A sad commentary on the current state of affairs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chebus

the courage that comes, not from principle or duty, but from utter indifference to consequences.

---

They've still got it, I reckon. :01:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Spelt is wheat :dry: :wink:

---

Spelled is pedantic. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Vice president of the confederacy?

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this is the same confederacy that made the bulk of their money by, what shall we call it...unorthodox employment of labour, to facilitate for maximal profits in production of raw materials for textile manufacture?

Someone who'd condone those kinds of goings on might be called a lot of things, a paragon of honour doesn't strike me as being the first on the list, tho'.

---

The Confederacy's blueprint for "Honor" was correct; though they were not possessed of that particular version of enlightenment which allowed them to question slavery.

Remember your historical context, SnnY.

Our framers had slaves, too.

The nuts and bolts of "honor" are the same, it's just more inclusive, yes?

I don't really want to get into this argument, but for someone to take someone else as a slave simply on the belief that they are inferior, or animals, isn't honourable any way you look at it. (The same is also true for many other civilizations as well, like ancient Rome and Greece.)

How they could do that to anyone else, to a thinking and talking individual, will always baffle me.

The fact that they could do it, makes me think that cheese's version of that particular display of courage is more accurate. That it would be the kind of courage that comes from not thinking things through, or the kind of honour that comes from being mule-headed rather than enlightened. Willing themselves not to see what they didn't want to.

Honour without compassion is pretty hollow.

This is just an opinion mind you, and not in any way to be concieved as an attack on yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

I don't really want to get into this argument, but for someone to take someone else as a slave simply on the belief that they are inferior, or animals, isn't honourable any way you look at it. (The same is also true for many other civilizations as well, like ancient Rome and Greece.)

How they could do that to anyone else, to a thinking and talking individual, will always baffle me.

The fact that they could do it, makes me think that cheese's version of that particular display of courage is more accurate. That it would be the kind of courage that comes from not thinking things through, or the kind of honour that comes from being mule-headed rather than enlightened. Willing themselves not to see what they didn't want to.

Honour without compassion is pretty hollow.

This is just an opinion mind you, and not in any way to be concieved as an attack on yourself.

---

I understand your point perfectly, SnnY, but if I might persuade you to think of historical mores in toto, you would, I think, have to conclude that many attitudes/beliefs which existed previously would be considered outrageous by current standards; for example, the outdated belief that Christians are, to this very day, looking to launch a new crusade in order to persecute minority religions or "pagans".

Odd, isn't it, that many make excuses for jihad, which is not much more than a crusade?

This is not to even sniff around the edges of excusing the horror of slavery, but think, in more modern terms, of the Holocaust, etc.

It would be difficult to argue that slavery is worse than "purification", don't you think?

Yet "purification" is, even today, more abided and prevalent than slavery.

All of the building blocks civilization is built upon have cracks in them.

Modern society is built on misery, this is probably true for every society in the world.
I'm not arguing with anything of what you just said.

But that doesn't make that man more honourable from my point of view.

Any idiot can have "honour" in the context of his own society, but the truly great people in history have broken free of whatever warped framework surrounded their society.

Those I truly admire, and would deem honourable, are those who have shown compassion when they didn't have to, those who have fought such as the laws that allowed for slavery, and those who have refused to follow insane religious strictures.

Refusing to give in to someone with an advantage and thus avoiding to break your word doesn't qualify as honourable in itself, I feel. Or rather, it's not honourable enough to be upheld as evidence of how much greater people once were. I think there are plenty of people in the world who'd rather die than break their word, but I'm not sure that's a good thing.

I wonder how Kamikaze pilots are viewed by the members of the board?

They were prepared to die for what they believed in. It may be argued that this was because they were brainwashed however isn't everyone to the level of the culture they exist in?



I guess this may be a case of it depending on whic side of the fence it is viewed from, but it would be interesting to find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Modern society is built on misery, this is probably true for every society in the world.
I'm not arguing with anything of what you just said.

But that doesn't make that man more honourable from my point of view.

Those I truly admire, and would deem honourable, are those who have shown compassion when they didn't have to, those who have fought such as the laws that allowed for slavery, and those who have refused to follow insane religious strictures.

---

Sad then, that we had no choice but to build on, and be informed by, what came before.

Would you mention an example or two of historical figures whose sense of honor you find notable?

Oscar Schindler, Raoul Wallenberg, many of the members of the Emancipation movement. And so forth.

They did the right thing, as far as I know.

Whether there was honour or not in that man, doesn't affect what your country is today, a nation should be measured by the people who live in it, not those who lived in it a century or more ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Oscar Schindler, Raoul Wallenberg, many of the members of the Emancipation movement. And so forth.

They did the right thing, as far as I know.

Whether there was honour or not in that man, doesn't affect what your country is today, a nation should be measured by the people who live in it, not those who lived in it a century or more ago.

---

Good choices, and quite rightfully.

My point is only that the idea of honor did not hatch fully formed; if we had no construct (however flawed) from which to work, we'd still be flailing about for even the word.