quote:It is honor that holds parents to their responsibility to their children, sacrificing much so their children can thrive. It is honor that makes adult children care for their aging parents to the grave.
For myself, I shudder to think of the family in which it takes honor to drive these things.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I suspect you are using a very different definition of "honor" than OSC then.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Where is the quote from?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oops. I must have wiped that part out when I posted the quote. It's from the newest OSC essay that I mistakenly thought people were talking about in the Public Education thread.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Oh, it's OSC? Huh.
Is it possible, Squick, for honor to contribute to a behavior, but for it not to be the only factor contributing to that behavior?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I shudder to think of the family which doesn't have the honor to drive such things. :shrug:
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The bit that stood out for me as something resembling a clearly falsifiable assertion -- as opposed to an opinion I don't share -- is this one:
quote:But in all the world, only two nations that can be called major powers are known to stand by their word no matter what the cost: The United States of America, and Great Britain.
We are held to a higher standard because we hold ourselves to that standard....Part of the reason we are a great power is that we are known as keepers of our word, relentless defenders of freedom and human rights....
We lost our honor once, when we withdrew from Vietnam with promises....
The idea that America stood alone -- even prior to Vietnam -- in keeping its promises is absolutely baffling to me. Practically the first major American political event revolved around our decision to screw over France. We aren't famous for keeping our treaties with the Indian nations. And I don't see how anyone can possibly call our involvement in Panama or the Philippines "honorable."
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:For myself, I shudder to think of the family in which it takes honor to drive these things.
well, it could be any number of things.
Guilt. Expectations. Love. Reputation. Pride. The selfishness of whatever reward you gain out of doing those things. An unquestioning idea of how things should be, or conversely an intellectual position reached through thought and logic on how families should interact. Probably some more too. Honor is just one reason. Equally valid.
Also, it's been pointed out, the term is ambiguous and can mean any number of specific things.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I shudder to think of the family which doesn't have the honor to drive such things.
Is this just a random observation or is it meant to address what I said? edit: If the latter, could you elaborate as to how you felt it touches on what I said?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, the definition of "honor" I typically use doesn't cover many of those situations at first glance, either. Or, rather, I consider other motivations to typically be so much more important as to overwhelm honor as a motivating force in such things.
But if I look at honor as "the desire to perform one's moral obligations even at cost to oneself or in the face of temptation to shirk them," then I see honor coming into play at those times when the other motivations aren't strong enough to naturally compel us.
I more naturally think of this as "fortitude" based on my Catholic education, but I can see it being thought of as honor as well.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But if I look at honor as "the desire to perform one's moral obligations even at cost to oneself or in the face of temptation to shirk them," then I see honor coming into play at those times when the other motivations aren't strong enough to naturally compel us.
That would be close to the definition that I was using.
The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I take back what I said. This is falsifiable, too:
quote:Congress absolutely ratified the waging of the Iraq Campaign. Those who say that the ratification was based on deception are the liars -- no one knew more than we were told about what was going on in Iraq, and when they say otherwise, they know they have no evidence and are making a false and dishonorable charge in order to achieve their political purpose.
Congress authorized the use of force. They did not declare war; no treaty needs to be signed to end hostilities. It is perfectly within their power and their province to confront a president not willing to cease using force to simply withhold funding for the hostilities they previously authorized.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Is this just a random observation or is it meant to address what I said?
From my perspective, it seems that Porter is responding to you the same way you responded to OSC, to encourage you to take a second look at your assumptions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that it's almost impossible to be a good spouse and parent without falling back on honor or duty.
I do not always feel like doing my duty to my family. I don't always feel an overflowing of love for them. There are times where I do what I should merely because I should. That's what I understand the word honor to be in this context.
I think that anybody who does not have the honor to do so even when they don't feel like it is going to fail in their duties.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Oh, it's OSC? Huh.
Is it possible, Squick, for honor to contribute to a behavior, but for it not to be the only factor contributing to that behavior?
I might be wrong, but that could be at the very heart of Mr Squicky's argument against what was said in his quoted text.
What you said would certainly have been my response to someone telling me the things Mr Squicky quoted.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
Squick, if you can find where OSC made this statement, then maybe we'll have a discussion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you read the article through, you'll see that OSC relates honor to trust.
