Honor

[ydoaPs]

Why do people no longer fight with honor? They usually have a conversation like "well, my ____ is bigger and stronger than your ___." They bring anyone that they think can help them. They even use weapons. Is it just me, or should a fight be between the two people the conflict was between?

[5614]

well firstly, thats what children do!

 

also, with 'normal' people, they will fight their own 'conflicts' to use your own word, however, when it comes to politics, there are armies to do the fighting for you

[RICHARDBATTY]

I know exactly what you mean. My neighbours are a perfect example of this moronic behavior. I got a job four years ago as an engineer. It came with a car which made it look good but the money isn't. They became very unpleasant over time as I got pay rises and new cars etc and my wife who used to be friends with the women next door told her about it while walking to and from school. They got very jealous but would have looked a bit daft saying so. They instead decided that our dryer was very loud and was preventing them sleeping even when it wasn't on. They then had family and friends turning up causing bother started a slander campain with other people on the street tried frightening the kids everything they could think of.

[Gilded]

"Why do people no longer fight with honor?"

 

Ahh, reminds me of the good old samurai. They had some other nice habits too, like preferring sex with other samurai over sex with women...

[Phi for All]

They had some other nice habits too, like preferring sex with other samurai over sex with women...

Those weren't the samurai, those were the "thamurai", thweety! j/k

 

Honor does seem to have gone out the door in favor of competition these days. It is more important to win any way you can rather than to win fairly. I think it's linked with low self-esteem, since honor is something you carry on the inside, and winning at all costs is an external sort of gratification. It's crazy, but it's rampant in politics, sports, business, you name it.

[Gilded]

Some honor in warfare is still present though, or that's what I'd call internationally trying to prevent the use of nuclear and biological weapons.

[tu.dents]

people seem to be used to having others do things for them. whats behind the question? Whats happened ........ who be fighten round her Ill kik ther a.,; fer ya' LOL get it? Seriously why are you asking.

[YT2095]

Why do people no longer fight with honor? should a fight be between the two people the conflict was between?

even that, nowadays is without honor.

when I was taught to fight as a young boy, there were rules!

no kicking (esp in the nuts).

never attack when your opponent is on the floor.

biting or scratching were for Girls only.

and weapons NEVER came into it.

 

sadly I didn`t win many fights, but I kept my Honor! and that felt good even if the rest of me didn`t

[Sayonara]

Honour disappeared the day parents began teaching children to worship the self.

[YT2095]

True!

 

many of todays parents and most of todays kids know more about their `Rights` than their `Responsibilities`!

[Glider]

Fighting has nothing to do with honour, simply by virtue of the fact that it proves nothing. Fighting cannot win arguments, nor can it make a point. The only result is that the loser is no longer in a position to present their case, but winning does not make the winner right.

 

Armies and politics aside, the only rationale for fighting is in defence (of one's self). Where there is a clear threat to one's physical safety and running is not an option (e.g. you are trapped or surrounded), then fighting is the last recourse.

 

Under these circumstances, you are not fighting to win points or to prove a case. There is no such thing as a 'technical knockout' or 'winning by points' and Queensberry rules do not apply. The objective is simply to preserve yourself. To achieve that objective, any and all means are acceptable. Whatever method works, whatever is at hand, whatever it takes, use it. You don't get points for coming second. The probability is that you won't have the option of being magnanimous in defeat and congratulating the victor on a fight well fought. There is a high probability that you will be badly injured though. The bar-fights you see in the old westerns just don't happen. They probably never did. It's not a game.

 

If you are attacked, you have a choice, run (preferred) or fight. If you choose to fight, have no further choices, you are committed. You have to put your opponent down; render them into a state where they are no longer a threat so you can get away, and you are committed to using any and all measures required to do that.

 

The best option of all is to avoid the situation in the first place.

 

Edit: I agree with the last posts by Sayonara and YT.

[Bernstein]

True!

 

many of todays parents and most of todays kids know more about their `Rights` than their `Responsibilities`!

 

People are more selfish today as a result of political hegemony extolling the virtues of the prevailing neo-fascist, neo conservative ideologies. The virtues of which are namely Greed, Reactionary BS, and War.

 

Bring back communism! Quick we need a balance to this increasing rightwingism!

[YT2095]

Fighting has nothing to do with honour' date=' simply by virtue of the fact that it proves nothing. Fighting cannot win arguments, nor can it make a point. The only result is that the loser is no longer in a position to present their case, but winning does not make the winner right.

 

Armies and politics aside, the only rationale for fighting is in defence (of one's self). Where there is a clear threat to one's physical safety and running is not an option (e.g. you are trapped or surrounded), then fighting is the last recourse.

