Sweden Capitulated

[SuburbanFarmer]

It's funny, I took my little brother to see that movie when he was in short pants, he was so scared he was hiding his face in his shirt. That opening scene, that was about it for him, he wanted to leave, I said hell no, this movie looks good already, sit the fuck down.

Lot of Hollywood jazz going on here, right, ape?

I mean, that anchor isn't going to just creep out of the rock like that. Either it's good to go or instantly gives out: if my physics are right.

Of course I'm scared of heights, and it would take a big ass bear or something to get me that high off the ground, so what do I know about it?

I love those 20-foot drops, with a sharp jerk to the middle of the hips. Should snap their spines cleanly in half.

[Kazmyr]

And what I mean here is that you can measure success by two different paradigms: external objectives and internal objectives.

For instance, if you are looking for a job, your external objective is to get a decent job. But your internal objective is to submit a certain number of resumes each week, show up to interviews, etc.

Internalized objectives are things you control. You only have partial control over externalized objectives. Failing to meet an externalized objective due to some things that you have control over can be dishonorable, but failing to meet externalized objectives due to factors out of your control are not.


In warfare, your external objective is to win a battle or a war. You don't have total control over that in most cases. But you do have total control over internal objectives, such as carrying out your duty no matter what, courage, etc. In fact, we honor the losers of battles all the time. Jim Bowie losing the Alamo and being found beneath a pile of Mexican soldiers, for example, is honored whereas Santa Anna is not so much honored. We even honor several Indian war chiefs who lost but fought so fiercely that they are now American legends.

This is why Trump's comment about liking the "winners" rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. He doesn't understand honor I think because he is an urbanite and only has those bourgeois values.

Good post.

[Smitty-48]

Like that time Smitty defended the Canadian cop who kill civilians by doing 75 in a 25, and then saying it was ok because law something something law.

I never defended it as honourable, nor indicted as dishonourable, you and all your whiney bitch bros on the DCF were the ones who invoked the law, I simply rejected it as criminal on the face of it, except for the driver who failed to yield to oncoming traffic before making a left hand turn, as that is a violation of the highway traffic act, the dumb ass who cut in front of the police cruiser was the one at fault there.

Although, yes, I do find find witch trial by internet mob to be inherently dishonorable, certainly for American republicans, but whatevs, clearly your morality codes are subjective and situational, who knew?

[apeman]

It's funny, I took my little brother to see that movie when he was in short pants, he was so scared he was hiding his face in his shirt. That opening scene, that was about it for him, he wanted to leave, I said hell no, this movie looks good already, sit the fuck down.

Lot of Hollywood jazz going on here, right, ape?

I mean, that anchor isn't going to just creep out of the rock like that. Either it's good to go or instantly gives out: if my physics are right.

Of course I'm scared of heights, and it would take a big ass bear or something to get me that high off the ground, so what do I know about it?

Yeah, cams don't slide, it's all for drama, cams good, or they're not. You don't anchor without three good pieces (or two super bomber pieces, I do 3), so anchor failure only happens when you are being dangerous on purpose (like alpine climbers trying to beat lightning or something).

In fact, it's not clear to me that you would bring a knife cragging like that, but some folks do, usually the type of outdoorsy people who bring the kitchen sink (like that tacticool version of rock climbing) (picture TC rock climbing and you get the drift )

Cams are pretty simply and genius:





For people that hate themselves and climb really wide cracks, they get specialty cams that are like climbing with a boat anchor around your waist:

[nmoore63]

And what I mean here is that you can measure success by two different paradigms: external objectives and internal objectives.

For instance, if you are looking for a job, your external objective is to get a decent job. But your internal objective is to submit a certain number of resumes each week, show up to interviews, etc.

Internalized objectives are things you control. You only have partial control over externalized objectives. Failing to meet an externalized objective due to some things that you have control over can be dishonorable, but failing to meet externalized objectives due to factors out of your control are not.


In warfare, your external objective is to win a battle or a war. You don't have total control over that in most cases. But you do have total control over internal objectives, such as carrying out your duty no matter what, courage, etc. In fact, we honor the losers of battles all the time. Jim Bowie losing the Alamo and being found beneath a pile of Mexican soldiers, for example, is honored whereas Santa Anna is not so much honored. We even honor several Indian war chiefs who lost but fought so fiercely that they are now American legends.

This is why Trump's comment about liking the "winners" rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. He doesn't understand honor I think because he is an urbanite and only has those bourgeois values.