I shudder to think of the family that's trying to make it in the world without trusting one another.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:But if I look at honor as "the desire to perform one's moral obligations even at cost to oneself or in the face of temptation to shirk them," then I see honor coming into play at those times when the other motivations aren't strong enough to naturally compel us.
That would be close to the definition that I was using.
The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
I can think of few people who would always do what's best for their families without honor in this sense. Heck, there are few people who always do the best for their families now.
I think you're reading too much into the statement - I don't think OSC meant "without honor, no one would take care of their family at all." I think he meant "honor is one of the things that make people take care of their family in situations where they would be inclined to do otherwise."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:From my perspective, it seems that Porter is responding to you the same way you responded to OSC, to encourage you to take a second look at your assumptions.
Bingo.
quote:The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
I think it's obviously true. Not that they wouldn't ever take care of each other, but that they wouldn't do it enough.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The issue here boils down to the different ways "honor" is being used in this discussion -- and even within OSC's column. A family cannot survive without trust. A family can survive without traditions of "face" and "duty" that mandate specific behaviors to retain status.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
Squick, if you can find where OSC made this statement, then maybe we'll have a discussion.
He already showed you. It is in the first post in this thread. What you want Mr Squicky to do is show you where that exact phrase was used, because you know that we could argue until we are blue in the face about the implications behind the words. Saying "it is <insert trait> that makes us <insert action>" is a statement that implies either a singular or at least the most significant motivator for an action as fact. It does not post it as a possibility, it does not state explicitly that there may be other factors. It states one factor as the motivator in an absolute statement. Sure, it is a heavily rhetorical statement, but all of our rhetoric should be scrutinized, no?
I found this troubling:
quote:They believe this because it has been true for fifteen years. Honor is something Republicans believe in, so it can be used to destroy them. But because the elitists who run the Democratic Party don't care about honor, it costs the Democrats nothing to break their word.
I could have sworn Mr. Card was a Democrat. I suppose I was wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I think that anybody who does not have the honor to do so even when they don't feel like it is going to fail in their duties.
I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
It's not a matter of not having it. It's a matter of being horrified at the idea that all the other things that, in my opinion, should drive this behavior aren't there or are insufficient.
When my parents get old and need taking care of, I'll do it but not because honor demands that I take care of them as onerous obligations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would have read what MrSquicky quoted the same way he did.
"It is honor that..." seems to me to imply that honor is at least the primary, if not the only, actor.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think that's very honorable, Squicky.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
I have many recollections of such times in my adult life -- any time when I didn't feel like doing my duty. Heck -- just last night I really didn't want to put the kids down to bed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's a matter of being horrified at the idea that all the other things that, in my opinion, should drive this behavior aren't there or are insufficient.
But it's clear that those other things AREN'T there or are insufficient in humanity on a not infrequent basis.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Jutsa, I was pointing out that Squick was reading OSC's statement in the most literal, absolute possible way, and was reacting to things that OSC was clearly not trying to assert. I mean, do you honestly believe that OSC is trying to communicate the idea that love is not a motivating factor for family members to care for each other? That is what Squick is arguing, and it's absurd.
Squick, maybe your misreading of this statement (which for now, I'll judge to be unintentional, giving you the benefit of the doubt), is based on a misunderstanding of the way OSC views honor. To him, doing something for honor can easily be a pleasurable, kind, loving act — it is not required to be onerous. In cases like taking care of family, love and honor can be intertwined, motivating you simultaneously.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But it's clear that those other things AREN'T there or are insufficient in humanity on a not infrequent basis.
Yeah, I get that. Which, to me, is awful.
I'm reminded of OSC's, in his anti-gay marriage column, to me, horifying description of marriage as something that we need to trick people into as opposed to the great boon that, if people understood, most people would really want that I see it as.
I get that the world is far from perfect, but I don't think that comes into play when we're describing the way thigns are across all cases or should be in the normative case.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah, I get that. Which, to me, is awful.
But isn't it good that there's something there to pick up the slack when other motivations break down?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: doing something for honor can easily be a pleasurable, kind, loving act — it is not required to be onerous. In cases like taking care of family, love and honor can be intertwined, motivating you simultaneously.
