You know what that is right? The profession of the hypothetical person being used in the example is irrelevant, it could be pizza it could be nuclear fusion, why the hell would it matter? And why would I have trouble sleeping at night? Seriously, what are you not getting about this? Define heroism and then explain how Sully fits the description. Good luck.


reply

Define heroism and then explain how Sully fits the description. Good luck.


Heroism: Saving 150 people
Sully: Saved 150 people

And you're cutting him down by downplaying the fact that, for the 8th time, he saved 150 people. The OP by spinning it into a selfish act, and I don't even know what your reasoning is. In your pizza analogies and dictionary tradings, you've completely avoided why you feel he isn't actually a hero.

reply

No, I haven't. He isn't a hero because he didn't sacrifice anything. That isn't a slight, he simply wasn't in a position to do anything heroic. And a selfish act isn't by definition a negative act, it simply means that it isn't selfless. If I was flying the plane I'd want to land it safely, whether there were 150 passengers or none, because I don't want to die, just like you and Sully. That's not a cut down, that's a healthy sense of normal self preservation. He didn't put himself in the position of saving anyone, he just found himself in that position by chance. What he did was sensible, commendable, laudable, but objectively speaking, it wasn't heroism.


reply

but objectively speaking, it wasn't heroism.


That's not objectivity, you're going by your own personal definition of heroism.

I'd say it takes quite a bit of bravery to be willing to perform a water landing, when a less experienced pilot would have most likely attempted to return to land.

So basically this is splitting hairs to such a point as to make the term "hero" meaningless. Going by your definition of being a hero, if Sully were a ship captain and saved 200+ lives, then he would be. But because he's a pilot, he isn't. Strange logic.

I'd say a hero is anyone who saves someone's life (whether figuratively or literally), as no one is obligated to do so.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

I'm sorry, I don't understand why my logic dictates that a ship captain who saves 200+ lives is a hero. I don't understand what the number of lives saved has to do with it at all. A hero puts himself in harms way to protect others.

I'd say a hero is anyone who saves someone's life (whether figuratively or literally), as no one is obligated to do so.
But the argument is that Sully had to perform the exact same actions to save himself. That's what makes it different. If the plane was empty he still would have landed on the river.


reply

A hero puts himself in harms way to protect others.


A ship captain has the ability to abandon ship, so is essentially putting himself in harms way to help passengers in case somethig goes wrong. Same as a policeman or firefighter. So just because Sully didn't have an avenue of escape from his position suddenly makes him less of a hero than others who perform the exact same feats.

But the argument is that Sully had to perform the exact same actions to save himself. That's what makes it different. If the plane was empty he still would have landed on the river.


There's no guarantee that he wouldn't have just attempted to bring the plane down on land if he was flying solo. His risky attempt to land a jumbo jet in water (never before done) with hundreds of lives being at stake, demonstrated a remarkable ability to remain cool while under fire, which is a heroic action in and of itself.




~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Dude, your half baked hypotheticals are no good to me. Why is the captain abandoning the ship? Are the passengers not also abandoning the ship? And how is a situation aboard a ship ever "the exact same thing" as an incident aboard an aircraft? You haven't addressed the reasons why I don't think he's a hero.

reply

Are you kidding? Your entire argument as to why he's not a hero is a half baked hypothetical. Talk about hypocrisy. Standard evasion tactics.

You haven't addressed the reasons why I don't think he's a hero.


I literally just addressed it in my comment. If you have nothing to say, then why speak at all?


~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

OK. You're an idiot and not able to follow a linear conversation. Let's be done yeah?


reply

And now you've just lowered yourself down to throwing personal insults.

Like playing chess with a pigeon.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

OK. Have a good night.

reply

So just because Sully didn't have an avenue of escape from his position suddenly makes him less of a hero than others who perform the exact same feats.


Exactly. Precisely this.

reply

Unfortunately, this is a complete hypothetical that makes assumptions about Sully's character that no one has the capacity to truly know.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

That is incorrect. No assumptions were made. My post is entirely accurate. I made no comment about his character nor his intentions. I am sure he is a decent good man.

I only noted that his actions were not heroic, since he did not willingly put his life on the line. Whether he would be willing to is a separate topic.

reply

You're assuming that he's not the kind of person to put his life on the line. The fact that he walked the length of the cabins twice to make sure everyone was safely off the plane demonstrates that he is indeed the type of person to guarantee the safety of others first. The absurdly limited definition of heroism that you are required to willingly put your life on the line is unwarranted. Going by that description, soldiers, doctors, or people who have saved the lives of others without risking their own cannot be considered heroes, Nevermind the fact that heroism has multiple definitions. Sully's actions were the equivalent of remaining cool while under fire, and saved 200+ lives in the process.

