How can honour be an excuse for the absnace of morals when morals guide honour??? A man does not kill a helpless being why - honour.

A man rescues a wounded person from a burning building at extreme risk to himself why - honour.

A man leaps in front of a bullet that would have struck his pregnant ife why - honour.

A man sacrifices himself so that others may live why - honour.

Pride can get in the way but sometimes ina decaying world pride is all we have left.

A man kills another man who has insulted him - honor.

Entire nations go into long, bloody wars - honor.

Rivalries between two men who are too stupid to get over themselves and call a truce - honor.

Honor and pride go hand in hand.

I might have been hasty in saying they are completely useless, but they hurt just as much as they help. I'm all for people doing an honorable thing in the service of others, but when it gets to the point where they cannot control their honor, that is when people start dying needlessly.

Some of the greatest atrocities known to man have been committed under the influence of honor and pride.

I was making my post in reference to yours. An honorable duel is not honorable. It is murder, and murder is always honorless, even in self-defense. To take someone's most valuable posession is not honorable, and is never held above the title of theft. Sometimes necessary, but never right.

We differ on the matter and I respect your opinion. But sometimes a man's life is the greatest price he can pay to prove a point. If I am dining with my lover (we all know I am gay) and someone insults us and then threatens us - honor demands that I take action to protect my lover as well as myself, to defend my right to act as all others do. If he challanges me and my fate is met, then at least I have died with honour. A duel is not theft or murder for both parties have agreed. Both men are willing to sell their lives as dearly as they can to prove their own worthy, before own consciouses as well as the eyes of whatever gods lie beyond.

Were a man to attack and kill a man who did not consent to said duel than yes, it is murder. And you are correct in saying that some atrocities have ben committe in his name but so have those who have died tryint to stop it. Case study as follows:

My greatgrandfather. A Genernalleutnant in the German Army. An aristocrat and a soldier, he fought as best he could when called upon. He was decorated in WWI and spent the inner war years as part of the Reichswehr, bored and tired. The coming of the second world war gave him purpose again and he fought with a devotion to his duty that any nation would command. The war was good for him - and his family.

However, things were not well in Germany. Though not well known, the man who had orchestrated Germany's rise to power was mad and was 'purifying' his own country and all the conquered lands. He was marching millions to their slaughter because of their sexual orientation, their race, their religion.

My grandfather however, was not affected. No member of his family as jewish, no friend jewish - he was totally unscathed by these events. Millions wer being murdered, true enough - but it did not affect him.

This in mind, he chose to involve himself in a conspiracy that would surely end his life it failed - and he may even lose in trying to make it succeed. He participated actively and the coup failed and he lost his life thanks to the murderer's henchmen. He died for those for whom he had no relation and no personal stake - he did it because to know of it and do nothing was dishonourable. An honourable man he was and he, like so many others, could not simply sit by and watch. Simply praying for their safety was not enough.

Honour commands many men, especially in those atrocities, to do things they would not do - to rise above the medium and acheive greatness either alive or posthumous for things they did or tried to do.

In America, during the Civil War, many men in the North were not affected by salvery. Indeed, some had never even seen a negro. But when the call came to free them they did, and a great many laid down their lives tothat end. They were not affected but could not ignore that they had a duty theywere honour bound to carry out. Were honour not there, the army would have held only those been that would have profited from the loss of slavery and perhaps a few mercenaries - and after their deaths slavery would have continued.

Honour sometimes has its limits as in attacking noncombatants in peace or war time, or refusing to grant shelter and aide to prisoners of war because they do not worpship your god - these acts I do not permit and would not tolerate were I able to stop them.

But honour as a whole can be a very helpful thing, and can sometimes be all a man has.

Do nations go to war yes - but ioft great feats are accomplished, glory is won, medicine and technology profit.

Do men kill each other yes - but both men can look their heads high knowing their honour was satisfied.

Rivalries occur - but oft the week or useless are culled.

Honor and pride go hand in hang - and like all things, with moderation can lead to better thiongs.

Telan, are you like ninety years old?

I'm betting the American South, or a very Patriotic part of Britain.

German actually, and 21

You confuse, at least you confuse my definitions of, honor and justice. Did your grandfather lose his life doing what he thought was the honorable thing to do? Probably. Theres always a chance he didn't believe in honor, but I'll take your word for it as he is a member of your family and you, obviously, are fueled extensively by honor. Did the men of Civil War era Northern United States go to war doing what they thought was an honorable thing to do? I suppose so. I hear it was very popular back then, and even is now.

But in both of these situations, those men did not only what they believed was the honorable thing to do, but what they believed and what was the right thing to do. Honor and just, while sometimes going hand in hand, may also be mortal enemies. Sure, man's perspective might allow him to mutate his belief in what is right to a point where it no longer becomes right, but not as much as man's honor might lead them down the path of injustice, or wrong.

While I can't say I agree with a lot. I mean...a lot of your opinions, Telan. And that, frankly, I'm dumbfounded at how you could possibly believe that imperial dictatorship is the right way to go, I respect your opinions and yourself as a person as well. I think your opinions are utterly wrong, and most of what you found your life on to be flawed (and, for the record, I'm not homophobic in anyway, I respect you for being a homosexual and hold no grudge against you there, just in case my statement might be confused as a gay bash), as you do mine, but I still respect it and hold no prejudice against you.

But right is right, and wrong is wrong. And honor can lead you down both paths.

Weagree on that point - it is a tenuous grasp of things, honour has. But a great man said once -the difference between Honour and Stupidity is a very fine line.

I know you are not gay bashing me.

I think that Imperialism is the true weay to go because I have seen democracy at work and am sickened by the delay, the selfishness, the dollar happy captitalists, and I am sickened by chaso as a whole. I was taught that only one voice, one mind, can rule and rule well - that is simnply what I believe. I would die for a King and Country far before I would lay my life on the line for the Congress and their Staffers.

Unfortunately, there are many people in the world who have plentiful amounts of both.

Indeed there are. I view honour as that which separates men from boys, civilians from Citizens. Honour is the only true to Valhalla as it were. Living one's life with honour guarantees his accomodations in whatever life comes after this one.