My reaction to this isn't "what a great man, he helped save his comrades"—it's more "what a stubborn dipshit, I pity him for going through all that for nothing."
Obviously, avoiding torture to save your own hide when it will lead to the deaths of your friends is another issue.
What a wretched system of values you have.
Keeping faith with your comrades isn't "nothing" and I shudder to think what kind of person you must really be to claim as such.
Yeah, if we're focusing on "honor" as in "dying for your principles*", I would posit that it's a natural human tendency (i.e. stubbornness), and using the word "honor" to describe it just makes it seem nicer, since it invokes honor's other aspects of truth, justice, etc.
* Note: I'm talking about dying for your principles when nothing else is at stake. If you know that your death can save other lives, such as in a torture/interrogation situation, then I would of course not call it stubbornness.
Taximes on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
My reaction to this isn't "what a great man, he helped save his comrades"—it's more "what a stubborn dipshit, I pity him for going through all that for nothing."
Obviously, avoiding torture to save your own hide when it will lead to the deaths of your friends is another issue.
What a wretched system of values you have.
Keeping faith with your comrades isn't "nothing" and I shudder to think what kind of person you must really be to claim as such.
My reaction to this isn't "what a great man, he helped save his comrades"—it's more "what a stubborn dipshit, I pity him for going through all that for nothing."
Obviously, avoiding torture to save your own hide when it will lead to the deaths of your friends is another issue.
What a wretched system of values you have.
Keeping faith with your comrades isn't "nothing" and I shudder to think what kind of person you must really be to claim as such.
I think this sums up my views on the subject as well as anything
I think these days the word "honor" is used for too many things to really have any definable meaning when used by anyone in particular. All the examples of saving people at risk to yourself etc. all of that falls into stuff I'd say is just "the right thing to do" if asked why I did it (if I did it).
I get where Qingu is coming from re: honor since the only reason it ever seems to come up as far as I know is when someone is getting fucked/killed by their family.
My reaction to this isn't "what a great man, he helped save his comrades"—it's more "what a stubborn dipshit, I pity him for going through all that for nothing."
Obviously, avoiding torture to save your own hide when it will lead to the deaths of your friends is another issue.
What a wretched system of values you have.
Keeping faith with your comrades isn't "nothing" and I shudder to think what kind of person you must really be to claim as such.
I think this sums up my views on the subject as well as anything
Why? If McCain went home instead of getting tortured, how would that be a disservice to his comrades? Granted, I wasn't there, but it seems like the only downside to McCain going home would be giving the Viet Cong a chance to use his going home as some sort of Communist propoganda.
In other words, his going home would not have caused physical harm to anyone, it only would have (possibly) harmed an idea. And I don't know about you but I somehow doubt that his comrades being tortured gave two shits about Communism.
I think the situation is analogous to the people being taken hostage by Islamic terrorists. They're often forced to read religious propoganda in front of a camera and in some cases convert (or at least sympathize) with Islam. If someone decided to get tortured instead of doing this, for love of his country or religion or for his hatred of Islamic fundamentalism, how is that virtuous? I would call it depressingly pigheaded.
I want to make clear that I'm not talking about cases where it's torture vs. endangering the lives of people you care about. That is an entirely different moral equation and I would certainly say someone who submitted to torture to save the lives of people he cared about was acting virtuously. But in this case, it's not endangering people, it's potentially endangering ideas.
By honor, I mean something different than trust, which I think is a very good thing. Instead, what I mean by honor is the kind of thing that John McCain brags about: not giving up for the good of the cause. John McCain is "honorable" because he willingly went through years of torture instead of betraying his cause to become a propoganda piece for the Viet Cong....
So why on earth do people value honor? It seems to me that the world would be a much better place if there were less stubborn fucks with an inflated importance of preserving their honor....
I hereby contend that cowardice is better than honor. If you're fighting an overwhelmingly superior force and you don't want to get painfully shot or killed, give up! If you're getting tortured, say whatever they want you to say on TV!
Because I think the War in Vietnam was evil, I am unimpressed by John McCain's claim to "honor." I do not care about the suffering he experienced. I care about the suffering he caused. Think of all the Vietnamese who were killed or crippled for life by the bombs he dropped. Yeah, sure. He was obeying orders. Haven't we heard that excuse before?
Nevertheless, I appreciate the sacrifices made by Allied soldiers in the Second World War. That was a war we needed to win.
And that raises an interesting question: What would a society built on heroism, where everyone was brave and honest, look like?