Sully was not merely "doing his job," he went above and beyond his job by turning a death trap into a miraculous life saving event. He could only have done this with years of rigorous training and expertise, and facing incredible odds and certain death with that much bravery and concentration is something that could only be classified as having major cojones; or should we say, the ability to ride to the occasion and become a hero in the time of need.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Once again, no assumptions were made. Please kindly be respectful and not engage in strawmen. It is quite frankly despicable (if you know what you are doing) or demonstrating you are stupid (if you are doing it accidentally).

I do not know whether Sully is capable of being a hero. I am merely pointing out that under the strict interpretation, Sully is not a hero because he did not willingly risk his own life.

Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong. But your refusal to accept this truth is indicative of your own poor moral character.



May I know if there is something wrong with you? An apple is not objectively better than a orange. The fact that you apparently believe in this so strongly is indicative of something.

reply

*sigh

There is no strict interpretation of the term heroism you sophomoric drip.
It is entirely subjective. There are many definitions of heroism, ranging from showing immense courage or bravery in the face of odds, or committing great sacrifice in service of others. Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here. Get a grip.

Now go pull out your pie chart of logical fallacies again to help you win this argument.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Augustus_Octavian, from the very post before] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong
That is exactly what I am saying, you idiot. It is entirely subjective as to whether you prefer the strict or loose interpretation. Under the strict definition, Sully isn't while he is under the loose definition.



Now go pull out your pie chart of logical fallacies again to help you win this argument.
Nobody can win such a argument, precisely because it is not factual in nature. How can anyone win a personal opinion? I am calling you out precisely because you have been so insistent the strict definition is unacceptable. You are indeed a person of poor moral character, called out for poor conduct and chose to be defensive instead of learning.

reply

Again, there is no strict interpretation of the term. All opinions on the subject are equally subjective. The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel.

You are indeed a person of poor moral character, called out for poor conduct and chose to be defensive instead of learning.


Sorry, but this is the biggest load of BS I've ever read in my life. I could launch into a litany defending my moral character, but it really has nothing to do with an argument about semantics. This is you simply trying to have a go and make a big deal out of something small. Secondly, you have no room to talk after resorting to personal insults, and you clearly have no idea how to communicate with people in a normal fashion without turning every message into an agonizing, mudslinging match. So please, put your finger of moral judgement back into its holster, you have no grounds to use it.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel
A sad inability to read...


[Degree7, from previous post] you sophomoric drip.

[Degree7] Secondly, you have no room to talk after resorting to personal insults
Right, right.

reply

Huh, took a while. But I guess you finally realized how wrong you were. Bit of a moral coward though to simply flee. Could have manned up and admit you were wrong.

reply

You're only saying that because you're intimidated by my fierce intelligence.



~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

More like astonished at your stupidity.

reply

Genius is often mistaken for something else by the common plebeians. Are you sure you want to go down this route, you've seen how I already ate that last guy alive.

What's sad is you can't even tell the difference between analogies and strawmen..

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Of course. I have a very strong position, so I am confident. :) I will continue to call you out for being an idiot.

What's sad is you can't even tell the difference between analogies and strawmen..
Backpedalling much? You said it, you own it. Unless you want to back down and admit you are in the wrong?










[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel

reply

Back for more? A glutton for punishment I see.

Its funny how you can't tell that the highlighted text you chose is what actually proves me right. Hilarious.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Lol. We are back here because I was the one who called you out yet again. Remember? You ran like a little bit*h. I enjoy rubbing it in when I win.

Nah, it proves what an idiot you are. So stupid you don't even know it.

reply

Lol, well actually I realized that your argument had pretty much collapsed in on itself, and I sort of lost interest. I didn't want to completely humiliate you in public. See? I did you a favour.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Nah. You just got called out and like a little bit*h, ran away. 😂

This whole "I am such a winner that I had to run away" argument is pretty lol. Do you honestly think any forum viewer will believe that? Haha.

reply

Ah contrare, what happened was I realized how your argument had completely fallen apart and so I chose to ignore you. If I had ran away I probably wouldn't still be here. But believe what you want.

There's only one right move here, and you're oblivious to it.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Lol. You are back here because I chose to rub it in your face, and you felt sad. 😂 Let's not bullsh*t about the truth.

Sure, the right move is to continue to rub it in your face.

[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel

reply

And what exactly are you rubbing in my face?

I'm more sad with how pathetic this is becoming. I will give you credit though, at least you're not replying with thousand word essays.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

There's only one right move here, and you're oblivious to it.


Apparently, you both are oblivious to it. Namely, take it offline using personal messages. Nobody here cares to see your petty complaints.

reply

It's sad you'd resort to sock puppet accounts.

Anyway, you're the one replying to me you big whinger. Weeks later might I add. *sigh

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Simple. You being wrong.

[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel

reply

I'm still not seeing it. Anyway, I'll propose an ultimatum. You find me proof of this "strict definition" of the term, and I'll eat my words. If you can't, then you lose. Go.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Nope, not interested. Got you by the balls with the below quotes. Why would I take your deal and let you deflect the topic? You justify your quotes below.

