[tu.dents]

You obviously respect your friend and care for his feeling. People dont see any reason to care for others and see no reason to help their adversary learn something positive from such an experience.
Even the great Miyamoto Musashi in his early 20's realized that opposition didn't have to end in harm. Something of greater value can be learned.

[Glider]

Quote

perhaps honor and self respect are interchangeable in this instance? or maybe both apply?

you see I was taught this way, and made a promise never to fight like "they" did and to fight Properly. and so, I kept my word, even though it still cost me alot of pain because I knew I was doing the "right" thing regardless of how tempting it was to take advantage on the VERY odd occasion where I could.

and so I kept my honor AND my self respect :)
that`s where I`m coming from.

I was taught (by the Army) that in close combat, you do whatever it takes using whatever is at hand. Where 'honour' comes into it is when to stop. If your opponent goes down or ceases to be a threat, or surrenders, you stop. Until that point you have to apply greater force and do more damage to him than he is trying to do to you, or you will lose. It's that simple.

LucidDreamer said:

Honor is a concept derived from the warrior-code of warlike societies. Soldiers who have a great sense of honor are more effective. They are likely to fight harder and less likely to run when things get tough. Honor is a kind of moral code for those that make a career out of war. Young men who observe these men of honor respect them and desire to be more like them, which makes recruiting much easier. Not only is honor useful for the leaders that wage war it is also useful for the soldiers who feel that their lives or the sacrifice of their lives has value and meaning. The concept of honor is replaced by ethics, morals, or self-respect, as others have pointed out, in a more peaceful environment.

I agree with you. 'Honour' (or more realistically ethical practice), enters into it when you talk about armies or structured bodies of men fighting under rules of engagement. Adherence to those rules of engagement and the ethical guidelines/laws laid down (e.g. the Geneva convention) equals military honour. Things like not firing on a white flag, accepting the warrents of surrendered soldiers, ensuring POWs are given medical treatment and are treated with respect, not engaging or involving civillians and so-on. All these things are components of fighting with honour.

My point is that when it comes to close quarters, and you are engaged, there is no honour (until or unless your opponent surrenders). Until that point, by definition, the force you apply must exceed the force being applied against you, or you will lose. Whatever gives you an advantage is acceptable. Once he is no longer a threat, or surrenders then you can afford to be honourable (e.g. not kicking him when he's down), but until he goes down (or surrenders), anything goes. As I said in my first post, there are no points for second place.

[LucidDreamer]

Quote

My point is that when it comes to close quarters, and you are engaged, there is no honour (until or unless your opponent surrenders). Until that point, by definition, the force you apply must exceed the force being applied against you, or you will lose. Whatever gives you an advantage is acceptable. Once he is no longer a threat, or surrenders then you can afford to be honourable (e.g. not kicking him when he's down), but until he goes down (or surrenders), anything goes. As I said in my first post, there are no points for second place.

I agree with you as well. In a combat situation, when you are facing a foe, it’s the survival of the fittest--anything goes. Honor comes in when you are making a decision on whether to run or risk your life for your fellow solider, what to do with prisoners, or whether to rape and pillage a small village--that kind of thing.

I think alot of people on this thread are talking about more of a one on one fight with one of your friends or some random guy in a bar/pub. If you and one of your friends get drunk and fight over a girl then anything doesn't go. You don't gouge out your friend's eye because tempers ran a little high. But you are not talking about that kind of situation.

[YT2095]

alot of that is basic common sense too, and nothing to do with honor :)

you don`t gouge ANYONES eye out unless it`s life/death :)
(they can`t hit you if they can`t see)

[Glider]

LucidDreamer said:

I think alot of people on this thread are talking about more of a one on one fight with one of your friends or some random guy in a bar/pub. If you and one of your friends get drunk and fight over a girl then anything doesn't go. You don't gouge out your friend's eye because tempers ran a little high. But you are not talking about that kind of situation.

I've never actually fought a friend (nor felt the urge to) The worst it ever gets is raised voices and I can't remember the last time that happened.

As for random guy in a bar, the same rules apply; whatever it takes to preserve your physical integrity. Having seen some 'Friday night, binge-drinking fueled town centre' type brawls, I think my opponent would still fare better losing to me than I would losing to him. As soon as he ceased to present a threat, I'm away on me toes. Most people these days seem to like to hang around offering to fight everyone else whilst stomping on the other guys' head (often joined by two or three of their friends).

I suppose that kind of drunken macho BS is what people here mean by 'dishonourable'. Well, my way is no more honourable. I just don't think there is any honour in fighting. It's something you only ever do if you really have to and absolutely can't find any other way out. If you do have to do it, do it properly. You can't afford to lose to random guy in a bar. You don't know whether or not he'll stop if you go down.

[Verusamore]

Violence is never the first for any situation , there is no honor using ones a means of suffering upon someone, it's like cock fighting ( chickens ) , the best cock is the winner and will be respected in the ring and those who cheer the fighting ,in this case your country will support you if you choose to jump in that ring as there is always that self-sense of something to gain by the guys who run the competetion ..

Honor is reaffirming ones dignity and collectively defines the countries reputation for what one stands for but really if your getting paid for what you do , then you are aware that you are serving your country because the guys who threw you in the competion invested a little time and money in you to do what they want you to do .

For example ;
You join the army @ 36000k P/Y ,sounds like good easy money .
You are invested in training , so you may become a better fighter .
You are sent on a duty to destroy and take over a zone ,a strikeforce is called .
Then you find out from a leaked word that that zone housed doctors and patients .
So here you have honored the people responsible for carrying out this duty but yet you betrayed yourself for causing suffering as a means to maintain that high standard of honor , you have unknowingly sacrificed your honor in exchange for the countries interest .

For someone who has everything to lose and leaves it behind deserves honor , surgeons with families are out there serving around the clock in hostile conditions or doing humanitary work in harsh places who have to live in those conditions is an indication of someone who is sacrificing himself for the better of others .

Anywhere when one is doing there job in which they put themselves on the line without the means of causing suffering but themself is honor .

No intention was to be pointing out to anyone , just what I believe since I'm anti-authoritanistic.