But that's also why the penalties are different. You are not supposed to be imprisoned for financial failings, in the same way that physical damages can result from military failings.

But A lot of it has to do with like you say objectives, but also choice.

For example, a general that chooses to be offensive by choice, does not seem to get a lot of credit if he loses.

If you declare war on your own terms, invade and get your ass kicked, even if you followed the right code... not a lot of honor awarded in that.

Say Crassus v the Parthians.

Now on the other hand

When you go into debt to buy a fancy truck, if you can't pay it, you failed.
If you get sent into debt because of kidney failure, well that's a different deal.

[Smitty-48]

Exactly.

If I follow his argument correctly, he's saying that any amount of screwing of your fellow citizens is "honourable", if done legally.

Once the law defines "honour", then what the hell is honorable behavior? Lobbying groups, career politicians, banksters, and the CIA are all "honorable", because they didn't break the law????

I re-submit - honor means holding fast to your principles. Nothing else.

Your principles are subjective and situational, you would cry wolf on the drop of a hat to indict your ideological opponents and justify your inherently dishonorable conduct therein, as most Americans do these days, your definition of "honour" is the stock and trade of hysterical talking head pundits in the media, whole lotta blubbering and fingerpointing going on, to rouse rabble and decry witches, but adherence to obligations undertaken to judge reasonably? Yeah, right, tell us another one, Wanh-Wanh-Runnin'-To-Canada-Face.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Exactly.

If I follow his argument correctly, he's saying that any amount of screwing of your fellow citizens is "honourable", if done legally.

Once the law defines "honour", then what the hell is honorable behavior? Lobbying groups, career politicians, banksters, and the CIA are all "honorable", because they didn't break the law????

I re-submit - honor means holding fast to your principles. Nothing else.

Your principles are subjective and situational, you would cry wolf on the drop of a hat to indict your ideological opponents and justify your inherently dishonorable comduct therein, as most Americans do these days, your defeinition of "honour" is the stock and trade of hysterical talking head pundits in the media, whole lotta blubbering and hysteria going on, to rouse rabble and decry witches, but adherence to obligations undertaken to judge reasonably, yeah, right, tell is another one, Wanh-Wanh-Running-To-Canada-Face.

My word is bond, Dudley DoRight. I stand by any agreement/oath sworn of my free will. I also stand by my principles, and look out for the welfare of my fellow man.

That does not apply to agreements made by some powdered wigs on my behalf, now or in the past. I have no personal obligation to ensure payment of US debt, destruction of ISIS, or defeat of militarized, invading Mexicans. Not my agreement, not my problem, homie.

[Smitty-48]

My word is bond.

So you say, but I wouldn't bet my life on it, your ideological biases shape your code of conduct, your word is bond, until it's not, and it's not, whenever you feel like invoking subjective morality as your guiding principle rather than adherence to obligations undertaken, you would not defend with your life, that which does not comport with your subjective morality, to include the United States of America itself, if it don't vote with its feet to do as you proscribe, and you will fabricate and endless series of fallacious rubrics, to justify your wanton sedition.

[Smitty-48]

Oh, and getting back to whiny bitch boy nickmoore and his blubbering about My Lai, shouldn't have to point out what the American troop's rubric was for executing those ostensible civilians; subjective morality.

They justified their actions by saying that those people were inherently evil, in cahoots with the Viet Cong every one, and therefore honour could be put aside, to do what was "right" by a grunts perspecitive in the jungles of Indochina walking around stepping on mines which were probably being laid by those very women and children in My Lai.

They were in fact, following the GrumpyCat doctrine, except for the part about fleeing to Canada to avoid serving in Vietnam in the first place that is.

[SuburbanFarmer]

My word is bond.

So you say, but I wouldn't bet my life on it, your ideological biases shape your code of conduct, your word is bond, until it's not, and it's not, whenever you feel like invoking subjective morality as your guiding principle rather than adherence to obligations undertaken, you would not defend with your life, that which does not comport with your subjective morality, to include the United States of America itself, if it don't vote with its feet to do as you proscribe, and you will fabricate and endless series of fallacious rubrics, to justify your wanton sedition.

As I said, MY word is bond. I never had a say in any nonsensical concept of the nation-state, or it's whims upon the world. Loyalty at gunpoint is no loyalty at all.

Say what you will about my "loyalty" to some abstract principle determined in my absence, my loyalty is to my tribe, kith and kin.