I agree. I think that love and honor reinforce and strengthen each other -- acting out of honor for my family increases my love for them, and the more I love them, the more I will feel honor-bound to do my duty to them.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
So, Squick, I think I'm having trouble understanding your position. Are you saying that OSC is wrong to assert that honor should matter to families as they determine how to care for each other during the worst of times? Are you saying that he really thinks caring for family is an onerous obligation that only honor could possibly motivate? I'm just trying to figure out where your awful reaction is coming from.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, If that's not the way it was meant, then great. I can only respond to what is written though, and the literal meaning of what is written horrifyies me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think that love and honor reinforce and strengthen each other -- acting out of honor for my family increases my love for them, and the more I love them, the more I will feel honor-bound to do my duty to them.
As I understand honour, it should be independent of how much I love somebody.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Geoff, If that's not the way it was meant, then great. I can only respond to what is written though, and the literal meaning of what is written horrifyies me.
Perhaps you should give OSC the benefit you demand from other people, and when you read an assertion of his that, at its most literal, seems to be untenable by any but the most terrible human being, you ought to assume that you're misinterpreting him.
It's only fair, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I can only respond to what is written though, and the literal meaning of what is written horrifyies me.
That's not all you can do.
You've got several people telling you they don't interpret it the way you do. Your choices are: 1) to be horrified based on your interpretation, 2) to accept, even if you don't quite see how, that it is very likely that OSC meant something very different than what you think he did.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As I understand honour, it should be independent of how much I love somebody.
I completely agree with this. What you're describing, porter, is not what I mean by honor.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:As I understand honour, it should be independent of how much I love somebody.
Good point. But I do think that it is strengthened by love. I guess I'm not a perfect human being.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Jutsa, I was pointing out that Squick was reading OSC's statement in the most literal, absolute possible way, and was reacting to things that OSC was clearly not trying to assert. I mean, do you honestly believe that OSC is trying to communicate the idea that love is not a motivating factor for family members to care for each other? That is what Squick is arguing, and it's absurd.
Do I honestly believe that Mr. Card was speaking in absolutist terms throughout his article? Absolutely. He intentionally disregarded the finer details that would have muddied his points on several occasions, and this could certainly be counted as one of them. You might think that what Mr Squicky is arguing is absurd, but you might be reading the text with some assumptions of Mr. Card's understanding of the finer details of his points that others might not.
Frankly, I think you are being overly defensive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I understand honour, it should be independent of how much I love somebody.
If that's the case, then we have two different things motivating people to care for family members:
1.) Love, which makes us want to care for those we love.
2.) Honor, which demands that we perform moral obligations such as duty to family.
Even if independent, they are not incompatible.
However, I don't think any of the virtues are really independent from each other.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: =You've got several people telling you they don't interpret it the way you do. Your choices are: 1) to be horrified based on your interpretation,
That seems to be par for the course when the premise goes against your (general 'you') beliefs.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
(To be clear, I actually don't think that the burden typically falls upon the reader to assume that the writer always has good intentions. I'm only suggesting that to Squick, because it is a benefit he demands from other posters.)
(My true opinion is similar to Dagonee's ... that people should draw from a variety of sources and circumstances to derive their interpretations, and should not willfully hold themselves to the specific letter of the original statement, just because their argument evaporates if they don't.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Even if independent, they are not incompatible.
Right, but when you are saying it is X that makes someone do something, you are elevating it above all other concerns.
I've got no problem with honor being one of the forces that helps bind families together. Saying that it is what makes people do things for people is what I had a problem with.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
That is fine, Puppy. However, based on the rest of that article, I tend to agree that the intent behind the statements was closer to the way Mr Squicky portrayed it. The article contained a lot of statements that were absolutist in nature that were either far too simplified or outright false. I am not trying to assume the worst, but when something is consistent throughout the article the benefit of the doubt gets stretched a bit thin.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Frankly, I think you are being overly defensive.
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that this is something that needs to be defended I'm mostly just staring dumbfounded at my screen, trying to come up with ways to defend against an attack that seems to come completely out of nowhere, based apparently on a willfull hyperliteral interpretation of OSC's statements.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:when you are saying it is X that makes someone do something, you are elevating it above all other concerns.
No you're not. Saying that X makes you do something does not exclude Y and Z as reasons.