I was going to joke, "SPARTAAAAA!!!" but instead it made me sort of stop and think. No idea really. I dont think there has ever been a society that came close. Perhaps a peaceful Native American tribe or two? I dont know.
stavesacre on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
My reaction to this isn't "what a great man, he helped save his comrades"—it's more "what a stubborn dipshit, I pity him for going through all that for nothing."
Obviously, avoiding torture to save your own hide when it will lead to the deaths of your friends is another issue.
What a wretched system of values you have.
Keeping faith with your comrades isn't "nothing" and I shudder to think what kind of person you must really be to claim as such.
I think this sums up my views on the subject as well as anything
Why? If McCain went home instead of getting tortured, how would that be a disservice to his comrades? Granted, I wasn't there, but it seems like the only downside to McCain going home would be giving the Viet Cong a chance to use his going home as some sort of Communist propoganda.
You know what? I don't even think you should bother to reply. You should ignore this, because it's easier than arguing.
In other words, his going home would not have caused physical harm to anyone, it only would have (possibly) harmed an idea. And I don't know about you but I somehow doubt that his comrades being tortured gave two shits about Communism.
I think the situation is analogous to the people being taken hostage by Islamic terrorists. They're often forced to read religious propoganda in front of a camera and in some cases convert (or at least sympathize) with Islam. If someone decided to get tortured instead of doing this, for love of his country or religion or for his hatred of Islamic fundamentalism, how is that virtuous? I would call it depressingly pigheaded.
I want to make clear that I'm not talking about cases where it's torture vs. endangering the lives of people you care about. That is an entirely different moral equation and I would certainly say someone who submitted to torture to save the lives of people he cared about was acting virtuously. But in this case, it's not endangering people, it's potentially endangering ideas.
Qingu, are you under the impression that when an enemy interrogator says, "Say or do ____ and we'll let you go home," they actually mean it? They're sort of under no onus to actually keep that promise. because...you know...they lack honor.
And assuming they were on the level, and you were the leader of the men you left behind, what kind of life would you live? How on the fucking earth could you look their families in the eye? Are you actually acting arch and pedantic in this thread, where you're sniviling out a reedly little cry that it's ok to live like a bitch because it's more logical?
Qingu, are you under the impression that when an enemy interrogator says, "Say or do ____ and we'll let you go home," they actually mean it? They're sort of under no onus to actually keep that promise. because...you know...they lack honor.
Huh? McCain's release was going to be part of the propaganda campaign. At least, that's the impression I got from reading the Wikipedia article.
And assuming they were on the level, and you were the leader of the men you left behind, what kind of life would you live?
I imagine step 1 of the life I would lead would be going back to the military and trying to figure out where these people were being held. Other than that, how is this different from any other scenario where you survive but your buddies all die, based on the choices you make in war?
How on the fucking earth could you look their families in the eye? Are you actually acting arch and pedantic in this thread, where you're sniviling out a reedly little cry that it's ok to live like a bitch because it's more logical?
If I chose to escape torture (at the expense of ideology) while my buddies were left behind, I would feel terrible for them. But McCain was in solitary confinement; so his presence there wasn't establishing some sort of comraderie for his buddies. What would I say to their families? I was allowed to leave and they were not, I'm sorry?
I honestly don't understand your attitude. Why is it virtuous to endure torture for no reason—other than to appear "honorable" to fellow torture victims' families? I think that is, frankly, a dangerous attitude to take.
Qingu on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
Which was it? Was it not to be part of the propaganda campaign or was it for no reason?
Why do you not understand why a man couldn't claim to lead people he left behind in a POW camp? Why do you not understand that when someone tries to make you do something, you have a duty to yourself to resist? Why do you think this is about appearances? Qingu, if I led you into battle and we got taken prisoner, it would not be the appearance of honor before your family I worried about. It would be my actual conscience. Do you have no sense of right and wrong besides appearances? Because if it was just the appearance of honor, it wouldn't be worth pain, and you'd be right.
God, I hope you're glad there's a world full of people you don't understand out there.
Which was it? Was it not to be part of the propaganda campaign or was it for no reason?
It was for the propaganda campaign, so "no reason" was poor wording on my part. I've argued that this isn't a good reason, though.
Why do you not understand why a man couldn't claim to lead people he left behind in a POW camp?
Why is this relevant?
Why do you not understand that when someone tries to make you do something, you have a duty to yourself to resist?
I certainly don't understand this. At all.
