Main > The Round Table
Which one do you think you are?
Sir James A:
--- Quote from: Sir William on 2012-06-21, 21:26:54 ---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 ---
--- End quote ---
Most elegantly put, Sir William.
If I have no recourse, and must kill, so be it. If someone breaks into my home, threatens me with deadly intent, or if I *personally see them* in the act of doing so to another, they have played their card and will be subject to the consequences of their actions.
If I hear about somebody that did something? No, I won't act on it. I may *want* to act upon it, I may *say* I would act upon it, but at the core of it, with a world full of liars, con artists and thieves, one person's word is not enough to convince me to take matters into my own hands after the event. I *will* get outside help if necessary, but that is it. Without seeing something myself, there's too much at stake for fault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution), which has been proven many times.
In war, death happens. It's unavoidable. If you're lucky, you never have to take anyone's life, and you walk away with yours. If you do have to take someone's life, it is, hopefully, because you are both engaged in active combat, and as such, the likely result of a "kill or be killed" situation. And if you ask the majority of people who have taken a life, it stays with them for the rest of their life (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder).
--- Quote from: Cavaliere di Fiore on 2012-06-21, 18:55:28 ---It seems to me that the taking of a life, when justified, should be exalted since the only reason to do so would be to maintain and fight for an ideal, and ideals are generally worth dying for.
--- End quote ---
Is the ideal worth killing for, or worth dying for?
--- Quote from: Cavaliere di Fiore on 2012-06-21, 18:55:28 ---I think the point I am trying to make is that if one was to take another life in defense of an ideal then you should not grieve for the taking of that life, because the fact of the matter is you live for those ideals, and if you feel bad for defending them then why do you live for them in the first place?
--- End quote ---
If the situation arises that you must take a life, it should be for something more than an ideal. An ideal is a concept. No man, woman or child should die over a concept. Someone can hate me all they want, or disagree completely with what I think; and I'll not harm them for the thought. If someone thinks molesting a child is okay, I'll disagree with that beyond words, but I won't assault them over the thought; when they cross the line and *I see them start to molest a child*, things will get ugly. But I won't kill them if I can avoid it.
The guy who defended his own 5 year old daughter against a man he saw molesting her has stated himself, that he regrets and did not wish to kill the molester. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/father-not-charged-in-killing-of-man-molesting-his-daughter-5.html). And in fact, he did his best to get emergency services to SAVE the life of the man he just fought. Does that seem "romantic" in some way?
If the molester dies in the process of someone defending the child, then, such is the end of their path they have chosen to walk (as happened recently). In that situation, would I feel bad? No. Would I think it romantic, or the act of killing worthy of praise? No, not in the least. It is simply something that was done, and would be best forgotten about by all.
There is absolutely, positively, *nothing* "romantic" at all about taking a life. It is something I would take no joy in, I would have no celebration of, and I would avoid as much as possible. If you think the opposite, I respectfully suggest that you visit a Veteran of Foreign Wars (VFW) local group, and ask the people there if they have killed anyone, and if they thought it was romantic ... or if they suffer through effects of it that some of us wouldn't wish on our worst enemies....
SirNathanQ:
Responding to the OP, I can't say I'm really any of those things. If anything, a mix of Warrior, fighter, and Scholar (but not your description) . The only reason I have warrior in there is because as of yet, I am young, and haven't achieved anything with my life. I have a drive to do something great, to be someone, And will stop at nothing that doesn't violate chivalry, Morals, or Ethics to do so. That drive is what I identify with for the warrior type.
In the context of killing, I would be a fighter. I myself do not believe that taking a life is inherently wrong or evil in of itself, and wouldn't hesitate to strike down one who takes violent aggression to me or that which I love.
I don't believe I get to decide who lives and who dies. If I saw Charles Manson on the street, I wouldn't plunge a sword in his gullet. I would apprehend him (though if he resisted with lethal force, then killing him wouldn't be wrong) and have him tried by those who are deemed fit to decide who lives and dies. However, if he attacks someone I love or me, then killing is fine.
Sir William brought up an excellent story showing precisely why no one man should decide who lives and dies.
I would never voluntarily fight as the aggressor. War of course, is a different story.
Truly, there is nothing glorious about taking a life. Even in the situations mentioned above, I would still prefer not to kill the foe. I haven't taken a life, and God willing, I won't ever have to, but there's nothing especially glorious about a simple fistfight either. The sound of bones breaking is sickening. Come back after giving someone bleeding profusely some stitches (or in my case, assist the doctor giving the stitches), get the blood all over you, and then tell us how glorious blood truly is.
And don't take this as some kind of pacifistic rant. I'd pick a good martial arts spar or Longsword duel to any normal sport or activity any day of the week.
Fiore, would you mind telling us which type you are?
Cavaliere di Fiore:
All of you, Sirs, make great points and I consider them wholeheartedly. I graciously concede.
I, Sir Nathan, consider myself to be an artist, which is why I was so much more descriptive in that particular definition. I believe that my art, indeed all of our arts, flows in and perforates through our lives. I believe the passion that I feel for swordplay and knightly chivalry can be described aptly as similar to other mens' love of God Himself. I would gladly lay my soul to bare and my body to break for this passion. I believe it almost too good to be true that such a chord has been struck in my heart by it, and humbly accept it as a gift from whatever creator may be or from the fount of chance which laid it as a path before me.
Sir James A:
Perhaps a more succinct way is to simply quote Ironclad:
--- Quote ---Have you ever killed a man, squire? It is not a noble thing. Not even when it is for God!
--- End quote ---
Cavaliere di Fiore:
--- Quote from: James Anderson III on 2012-06-22, 04:11:09 ---
--- Quote ---Have you ever killed a man, squire? It is not a noble thing. Not even when it is for God!
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Fun movie. I loved the halfswording, it was quite entertaining.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version