I ate salad last night because I was hungry.
I ate salad last night because I'm trying to eat better.
I ate salad last night because we had it in our fridge.
I ate salad last night because I wasn't in the mood for pizza.
I ate salad last night because I really like that pork roast in a salad.
Each one is true, but not exclusively so.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I ate salad last night because we had it in our fridge.
Porter, I think it's AWFUL that someone would eat salad just because it's there, when there are obvious health benefits to doing so! What a terrible world you must live in, where no one even cares about their own well-being!
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:Frankly, I think you are being overly defensive.
Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that this is something that needs to be defended I'm mostly just staring dumbfounded at my screen, trying to come up with ways to defend against an attack that seems to come completely out of nowhere, based apparently on a willfull hyperliteral interpretation of OSC's statements.
Well, that is just it: I don't believe it was a hyperliteral interpretation. Or, if it was, it is based on the absolutist nature of the rest of the rant in that article. That article tends to paint everything black and white, good and bad, honorable or not. Within that context, I can see how an interpretation like Mr Squicky's has merit. You, I assume, do not. I am not defending Mr Squicky's being horrified at the statement, I am just saying that comparing the different interpretations given thus far by those in this thread, his is the one that seemed to be more like the tenor of the rest of the article.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"It was salad that I ate last night", does not lead one to infer that you also ate a bunch of other things.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Right, but when you are saying it is X that makes someone do something, you are elevating it above all other concerns.
I've got no problem with honor being one of the forces that helps bind families together. Saying that it is what makes people do things for people is what I had a problem with.
I think he said "It is honor that holds parents to their responsibility to their children" to specify it as part of a package of motivations and to give an indication of the time when that motivation is most useful - when one is tempted to stray. The second sentence, with "make," was, to my eye, meant to continue the same connotation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, None of the those statements took the form that I'm talking about (i.e. it is X that makes someone do something). As such, I don't think you addressed my point.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think we're missing the real point of this thread, though — that for the first time, we have encountered an individual who has never acted except out of complete love and compassion for his family, who has never had a self-interested desire that overcame his loving motivation, and who has never had to resort to honor as a motivator to prevent him from doing something he would later regret.
Squicky, you are a god among men, and I'm very glad you started this thread to let us all discover your exceeding perfection Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff, I've treated you with respect and civility throughout this thread. I would ask for the same from you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"It was salad that I ate last night", does not lead one to infer that you also ate a bunch of other things.
But it also shouldn't lead one to infer that he didn't eat anything else last night.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am highly doubtful any statements that imply that every action ever undertaken was done out of the warmest and purest of emotions with no interference from personal desires.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I am highly doubtful any statements that imply that every action ever undertaken was done out of the warmest and purest of emotions with no interference from personal desires.
I am unaware of statements to this effect anywhere in the context of this thread.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:None of the those statements took the form that I'm talking about (i.e. it is X that makes someone do something). As such, I don't think you addressed my point.
Every single one of those statements could be re-worded to that form. It's a different way of saying the same thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
Never?! Granted 'honor' is a very tricky, subjective term, but you have never felt even a bit of the tug of duty or honor or obligation reinforcing your pre-existing impulse to care for the people you love?
Apparently, your life is peopled entirely by saints and heroes.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think we're missing the real point of this thread, though — that for the first time, we have encountered an individual who has never acted except out of complete love and compassion for his family, who has never had a self-interested desire that overcame his loving motivation, and who has never had to resort to honor as a motivator to prevent him from doing something he would later regret.
Squicky, you are a god among men, and I'm very glad you started this thread to let us all discover your exceeding perfection
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Apparently, your life is peopled entirely by saints and heroes.
I'm sorry, I have to ask again: why are some people allowed to engage in this type of insulting behavior and not get called on it? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Well, it's true he never states the actual emotions that motivate him. For all he specifies, it could be fear.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:"It was salad that I ate last night", does not lead one to infer that you also ate a bunch of other things.
But it also shouldn't lead one to infer that he didn't eat anything else last night.
Then we disagree. I think it is a reasonable, if not perfect, inference.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, From my perspective, it isn't.
Could you show me how you would reword those statements into the form that is what I'm talking about?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Never?! Granted 'honor' is a very tricky, subjective term, but you have never felt even a bit of the tug of duty or honor or obligation reinforcing your pre-existing impulse to care for the people you love?