[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel

reply

LOL, I knew it, too chicken to accept the offer.

The bottom quote doesn't prove anything, you're hopelessly deluded. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you. Enjoy the rest of your evening grinding your teeth, halfwit.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Lol. Chickensh*t trying to deflect and being pissed I don't fall for it. You "shouldn't" have to explain because you can't explain it. Haha.

[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel

reply

Ya, I'm still waiting for you to actually explain your position instead of highlighting stuff like it's some grand, scientific deduction. The burden of proof's on you buddy.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Why are you even dealing with this piece of sh!t troll?

This same jackwagon came after me out of the blue on another board and like Negan... "I shut that sh!t right down".

And threw him on ignore.

This asswipe does nothing but go around targeting people to piss off out of the blue.


I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

You're a good man Sailor. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I guess this was a dead end.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Lol, in seeing your reply, I notice that "it" said something too, though I have no idea what. I guess it thinks I dont have it ignored.
Whatever it was, It's likely just more fake antagonistic bullsh!t. Typical of the troll.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

Lol. You mean you were too much of a pussy to fight back, like the coward you are who play-pretend at being some Admiral. Lol.

Guess I really exposed you huh. Stalking me now. Don't even have the balls to reply to me, and had to hide behind a stealth post.

reply

Simple. You claimed that I claim that I am objectively correct when I made no such claim. You being a cowardly liar.

[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel

reply

You made the claim of objectivity when you brought up the "strict interpretation" (of which there is no such thing). You then proceeded to sing a different tune once you realized the flaw in your thesis. End of story. Now welcome to ignoreland.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

Lol. Don't have the balls to confront like a real man, and instead want to hide behind a woman's skirt. Jesus, if this is the "hero" we have in the Navy, sure is worrying.

reply

I explicitly indicated, as per the below quotes, that there are varying interpretations, all of which are feasible.

Tough, isn't it? To sing your line of bullsh*t when I so annoyingly post the proof/quotes right here. Sure, sure. Run away like the little boy you are. 😊



[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel

reply

Again, implying that Sully doesn't fit the "strict" interpretation of the term heroism implies that Sully is less of a hero. There may be varying interpretations, but it should be made clear that they fall under people's personal, not factual, definitions. It is simply a fact that Sully falls under almost every definition of the word hero. Whether you're happy with this fact is obviously a personal problem.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

There may be varying interpretations, but it should be made clear that they fall under people's personal, not factual, definitions
Which is what I said, no? That there are different interpretations, which are favoured by different people. Why then did you claim that I claimed to be factually right?

It should be very clear by now that I am willing to go a few thousand posts, if necessary. I will continue to press you relentlessly on the below quotes.

And what happened to running away like a little bit*h? Thought you couldn't stand up to a real man?



[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel

reply

I am merely pointing out that under the strict interpretation, Sully is not a hero because he did not willingly risk his own life


Again, an assertion that there are strict and loose interpretations of the term, which you can't even prove. There is no strict definition of the term. It's all subjective, but you favouring this imaginary "strict" interpretation means your opinion holds more weight, so your claim that you think no one is factually correct is completely bogus. By even saying that there is a meaning to the word that is more strict (i.e. Correct) means preferring that definition would, therefore, make you more correct. I guess somewhere along the line, you wanted to argue a completely irrelevant point just for the sake of it, without realizing that you've been contradicting yourself this entire time. It's actually kind of f̶u̶n̶n̶y̶ ironic.

Anyway, if you want to continue this any further, you can PM me. At this point, we're just arguing this into nothing, and this is turning into something petty that no one else is really interested in. However, if you're going to PM me, you will be respectful and courteous; no facile, ad hominem attacks or name-calling please. Because no one likes debating with a jerk.



~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

[deleted]

reported as troll

reply

Thanks.

~ I'm a 21st century man and I don't wanna be here.

reply

You want to leave, you leave. I am not obliged to let you have the last word.

Otherwise, defend your position. You made the claim, now own it.



[Augustus_Octavian] Whether you favour the strict or loose interpretation is a matter of personal values and opinions, and cannot be factually right or wrong

[Degree7] It is entirely subjective [emphasis mine] ... Just because your personal definition of the word doesn't include Sullenberger doesn't make it more of a fact than anyone else's opinion in here

[Degree7] The problem arises when certain people, such as yourself and the OP, treat their opinions as infallible gospel

reply

'Hero' can mean a few things. Here's one definition that Sully seems to fit:

a person who, in the opinion of others, has special achievements, abilities, or personal qualities and is regarded as a role model or ideal:

reply

With this rationale there were likewise no at Pearl Harbor afterall everyone there was in the same danger from the Japanese attack as everyone else.

reply

Manning the anti-aircraft guns put you in additional danger since those would have been priority targets.

Hiding in your bunker does not.

reply