I got mugged on the train once—the guy claimed to have a gun but only pointed at me with his finger, and more people were going to get on at the next stop, so I could have resisted. But I made a decision that the $17 in my wallet was worth less to me than even the possibility of getting my ass kicked. What "duty to myself" are you talking about?
Why do you think this is about appearances? Qingu, if I led you into battle and we got taken prisoner, it would not be the appearance of honor before your family I worried about. It would be my actual conscience.
If you lead me into battle, got taken prisoner, and were tortured along with me—but then, when offered the chance to GTFO, you stayed because of some perceived duty or honor to me, I would feel guilty as hell.
Do you have no sense of right and wrong besides appearances? Because if it was just the appearance of honor, it wouldn't be worth pain, and you'd be right.
I think I'm one of the more preachy and judgmental people on this forum, actually. My problem with the kind of concept of honor that I'm talking about (and that I think you're talking about) is that it isn't concerned with defending people from actual pain and suffering, it's concerned with defending intangible ideas. I am a pragmatist—I will never place intangible ideas in front of physical suffering.
I mean, unless someone threatens to torture or kill me if I don't.
Just about every society I can think of values "honor", and discouraged "cowardice". I think anyone making the statement that cowardice is better than honor is arguing for the sake of it.
Just about every society I can think of values "honor", and discouraged "cowardice". I think anyone making the statement that cowardice is better than honor is arguing for the sake of it.
Just about every society I can think of sucks ass. I would not want to live in most societies in the history of the world. Would you?
Just about every society I can think of values "honor", and discouraged "cowardice". I think anyone making the statement that cowardice is better than honor is arguing for the sake of it.
That's because societies as a group don't value individual safety or wellbeing.
I'd be wary of any political slogan that uses words like Honor.
Just about every society I can think of values "honor", and discouraged "cowardice". I think anyone making the statement that cowardice is better than honor is arguing for the sake of it.
That's because societies as a group don't value individual safety or wellbeing.
And that's not a bad thing. ZOMG MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE, GET OUT OF MY WAY KIDS!!!
Which was it? Was it not to be part of the propaganda campaign or was it for no reason?
Why do you not understand why a man couldn't claim to lead people he left behind in a POW camp? Why do you not understand that when someone tries to make you do something, you have a duty to yourself to resist? Why do you think this is about appearances? Qingu, if I led you into battle and we got taken prisoner, it would not be the appearance of honor before your family I worried about. It would be my actual conscience. Do you have no sense of right and wrong besides appearances? Because if it was just the appearance of honor, it wouldn't be worth pain, and you'd be right.
God, I hope you're glad there's a world full of people you don't understand out there.
But remember there are extenuating circumstances.
A story from my 8th grade world history class:
After the Blitzkrieg in WWII the Germans invaded and took over France. One such area of the country was a small town. After the Germans got there they rounded up all of the townspeople and had them all stand before a stage where the new German order would be explained and enforced. That is they were going to put the fear of the Nazis in their hearts.
So they got the town mayor and his entire family and brought them out on the stage. They put the mayor on his knees and give a handgun to his son. They proceed to tell the young man to shoot his own father in front of everyone. He of course refuses, out of respect for his father and of course out of a sense of his own honor. They then tell the young man that unless he kills his father they will kill his mother, sisters, father, and then after watching all that, the boy. His father looks at him and tells him to do it, so the kid puts the gun to his own father's head and pulls the trigger...
Years later my history teacher was in the same French village and walked by a little shop. In the window he saw a black T-shirt with a giant Nazi Swastika that was inside the circle with a line through it (like the know smoking symbol, but for Nazis). My history teacher went into the shop and asked to purchase the shirt. The owner refused, but my teacher explained what he did for a living and how it would aid him in teaching about the horrors of WWII. The owner then gave the shirt to my teacher, asking only that he tell the above story along with it, for the shop owner was the boy forced to shoot his own father. I still vividly remember the T-shirt, as it hung on the wall of my teacher's classroom.
Point is that those with honor have no respect for honor. And sometimes, in order to choose the lesser of two evils you must do what is still wrong, evil, and without honor. I'm not saying that McCain should have done anything other than what he did, but each individual case is different. And as I said in my last post, honor is personal, it is how you react to the situation and whether or not you hold to your beliefs given outside factors that may try dissuade you from being and acting in the way you feel right. Some cannot handle torture, pain or extreme situation, and others will crack simply with the promises of power or wealth. I think the best measure of honor is how much must be risked before you are willing to act against your conscience, not whether or not you will hold out against all obstacles. Only the insane will hold despite threats of loved one's lives.
insane00 on
Go on, keep reading...