Of course I have. Why is this question relevant?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm sorry, I have to ask again: why are some people allowed to engage in this type of insulting behavior and not get called on it?
I'm often called on it. But quit your whining, Jutsa. In the arguments between you and me, you started that behavior, and not me. And you've kept it up. So cry me a river.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It was hunger that made me eat salad last night. It was a desire to eat better that made me eat salad last night. The fact that I found it in my fridge made me eat salad last night.
The remainder are left as an exercise for the interested student.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Of course I have. Why is this question relevant?
quote:I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, To my eye, You've significantly changed the meaning of your statements.
You cannot say those statements together like you could the first ones. The first formulation talks of contributory things. The second, the thing that made you do it. Also, you've moved from active to passive.
These are very different things to me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, And your point would be...
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I'm sorry, I have to ask again: why are some people allowed to engage in this type of insulting behavior and not get called on it?
Jutsa, are you insinuating that the two specific people you cited receive some sort of special benefit that others don't? From what I've seen, insulting behavior is pretty common here, on all sides of every line (though far less so than in other places I've been).
I'd call my behavior towards Squick "mocking" rather than "insulting", personally. Perhaps "satire" if I'm generous with myself
He is holding himself up as an counterexample to OSC's assertion that honor is an important motivator to caring families, claiming that he needs no honor because of his pure, overwhelming love that overrides all other concerns. I think it's a silly thing to have done, given that his opponents are using the much-more-believable claim of their own IMperfection to bolster their own arguments. Mockery seemed the most appropriate response. Sorry if anyone was offended.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You cannot say those statements together like you could the first ones. The first formulation talks of contributory things. The second, the thing that made you do it.
The second talks of contributory things as well. The meaning is exactly the same in the two lists.
quote:And your point would be...
How can you ask that with a straight face?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:claiming that he needs no honor because of his pure, overwhelming love that overrides all other concerns
No I'm not.
quote:OSC's assertion that honor is an important motivator to caring families
If OSC wrote anything like this, I wouldn't have started this thread.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:No I'm not.
That's how I interpreted your statements. Clearly, it must be possible for someone to make a statement that reads a certain way, though it was intended in another.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Perhaps you would care to clarify your position, Squicky. It sure seems like different things you've said in this thread are entirely contradictory.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's true. You haven't named your motivations that are so strong you have no need of honor. Those motivations could be anything. You haven't claimed love but you seem to repudiate it when someone has put that motivation on you, so maybe it's something else. Fear? Brainwashed? The voices in your head tell you to? You have no desires other than to serve?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Perhaps you would care to clarify your position, Squicky. It sure seems like different things you've said in this thread are entirely contradictory.
Yes, because I've been given such reason to believe that the people on this thread are treating me with respect and in good faith.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Thread time-out.
Edit -- I apologize if anyone lost a post because I locked this while they were typing in a reply. And I will unlock the thread in a short while.
Time in. Please keep it cool. --PJ
[ April 19, 2007, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I read the OSC article, and I have a couple curious question for him, that I'll get to in a moment, sorry if I'm stepping on the toes of the family debate going on here, I'll create a second thread if you guys want.
I liked what he had to say about individual honor, and I especially agree with him about honor in business practices.
1. Why on earth does he still call himself a Democrat? It's no longer about him just being ashamed of "his party." He doesn't really seem to agree with them on ANY issue. I don't know if he identifies with Republicans any better, but he certainly likes them more.
2. Was he paying attention AT ALL during the the Midterm elections? Even Blue Dog Democrats, who really were basically just left of center almost Republicans won across the board, but they won based on the issue OSC is claiming they are reneging on. If anyone even turned on a news channel during the midterms, they would have heard about how the Democrats were running on a SINGLE issue, and that issue was the war in Iraq. And after it was over, that turned into a Democrat mandate to end the war and bring the troops home. So how exactly did they break their word when they literally spent the ENTIRE campaign HAMMERING this issue?
3. Does he remember what the Republican congress did during Clinton's administration? When US troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993 is was because the REPUBLICAN Congress pressured and then forced Clinton to do so. What is so honorable about Republicans? What has been honorable about what they have done during the last seven years especially?
