Main > The Round Table
Which one do you think you are?
Lord Dane:
A fighter can always find quarrels that lead to conflict if there is good cause.
A warrior will always find battles without cause even when there is no war.
A scholar will always seek a diplomatic or academic method to resolution to avoid violent outcome.
An artist will just make it all look good with grace & style in order to impress his/her peers or others.
I'd have to say I'm another category unmentioned, "human". Fallible, imperfect, mortal. Always seeking to improve myself in life through rational thinking, an empathetic heart, and moral behavior based on Christian ideals that result in the best course(s) of action in any situation life presents. Knowing where you are weak makes you stronger.
Sir Brian:
Well stated Lord_Dane! :)
Sir William:
Cavaliere, if you recall, I did say
--- Quote ---I would not balk at taking a life if circumstances were such that it was vitally necessary...but there is nothing at all romantic about it.
--- End quote ---
- and I meant every word. You raise examples such that I would feel honor bound to meet by any means necessary...any person who egregiously harmed my family, my loved ones, deserves a retributive punishment that you usually only read about, but never actually heard of. The end would result in death, but the manner of that journey would be something people would talk about for centuries after you and I are gone.
But I will say this- belief being what it is, I caution anyone who has such a zealous outlook on killing those who need it; for my part, I do not think I could ever be an executioner...it is not for me to take lives by mine own hand, state-sanctioned or no. It has to be personal, very personal...killing someone just because I think they need it is not reason enough.
For example: my eldest daughter and her boyfriend were rough housing in the living room of her apartment; a handyman in the employ of her mother witnessed this and told her mother that he thought the boy beats her. Her mother drove 2.5 hours to her house, took out a stick and chased the boy around the house with it and then commenced to berate our daughter in the middle of the street, in front of the house, with all the neighbors in attendance, about how stupid she was, how she could look forward to regular beatings because that's the type of guy he was, etc, etc ad nauseum. She leaves. Then, she has her current husband, the stepfather, call the kid up and threaten him with serious bodily harm, going so far as to say he'll send a couple of his 'boys' to tune him up; then she calls our daughter back and tells her that her boyfriend has three days to vacate the premises, or else.
Now, my exwife believed that our daughter was being beaten, despite no evidence of such beating (if you knew my daughter, you would know it to be preposterous...her bf is a small guy, she can pick him up and toss him across the room, literally), no history of violence, no complaint of any kind from my daughter or their neighbors- but because she believed it had occurred, she feels justified in her actions. Do you? I certainly do not.
But situations like this can escalate out of control because one or another believes something to have occurred that simply did not happen. Which is why I cannot countenance taking a life based on belief alone, I need more, I need evidence! Belief alone can cause much in the way of horror; we need only look at Wounded Knee, the Holocaust, 9/11 to know that.
The 'holy warriors' of al-Qaeda and others of their ilk 'believe' we are spawned of the Devil and that they will be welcomed into the afterlife with x amount of virgins to await their pleasure simply by killing as many of us as possible. They believe this wholeheartedly...does that make them right? Do you justify their actions as right because they believe that we and all we stand for are wrong? I should hope not.
Barring the defense of hearth, home and family, who are you to judge who should live and who should die simply based on what you believe? You, a fallible, imperfect, mortal human being, to borrow Lord Dane's phrase...are you truly certain that you have the right to sit in judgment of anyone purely based on your own beliefs? Just a question, not a prelude to an argument.
Lord Dane:
I felt I was born into the wrong time period but....being that I shall never see the medieval era....I live my life with some ideal notion of what a knight is in modern day. I think I can best speak on this topic as I am law enforcement in real life. I am trained to protect, to serve, and (when reasonable & appropriate) take life when harm is brought to myself or others, which I can do & know I would (with later regret). My ability to make those conscious choices is what makes me able to do my job because I know I would react & not hesitate where others fail to. But it is my nature to do so, not just my job. I deal with some of worst situations that no others are forced to & have not only have a sworn obligation to act, I have it in myself to do something based on my training, knowledge, and experience.
Killing is not "human", it is just something humans do to each other (regardless of reason or justification). Taking a life is not always an easy choice for most. For everyday people, it's just a matter of circumstance & most of the time, they are unprepared for it & will not always get to choose the circumstances. They present themselves to you & you hope you can seek or use a lesser option when the situation exists. Doesn't always happen that way. So you act based upon what you know & when it presents itself, you'll react or not.
Lord Dane:
--- Quote from: Sir William on 2012-06-21, 17:55:47 ---Those who can, fight. Those who cannot, teach. I've seen great fighters who make poor coaches/trainers - because beside the natural talent, you also have to have the ability to connect with your pupil(s), otherwise they will fail, because you have failed to instruct them properly. The opposite is also true, as well as some who fall in between...great fighters and great instructors.
Your definitions are too linear for me...to choose only one would be to deny all the rest which makes up a man, or more specifically, me. I was a fighter in my youth, I'm more of a scholar now- but that does not mean I won't fight, or that fear would unman me...I tend to think before I speak and act rashly; it is the smarter way to live in my humble opinion.
Having said that, I see nothing wrong with how you choose to define yourself, but hopefully you'll not take offense when I say that a single one of those could not truly define me. I am not one to subscribe to societal pressures that one must be clearly defined in such a way that ultimately cannot encompass the sum totality of who and what I am, and what my experiences leading up to this moment have had a hand in making me so. Square peg, round hole sort of thing.
--- End quote ---
Those that recognize they are lacking in one or both areas, improve themselves to be stronger in areas they are weak knowing already what they excel in. In doing so, they not only prove they can follow, they exemplify they can "lead" and make others see where they can self-improve. Self-improvement makes you both a student and teacher.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version