 

Under these circumstances, you are not fighting to win points or to prove a case. There is no such thing as a 'technical knockout' or 'winning by points' and Queensberry rules do not apply. The objective is simply to preserve yourself. To achieve that objective, [i']any and all[/i] means are acceptable. Whatever method works, whatever is at hand, whatever it takes, use it. You don't get points for coming second. The probability is that you won't have the option of being magnanimous in defeat and congratulating the victor on a fight well fought. There is a high probability that you will be badly injured though. The bar-fights you see in the old westerns just don't happen. They probably never did. It's not a game.

 

If you are attacked, you have a choice, run (preferred) or fight. If you choose to fight, have no further choices, you are committed. You have to put your opponent down; render them into a state where they are no longer a threat so you can get away, and you are committed to using any and all measures required to do that.

 

The best option of all is to avoid the situation in the first place.

 

Edit: I agree with the last posts by Sayonara and YT.

that`s all well and good, but as a young lad at school being picked on rotten because of having a strange accent, or being called a "limey" or just because you`re a bit "Nerdish", fights come your way thick and fast and on a regular inescapable basis!

yes I used to run where possible, but that would only delay the inevitable!

and so after being bullied so badly, I asked to be taught how to fight.

there`s no Dis-Honor in that!

[Glider]

that`s all well and good' date=' but as a young lad at school being picked on rotten because of having a strange accent, or being called a "limey" or just because you`re a bit "Nerdish", fights come your way thick and fast and on a regular inescapable basis!

yes I used to run where possible, but that would only delay the inevitable!

and so after being bullied so badly, I asked to be taught how to fight.

there`s no Dis-Honor in that![/quote']

 

It's a bummer being bullied at school, I agree (I was, once), but nothing here warrents a 'but' concerning my previous post. Being taught how to fight is a good thing, at least for its benefit to your confidence, but in practical application, it simply helps you achieve the objective I stated in my post more efficiently. Fighting and honour are still not related.

[YT2095]

perhaps honor and self respect are interchangeable in this instance? or maybe both apply?

 

you see I was taught this way, and made a promise never to fight like "they" did and to fight Properly. and so, I kept my word, even though it still cost me alot of pain because I knew I was doing the "right" thing regardless of how tempting it was to take advantage on the VERY odd occasion where I could.

 

and so I kept my honor AND my self respect

that`s where I`m coming from.

[ydoaPs]

in different situations, honor can be interchangeable with integrity or self-respect.

[LucidDreamer]

Honor is a concept derived from the warrior-code of warlike societies. Soldiers who have a great sense of honor are more effective. They are likely to fight harder and less likely to run when things get tough. Honor is a kind of moral code for those that make a career out of war. Young men who observe these men of honor respect them and desire to be more like them, which makes recruiting much easier. Not only is honor useful for the leaders that wage war it is also useful for the soldiers who feel that their lives or the sacrifice of their lives has value and meaning. The concept of honor is replaced by ethics, morals, or self-respect, as others have pointed out, in a more peaceful environment.

[YT2095]

I disagree there with some of it.

 

Honor is being TRUE to yourself, maintaining your core philosophies and beliefs when all else around you does it`s best to make you do otherwise.

 

making a promise and sticking to it is honorable (keeping to your word).

 

I maintain that if a REAL MAN! is stripped of everything has nothing else and stands stark naked on the top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere, the only thing that cannot be taken away is his honor and his word!

 

there are some things that NO ONE can take from you

[tu.dents]

I dont think that there is any shame in seeking to learn how to protect your self, and maybe useing that. YT has a point in that keeping your core philosophies and values in mind especialy in the face of threat.

It took a long time for me to keep my real values in mind in the face of bullies, racist, and various other induviduals.

All I could see was a bully or a racist rather than the troubled mind that is trying to exspress its self.

A few years ago I lived in a a town that has a strong KKK org. I am a native america that had gone through nothing but foster care my whole life, I had a lot of hate and a lot of fights.

My girl friend, now wife, was driving through a parking lot and parked. A "skin head" of substantial size came running at her saying we drove to close to him. After a few slurrs he approached me. Choose A: take her hand walk in to the store. B:Beat him down for the hell of it. I chose B Thought it was great until I looked up and saw his wife and kids Yelling at "dad" to get in the van.

 

Being true to my self alows me to be true to others nearly effortlessly. I am by no means a immoveable rock. The pebble needs only to be as stable as the rock it rest on.

[boris_73]

people do still fight with honour sadly to say it i had a fight with one of my friends and i knocked him on the ground no wepons, nobody else involved ect, and i saw he had a bloody nose, so i helped him up, and i took him some where to clean it up, and we are still friends, infact straight after he got cleand up we were friends, that's fighting with honour, now this will not apply to all fight's eg not fighting between friends, being mugged ect, in that case like gilder said anything applys to stop them being a threat, i would disagree at using a wepon because that is cowardly unless they have a wepon, but considering most fights are between friends or someone you know, fighting without honour is not necessary, and i dislike people who do fight without honour, i hate the people who fight without honour, and look for fights i can not stand people who do that

[tu.dents]

You obviously respect your friend and care for his feeling. People dont see any reason to care for others and see no reason to help their adversary learn something positive from such an experience.

