ellauri045.html on line 761: Kokoomuksen Suomen Toivo -ajatuspajan julkaisema Paul Lillrankin pamfletti ”Bourgeois virtues” perustuu amerikkalaisen tutkijan ja professorin Deirdre McCloskeyn tutkimukseen porvarillisesta hyveestä ja sen roolista modernin maailman muokkaajana. Teksti käsittelee myös samaisen tutkijan teoriaa neljästä poliittisesta mentaliteetista.
ellauri159.html on line 567: I’m aware that “knightly virtues” sounds a lot like a fedora wearing “nice guy”. If you go back in history, I don’t think you can deny that knights were pretty badass and nothing like the modern day “nice guy”. The difference is that a real knight was strong and powerful. A “nice guy” tries being nice because he is powerless. There is a big difference. Suggested post: A gentleman is not a “nice guy”
ellauri159.html on line 772: To the description of the ideal perimeter-keeper outlined above, Donovan assigns four “tactical virtues”: strength, courage, mastery, and honor. These are “simple, amoral, and functional virtues” — “the practical virtues of men who must rely on one another in a worst case scenario.” They are “amoral” because they are crucial to the success of any gang — no matter if what they’re fighting for is right or wrong. Strength, courage, mastery, and honor are the attributes needed in a team of Navy SEALs just as much as a family of Mafioso. If you’ve ever wondered why we are fascinated by gangsters, pirates, bank robbers, and outlaws of all stripes, and can’t help but think of them as pretty manly despite their thuggery and extralegal activities, now you know; they’re not good men, but they’ve mastered the core fundamentals of being good at being men. So they are good men, though they are bad men. I mean.
3