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
And that's not a bad thing. ZOMG MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE, GET OUT OF MY WAY KIDS!!!
But that's not what this thread is about. I've repeatedly said that I'm not talking about risking yourself in defense of life or against suffering.
A better analogy would be ZOMG MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE, NO NEED TO PACK THE BIBLE OR MY ORIGINAL COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
Or, as should have been the case in Saudi Arabia: ZOMG, GIRLS, THE SCHOOL IS ON FIRE—JUST RUN OUT, DON'T WORRY ABOUT PUTTING ON YOUR VEILS.
Well, you narrow shit down to just one tiny definition - a perverted one - of "honor" and rail against it, that's fine if you want to just waste time.
LOL HONOR KILLINGS NOT SO HONORABLE etc
but come on man you've got to know the term has more application.
You should have given that mugger nothing. Everyone should fight every time a criminal tries to extort something. If that mugger kills the next guy, part of the fault is yours.
But to obtusely pretend you don't understand the fundamental shittyness and disloyalty involved in leaving men under your command behind using the justification, "Well bro I don't see why we both should suffer through it" . . . I guess every coward ever justified it somehow. Judas probably told himself "someone's gonna get paid here, why not jay to the u-das?" and logically, he's correct. Hey, wouldn't jesus want the money to go to a pal, if it has to go to someone? But you can't tell me judas didn't feel like a bitch when he spent it.
You want to limit this discussion to a narrow definition of something, but you can't understand the perversion if you don't understand the healthy practice. Things done in the name of honor aren't always honorable things, and not every honorable thing is done for recognition.
Do you really think McCain put himself through torture because he was "just stubborn?"
Which was it? Was it not to be part of the propaganda campaign or was it for no reason?
Why do you not understand why a man couldn't claim to lead people he left behind in a POW camp? Why do you not understand that when someone tries to make you do something, you have a duty to yourself to resist? Why do you think this is about appearances? Qingu, if I led you into battle and we got taken prisoner, it would not be the appearance of honor before your family I worried about. It would be my actual conscience. Do you have no sense of right and wrong besides appearances? Because if it was just the appearance of honor, it wouldn't be worth pain, and you'd be right.
God, I hope you're glad there's a world full of people you don't understand out there.
But remember there are extenuating circumstances.
A story from my 8th grade world history class:
After the Blitzkrieg in WWII the Germans invaded and took over France. One such area of the country was a small town. After the Germans got there they rounded up all of the townspeople and had them all stand before a stage where the new German order would be explained and enforced. That is they were going to put the fear of the Nazis in their hearts.
So they got the town mayor and his entire family and brought them out on the stage. They put the mayor on his knees and give a handgun to his son. They proceed to tell the young man to shoot his own father in front of everyone. He of course refuses, out of respect for his father and of course out of a sense of his own honor. They then tell the young man that unless he kills his father they will kill his mother, sisters, father, and then after watching all that, the boy. His father looks at him and tells him to do it, so the kid puts the gun to his own father's head and pulls the trigger...
Years later my history teacher was in the same French village and walked by a little shop. In the window he saw a black T-shirt with a giant Nazi Swastika that was inside the circle with a line through it (like the know smoking symbol, but for Nazis). My history teacher went into the shop and asked to purchase the shirt. The owner refused, but my teacher explained what he did for a living and how it would aid him in teaching about the horrors of WWII. The owner then gave the shirt to my teacher, asking only that he tell the above story along with it, for the shop owner was the boy forced to shoot his own father. I still vividly remember the T-shirt, as it hung on the wall of my teacher's classroom.
Point is that those with honor have no respect for honor. And sometimes, in order to choose the lesser of two evils you must do what is still wrong, evil, and without honor. I'm not saying that McCain should have done anything other than what he did, but each individual case is different. And as I said in my last post, honor is personal, it is how you react to the situation and whether or not you hold to your beliefs given outside factors that may try dissuade you from being and acting in the way you feel right. Some cannot handle torture, pain or extreme situation, and others will crack simply with the promises of power or wealth. I think the best measure of honor is how much must be risked before you are willing to act against your conscience, not whether or not you will hold out against all obstacles. Only the insane will hold despite threats of loved one's lives.
OK, but here's the thing: Nobody in your story (except the nazis) did anything dishonorable. Also did you mean the bolded portion as typed?
