• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Is chivalry really dead?

RRR70 said:
I personally identify as an Attack Helicopter. :twofinger
Click to expand...

400
 
lam@barf said:
So the answer to the OP's post is - "No, it was stillborn"


:2cents
Click to expand...

I was thinking about the OP's post and have some thoughts.

I did some on-line dating back when. There inso way I would offer up my address to someone I met online. No way! sSo it isn't so much about"chivalry"(as the term is implied here) as it is about personal safety.

I have to agree with Happy Highwayman that chivalry doesn't really exist it boils down to basic courtesy. Feminism did not "KILL" chivalry, changing times made it extinct and something that doesn't exist in this century.

It would be awesome if we could remove the sexist implications out of basic common courtesy and just focus on doing the right thing. my :two cents
 
ThumperX said:
I was thinking about the OP's post and have some thoughts.

I did some on-line dating back when. There inso way I would offer up my address to someone I met online. No way! sSo it isn't so much about"chivalry"(as the term is implied here) as it is about personal safety.

I have to agree with Happy Highwayman that chivalry doesn't really exist it boils down to basic courtesy. Feminism did not "KILL" chivalry, changing times made it extinct and something that doesn't exist in this century.

It would be awesome if we could remove the sexist implications out of basic common courtesy and just focus on doing the right thing. my :two cents
Click to expand...

is one of your friends still available? :teeth
 
HappyHighwayman said:
[YOUTUBE]szldaaHfPbs[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

not sure how you intend for this to impact the conversation. knights were instruments of war. whether it was fought on behalf of the king, the church or some other feudal or personal behalf. agree that codes of military conduct historically were and continue to be an idealization. however, soldiers murder on behalf of their masters. it’s their job. it’s bizarre to think that anyone who could do such a thing should be held to account for their judgement - which for all intents and purposes, has been surgically removed. once spun up...the outcome is not entirely predictable (unless of course, you have some reasonable power of forethought).
 
littlebeast said:
not sure how you intend for this to impact the conversation. knights were instruments of war. whether it was fought on behalf of the king, the church or some other feudal or personal behalf. agree that codes of military conduct historically were and continue to be an idealization. however, soldiers murder on behalf of their masters. it’s their job. it’s bizarre to think that anyone who could do such a thing should be held to account for their judgement - which for all intents and purposes, has been surgically removed. once spun up...the outcome is not entirely predictable (unless of course, you have some reasonable power of forethought).
Click to expand...
So is it your contention that there is no such thing as a war crime?

.
 
littlebeast said:
not sure how you intend for this to impact the conversation. knights were instruments of war. whether it was fought on behalf of the king, the church or some other feudal or personal behalf. agree that codes of military conduct historically were and continue to be an idealization. however, soldiers murder on behalf of their masters. it’s their job. it’s bizarre to think that anyone who could do such a thing should be held to account for their judgement - which for all intents and purposes, has been surgically removed. once spun up...the outcome is not entirely predictable (unless of course, you have some reasonable power of forethought).
Click to expand...

It demonstrates that even in the days of chivalry it wasn't a nice code to follow so why would we use that term today?

ONce again, meaningless.
 
littlebeast said:
not sure how you intend for this to impact the conversation. knights were instruments of war. whether it was fought on behalf of the king, the church or some other feudal or personal behalf. agree that codes of military conduct historically were and continue to be an idealization. however, soldiers murder on behalf of their masters. it’s their job. it’s bizarre to think that anyone who could do such a thing should be held to account for their judgement - which for all intents and purposes, has been surgically removed. once spun up...the outcome is not entirely predictable (unless of course, you have some reasonable power of forethought).
Click to expand...

Incorrect to a degree. Knights were nobles, and fought, through a very complicated system called feudalism, for their liege lords. In turn they got property, title, and other benefits. And it was complicated. A knight could pledge to a lord, and to the lord's bitterest enemy. Then when there was a battle, the knight could refuse to fight for either, or fight for one or the other, and they did. Often. Kings had very limited control of knights and they were not instruments of war as much as hired guns. Who quit or changed sides quite often. There were many battles where a lord would wait until he saw which way the battle was going before he went to the defense of a liege lord. They also could afford the latest in war high tech, armor, training, proper helms, excellent swords, and horses. Which gave them the ability to kill large numbers of peasants with no armor and a sickle. The advent of the English longbow changed the face of war. A 175 pound bow could penetrate armor easily with a bodkin.

Chivalry as a Platonic ideal is one thing. It never existed. Chivalry in the early middle ages was neither chivalrous, nor often seen. For the most part, it was propaganda.

It also was, very much, a convenient means of keeping women in their place, in the castle, hearth, and home, casting them as weak, subservient and in need of rescue. They were the victims as much as the beneficiaries. The early middle ages were unbelievably atrocious when it came to human behavior.
 
Last edited:
Any reasonable modern identification with an honorable code would require the adherent behave with a certain air of dignity, which this thread lacks.
 
Eldritch said:
Any reasonable modern identification with an honorable code would require the adherent behave with a certain air of dignity, which this thread lacks. :x
Click to expand...
Fify
 
Nothing wrong with having a code of honor of your own, but often people with honor codes do stupid things in the name of honor.

Hirō "Hiroo" Onoda (小野田 寛郎 Onoda Hirō, 19 March 1922 – 16 January 2014) was an Imperial Japanese Army intelligence officer who fought in World War II and was a Japanese holdout who did not surrender in August 1945. After the war ended Onoda spent 29 years holding out in the Philippines until his former commander traveled from Japan to informally relieve him from duty in 1974. He held the rank of second lieutenant in the Imperial Japanese Army. He was the penultimate Japanese soldier to surrender (with Teruo Nakamura), both surrendering in 1974.

Between him and his comrades they murdered 30+ people in the years they thought they were participating in guerrilla warfare.

1. Was he a man of honor? Sure

2. Was he a good person? Well, he was a member of the Japanese imperial army, he fought on the side of the Axis powers, and murdered 30 people.

Codes of honor are zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance = zero intelligence. You can fall on your code of honor vs. thinking for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top