Even the great Miyamoto Musashi in his early 20's realized that opposition didn't have to end in harm. Something of greater value can be learned.

[Glider]

perhaps honor and self respect are interchangeable in this instance? or maybe both apply?

 

you see I was taught this way' date=' and made a promise never to fight like "they" did and to fight Properly. and so, I kept my word, even though it still cost me alot of pain because I knew I was doing the "right" thing regardless of how tempting it was to take advantage on the VERY odd occasion where I could.

 

and so I kept my honor AND my self respect

that`s where I`m coming from.[/quote']

 

I was taught (by the Army) that in close combat, you do whatever it takes using whatever is at hand. Where 'honour' comes into it is when to stop. If your opponent goes down or ceases to be a threat, or surrenders, you stop. Until that point you have to apply greater force and do more damage to him than he is trying to do to you, or you will lose. It's that simple.

 

Honor is a concept derived from the warrior-code of warlike societies. Soldiers who have a great sense of honor are more effective. They are likely to fight harder and less likely to run when things get tough. Honor is a kind of moral code for those that make a career out of war. Young men who observe these men of honor respect them and desire to be more like them, which makes recruiting much easier. Not only is honor useful for the leaders that wage war it is also useful for the soldiers who feel that their lives or the sacrifice of their lives has value and meaning. The concept of honor is replaced by ethics, morals, or self-respect, as others have pointed out, in a more peaceful environment.

I agree with you. 'Honour' (or more realistically ethical practice), enters into it when you talk about armies or structured bodies of men fighting under rules of engagement. Adherence to those rules of engagement and the ethical guidelines/laws laid down (e.g. the Geneva convention) equals military honour. Things like not firing on a white flag, accepting the warrents of surrendered soldiers, ensuring POWs are given medical treatment and are treated with respect, not engaging or involving civillians and so-on. All these things are components of fighting with honour.

 

My point is that when it comes to close quarters, and you are engaged, there is no honour (until or unless your opponent surrenders). Until that point, by definition, the force you apply must exceed the force being applied against you, or you will lose. Whatever gives you an advantage is acceptable. Once he is no longer a threat, or surrenders then you can afford to be honourable (e.g. not kicking him when he's down), but until he goes down (or surrenders), anything goes. As I said in my first post, there are no points for second place.

[LucidDreamer]

My point is that when it comes to close quarters' date=' and you are engaged, there is no honour (until or unless your opponent surrenders). Until that point, by definition, the force you apply [i']must[/i] exceed the force being applied against you, or you will lose. Whatever gives you an advantage is acceptable. Once he is no longer a threat, or surrenders then you can afford to be honourable (e.g. not kicking him when he's down), but until he goes down (or surrenders), anything goes. As I said in my first post, there are no points for second place.

I agree with you as well. In a combat situation, when you are facing a foe, it’s the survival of the fittest--anything goes. Honor comes in when you are making a decision on whether to run or risk your life for your fellow solider, what to do with prisoners, or whether to rape and pillage a small village--that kind of thing.

 

I think alot of people on this thread are talking about more of a one on one fight with one of your friends or some random guy in a bar/pub. If you and one of your friends get drunk and fight over a girl then anything doesn't go. You don't gouge out your friend's eye because tempers ran a little high. But you are not talking about that kind of situation.

[YT2095]

alot of that is basic common sense too, and nothing to do with honor

 

you don`t gouge ANYONES eye out unless it`s life/death

(they can`t hit you if they can`t see)

[Glider]

I think alot of people on this thread are talking about more of a one on one fight with one of your friends or some random guy in a bar/pub. If you and one of your friends get drunk and fight over a girl then anything doesn't go. You don't gouge out your friend's eye because tempers ran a little high. But you are not talking about that kind of situation.

I've never actually fought a friend (nor felt the urge to) The worst it ever gets is raised voices and I can't remember the last time that happened.

 

As for random guy in a bar, the same rules apply; whatever it takes to preserve your physical integrity. Having seen some 'Friday night, binge-drinking fueled town centre' type brawls, I think my opponent would still fare better losing to me than I would losing to him. As soon as he ceased to present a threat, I'm away on me toes. Most people these days seem to like to hang around offering to fight everyone else whilst stomping on the other guys' head (often joined by two or three of their friends).

 

I suppose that kind of drunken macho BS is what people here mean by 'dishonourable'. Well, my way is no more honourable. I just don't think there is any honour in fighting. It's something you only ever do if you really have to and absolutely can't find any other way out. If you do have to do it, do it properly. You can't afford to lose to random guy in a bar. You don't know whether or not he'll stop if you go down.