He probably meant those without honor, which makes the whole thing make more sense.
...and wow that's a sad story right there.
Pata on
Episode 5: Mecha-World, Mecha-nisim, Mecha-beasts
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
See, I think the young man in the story did the most honorable thing he could have - a lesser person would have been unable to do what had to be done to preserve as many lives as possible.
What's described in the OP (fighting seemingly impossible odds with great personal danger) reminds of most are civil rights advocates all over the world. Martin Luther King surely knew of the risks to his life when he became a spokesman for civil rights in America, a quick trip to Google will tell of African gay civil rights advocates who got murdered for what they do, etc.
Posts
What a wretched system of values you have.
Keeping faith with your comrades isn't "nothing" and I shudder to think what kind of person you must really be to claim as such.
* Note: I'm talking about dying for your principles when nothing else is at stake. If you know that your death can save other lives, such as in a torture/interrogation situation, then I would of course not call it stubbornness.
He's the sort that lives forever.
I host a podcast about movies.
I think this sums up my views on the subject as well as anything
I get where Qingu is coming from re: honor since the only reason it ever seems to come up as far as I know is when someone is getting fucked/killed by their family.
In other words, his going home would not have caused physical harm to anyone, it only would have (possibly) harmed an idea. And I don't know about you but I somehow doubt that his comrades being tortured gave two shits about Communism.
I think the situation is analogous to the people being taken hostage by Islamic terrorists. They're often forced to read religious propoganda in front of a camera and in some cases convert (or at least sympathize) with Islam. If someone decided to get tortured instead of doing this, for love of his country or religion or for his hatred of Islamic fundamentalism, how is that virtuous? I would call it depressingly pigheaded.
I want to make clear that I'm not talking about cases where it's torture vs. endangering the lives of people you care about. That is an entirely different moral equation and I would certainly say someone who submitted to torture to save the lives of people he cared about was acting virtuously. But in this case, it's not endangering people, it's potentially endangering ideas.
Because I think the War in Vietnam was evil, I am unimpressed by John McCain's claim to "honor." I do not care about the suffering he experienced. I care about the suffering he caused. Think of all the Vietnamese who were killed or crippled for life by the bombs he dropped. Yeah, sure. He was obeying orders. Haven't we heard that excuse before?
Nevertheless, I appreciate the sacrifices made by Allied soldiers in the Second World War. That was a war we needed to win.
Very much what I wanted to say but better.
I was going to joke, "SPARTAAAAA!!!" but instead it made me sort of stop and think. No idea really. I dont think there has ever been a society that came close. Perhaps a peaceful Native American tribe or two? I dont know.
Qingu, are you under the impression that when an enemy interrogator says, "Say or do ____ and we'll let you go home," they actually mean it? They're sort of under no onus to actually keep that promise. because...you know...they lack honor.
And assuming they were on the level, and you were the leader of the men you left behind, what kind of life would you live? How on the fucking earth could you look their families in the eye? Are you actually acting arch and pedantic in this thread, where you're sniviling out a reedly little cry that it's ok to live like a bitch because it's more logical?
I host a podcast about movies.
I imagine step 1 of the life I would lead would be going back to the military and trying to figure out where these people were being held. Other than that, how is this different from any other scenario where you survive but your buddies all die, based on the choices you make in war?
If I chose to escape torture (at the expense of ideology) while my buddies were left behind, I would feel terrible for them. But McCain was in solitary confinement; so his presence there wasn't establishing some sort of comraderie for his buddies. What would I say to their families? I was allowed to leave and they were not, I'm sorry?
I honestly don't understand your attitude. Why is it virtuous to endure torture for no reason—other than to appear "honorable" to fellow torture victims' families? I think that is, frankly, a dangerous attitude to take.
Why do you not understand why a man couldn't claim to lead people he left behind in a POW camp? Why do you not understand that when someone tries to make you do something, you have a duty to yourself to resist? Why do you think this is about appearances? Qingu, if I led you into battle and we got taken prisoner, it would not be the appearance of honor before your family I worried about. It would be my actual conscience. Do you have no sense of right and wrong besides appearances? Because if it was just the appearance of honor, it wouldn't be worth pain, and you'd be right.
God, I hope you're glad there's a world full of people you don't understand out there.
I host a podcast about movies.
Why is this relevant?
I certainly don't understand this. At all.
I got mugged on the train once—the guy claimed to have a gun but only pointed at me with his finger, and more people were going to get on at the next stop, so I could have resisted. But I made a decision that the $17 in my wallet was worth less to me than even the possibility of getting my ass kicked. What "duty to myself" are you talking about?
