Sweden Capitulated

[Smitty-48]

Honor is doing your duty regardless of the benefit to you.

It is not regardless to principle.

The Light Brigade was honorable.
My Lai was not honorable.

My Lai violated obligations undertaken within the confines of national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, forsworn by oath, honour being the only principle to be upheld therein, but simply killing a bunch of villagers, lighting up the whole kibbutz, is not dishonourable in of itself, unless you have undertaken an obligation not to do so.

The Charge of the Light Brigade was simply miscommunication, the orders lost in translation, fog of war.

[nmoore63]

Honor is doing your duty regardless of the benefit to you.

It is not regardless to principle.

The Light Brigade was honorable.
My Lai was not honorable.

My Lai violated obligations undertaken within the confines of national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, forsworn by oath, honour being the only principle to be upheld therein, but simply killing a bunch of villagers, lighting up the whole kibbutz, is not dishonourable in of itself, unless you have undertaken an obligation not to do so.

The Charge of the Light Brigade was simply miscommunication, the orders lost in translation, fog of war.

Honor is not a concept that only applies to the military.

Killing unarmed women and children is assumed dishonorable by every code I know, there are perhaps justification, but it is an affirmative defense..

[nmoore63]

It actually is regardless to principle in that you dishonor yourself by violating your commitment to the code you adopted. It's that you failed to meet your obligation to your code that brings dishonor. If your code is evil, then the moral issues are a separate matter.

Honor does not require you to wrestle with theological issues. You have some code of conduct you must live by and you do it. That's your duty.

The code you adopted comes with principles.

[Smitty-48]

Honor is doing your duty regardless of the benefit to you.

It is not regardless to principle.

The Light Brigade was honorable.
My Lai was not honorable.

My Lai violated obligations undertaken within the confines of national and international law and the laws of armed conflict, forsworn by oath, honour being the only principle to be upheld therein, but simply killing a bunch of villagers, lighting up the whole kibbutz, is not dishonourable in of itself, unless you have undertaken an obligation not to do so.

The Charge of the Light Brigade was simply miscommunication, the orders lost in translation, fog of war.

Honor is not a concept that only applies to the military.

Warfare is the progenitor of honour, perhaps the bourgeoisie could be honourable, but within the protected walls of the Burg, it is no longer of critical and mutual interest to them, and as such most are dishonourable by nature, push comes to shove.

[Speaker to Animals]

It actually is regardless to principle in that you dishonor yourself by violating your commitment to the code you adopted. It's that you failed to meet your obligation to your code that brings dishonor. If your code is evil, then the moral issues are a separate matter.

Honor does not require you to wrestle with theological issues. You have some code of conduct you must live by and you do it. That's your duty.

The code you adopted comes with principles.

Yes, but the moral issues are separate issues. An SS officer can be honorable and quite evil at the same time.

[Smitty-48]

Killing unarmed women and children is assumed dishonorable by every code I know, there are perhaps justification, but it is an affirmative defense..

Not at all, again, you are projecting a subjective bourgeois morality code unto a paradigm, where absent obligations undertaken, it does not exist.

Warfare is inherently mass murder, of any all in the quarrel, minus those who are granted protected status as non combatants, by honour code undertaken, but absent that obligation, they are fair game, particulalrly when they violate the terms and in doing so forgo their protected status by default, usually by taking up arms as direct participants, but also by providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Speaker to Animals]

And honor comes from how warriors respect or disrespect one another. It's actually a natural human reaction to warfare.

Dishonorable warriors are not respected or treated well at all.

[nmoore63]

Killing unarmed women and children is assumed dishonorable by every code I know, there are perhaps justification, but it is an affirmative defense..

Not at all, again, you are projecting a subjective bourgeois morality code unto a paradigm, where absent obligations undertaken, it does not exist.

Warfare is inherently mass murder, of any all in the quarrel, minus those who are granted protected status as non combatants, by honour code undertaken, but absent that obligation, they are fair game, particulalrly when they violate the terms and in doing so forgo their protected status by default, usually by taking up arms as direct participants, but also by providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

bbbzzzzzz

You attempted to disagree with me, then provided the affirmative defense I said was required.

You are award no points.

[Smitty-48]

Killing unarmed women and children is assumed dishonorable by every code I know, there are perhaps justification, but it is an affirmative defense..

Not at all, again, you are projecting a subjective bourgeois morality code unto a paradigm, where absent obligations undertaken, it does not exist.

Warfare is inherently mass murder, of any all in the quarrel, minus those who are granted protected status as non combatants, by honour code undertaken, but absent that obligation, they are fair game, particulalrly when they violate the terms and in doing so forgo their protected status by default, usually by taking up arms as direct participants, but also by providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

bbbzzzzzz

You attempted to disagree with me, then provided the affirmative defense I said was required.

You are award no points.

Your assertion that killing unarmed women in children is assumed to be dishonourable by every code you know, is neither here nor there, because what do you know? Not much apparently, your subjective bourgeois morality codes do not exist on the battlefield, other than where combatants choose to observe them by oath forsworn and bound only by their honour.

If they have not forsworn to observe your subjective morality code, I would not rely on them to do so, but I would not accuse them of dishonour by default, as they have undertaken no obligation to do so.

If the enemy flies the black flag, take no prisoners, no quarter nor mercy, that's not dishonourable in of itself, it's only dishonourable if he flies the white flag, then fails to uphold that obligation. The dishinour of My Lai is not that the Americans commited mass murder, it is that they commited mass murder, under white flag.

[ssu]

Warfare is the progenitor of honour, perhaps the bourgeoisie could be honourable, but within the protected walls of the Burg, it is no longer of critical and mutual interest to them, and as such most are dishonourable by nature, push comes to shove.

Might not be the progenitor, as there are many things and occasions when honour plays a great role besides war.

Of course in war, thing like honour is important.

When I studied in the university I made a short article about the Crimean war in Finland. Then we were the Czars loyal subjects opposing the British and the French and naturally hence not much has been written about it. Now have to say that those times when having the Victorian Royal Navy as your enemy is interesting reading and something that people would now say "Could they really behave so?". Starting from things like honouring the negotiating flag, making first your terms clear and if a solution isn't met, only then you take up arms.

How low we have gone since then, have to say. You see now if you would make a warfilm that would somehow totally accurately portray the events and what people thought as it happened, that film would likely be determined boring, "unrealistic" and "glorifying war" with "shallow, unreal" characters.

Honour is something that's not so revered as before.