If you lead me into battle, got taken prisoner, and were tortured along with me—but then, when offered the chance to GTFO, you stayed because of some perceived duty or honor to me, I would feel guilty as hell.
I think I'm one of the more preachy and judgmental people on this forum, actually. My problem with the kind of concept of honor that I'm talking about (and that I think you're talking about) is that it isn't concerned with defending people from actual pain and suffering, it's concerned with defending intangible ideas. I am a pragmatist—I will never place intangible ideas in front of physical suffering.
I mean, unless someone threatens to torture or kill me if I don't.
I'd be wary of any political slogan that uses words like Honor.
And that's not a bad thing. ZOMG MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE, GET OUT OF MY WAY KIDS!!!
A better analogy would be ZOMG MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE, NO NEED TO PACK THE BIBLE OR MY ORIGINAL COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.
Or, as should have been the case in Saudi Arabia: ZOMG, GIRLS, THE SCHOOL IS ON FIRE—JUST RUN OUT, DON'T WORRY ABOUT PUTTING ON YOUR VEILS.
But remember there are extenuating circumstances.
A story from my 8th grade world history class:
After the Blitzkrieg in WWII the Germans invaded and took over France. One such area of the country was a small town. After the Germans got there they rounded up all of the townspeople and had them all stand before a stage where the new German order would be explained and enforced. That is they were going to put the fear of the Nazis in their hearts.
So they got the town mayor and his entire family and brought them out on the stage. They put the mayor on his knees and give a handgun to his son. They proceed to tell the young man to shoot his own father in front of everyone. He of course refuses, out of respect for his father and of course out of a sense of his own honor. They then tell the young man that unless he kills his father they will kill his mother, sisters, father, and then after watching all that, the boy. His father looks at him and tells him to do it, so the kid puts the gun to his own father's head and pulls the trigger...
Years later my history teacher was in the same French village and walked by a little shop. In the window he saw a black T-shirt with a giant Nazi Swastika that was inside the circle with a line through it (like the know smoking symbol, but for Nazis). My history teacher went into the shop and asked to purchase the shirt. The owner refused, but my teacher explained what he did for a living and how it would aid him in teaching about the horrors of WWII. The owner then gave the shirt to my teacher, asking only that he tell the above story along with it, for the shop owner was the boy forced to shoot his own father. I still vividly remember the T-shirt, as it hung on the wall of my teacher's classroom.
Point is that those with honor have no respect for honor. And sometimes, in order to choose the lesser of two evils you must do what is still wrong, evil, and without honor. I'm not saying that McCain should have done anything other than what he did, but each individual case is different. And as I said in my last post, honor is personal, it is how you react to the situation and whether or not you hold to your beliefs given outside factors that may try dissuade you from being and acting in the way you feel right. Some cannot handle torture, pain or extreme situation, and others will crack simply with the promises of power or wealth. I think the best measure of honor is how much must be risked before you are willing to act against your conscience, not whether or not you will hold out against all obstacles. Only the insane will hold despite threats of loved one's lives.
Well, you narrow shit down to just one tiny definition - a perverted one - of "honor" and rail against it, that's fine if you want to just waste time.
LOL HONOR KILLINGS NOT SO HONORABLE etc
but come on man you've got to know the term has more application.
You should have given that mugger nothing. Everyone should fight every time a criminal tries to extort something. If that mugger kills the next guy, part of the fault is yours.
But to obtusely pretend you don't understand the fundamental shittyness and disloyalty involved in leaving men under your command behind using the justification, "Well bro I don't see why we both should suffer through it" . . . I guess every coward ever justified it somehow. Judas probably told himself "someone's gonna get paid here, why not jay to the u-das?" and logically, he's correct. Hey, wouldn't jesus want the money to go to a pal, if it has to go to someone? But you can't tell me judas didn't feel like a bitch when he spent it.
You want to limit this discussion to a narrow definition of something, but you can't understand the perversion if you don't understand the healthy practice. Things done in the name of honor aren't always honorable things, and not every honorable thing is done for recognition.
Do you really think McCain put himself through torture because he was "just stubborn?"
I host a podcast about movies.
OK, but here's the thing: Nobody in your story (except the nazis) did anything dishonorable. Also did you mean the bolded portion as typed?
I host a podcast about movies.
...and wow that's a sad story right there.
I host a podcast about movies.