Bush isn't being bashed for firing US Attorneys, it's the WAY it was done. If they were being fired for the sake of politics, then fine, presidentials generally do that (they usually do it when their administration starts, and not 7 years later, but whatever), but lying about it to make it NOT look political is worse. He's ruining the careers of innocent individuals to make himself look better while playing partisan politics. So DUH he'll be attacked for that.
4. It's funny OSC should bring up the power of the American presidency and Congress. I spoke about the exact same thing in a recent blog essay of my own. Though I took the polar opposite position of OSC. I think too many of us take 21st century presidential power as a given. But presidents, historically, have NOT had the kind of power that Bush currently enjoys. Congresses are NOT there just to rubber stamp whatever the hell he wants, and when citizens start thinking that way, I wonder how many steps away we are from a dictatorship where Congress becomes a useless puppet.
Augustus Ceasar took control of the Roman Empire by using past institutions of the Republic that people remembered fondly and using them as tools of Imperial control. And it worked oh so sweetly. Slowly over the last 100 years, starting with Teddy Roosevelt, and continuing onward since, the Imperial Presidency has risen sharply in American politics. Congress DOES have the power to START and END wars. If they choose NOT to ratify the treaties that the president makes, then the war stands. At the end of the first World War, Wilson’s treaty was NOT ratified by the Congress, which is part of why the League of Nations failed miserably (it’s also why some American wineries can still call much of their sparkling wine Champagne, even though it isn’t from France). Congress also has the power of the purse. Bush does not have carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants, and if the legally elected Congress decides to stop funding a war, the war ends. Suck it up Bush. If the man can’t convince them of the merits of the war, then he’s failed in more than one way, not just the prosecution of the war. And while the Congress doesn’t make tactical decisions either, they are actively, or should be, involved in the war itself. They should be overseeing contracts, they should be involved in making sure funds are going where they belong, and they should be making sure that the funds they’ve turned over to a foreign government are not being misused. The President automatically get whatever he wants. THAT is the separation powers, and frankly, I hope the Democrats do “shatter” the presidency. Bush needs it to happen to him. He shows open CONTEMPT for another branch of the government because they don’t give him everything he wants.
5. Does he think the insurgency is really in its last throes? Muslim insurgents have been fighting in Palestine for DECADES. They are already ready for the long haul. Even if we stayed for another five years, they would be there, waiting, attacking, waiting, attacking, they’ve made it into a sadistically powerful art form. Leaving tomorrow isn’t going to embolden them anymore than they already have been, because frankly they are WINNING the real war. The war that needs to be one, the POLITICAL war. It’s a war that Bush has seemingly totally ignored in favor of a brute force effort. America might be exposed as unreliable, but we’ve already been exposed as undeniably STUPID in our efforts over there. Maybe if we started listening to our allies and paying attention to experts and GENERALS IN THE FIELD then we wouldn’t be in such a mess right now.
6. Has he seen the state of the US military lately? People are leaving it in DROVES. By the THOUSANDS. We have equipment shortages, we have training shortages, we have manpower shortages. They don't all want to stay until the job is done. Many thousands of them think we are wasting our time fighting a war that can’t be won with guns.
Frankly I’m not entirely convinced that the Democrats have a solution that is any better. But trying to shut them up, especially in an effort to support the clusterfrick that is the Bush Administration’s handling of the war is the dumbest thing I have seen suggested for a citizenry to do in quite some time. The Democrats are asking important questions that the Republicans have been shushing them on since the war started, and I find it insanely hard to believe that an intelligent person would seriously support that effort.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:He doesn't really seem to agree with them on ANY issue.
This just flat isn't true. Gun control is the one that leaps readily to mind, but there are many others, especially in the economic policy area.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll concede that, but the question stands. I only ever see him beating up on present day Democrats, so I really am curious to see what it is that supposedly keeps him in the party.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Immigration, too, I think.
Lyrhawn:
Your #6 is hard to swallow. Leaving by the THOUSANDS? Are you being hyperbolic?
quote:And after it was over, that turned into a Democrat mandate to end the war and bring the troops home. So how exactly did they break their word when they literally spent the ENTIRE campaign HAMMERING this issue?
I disagree. It seemed to me that the thrust of the Democrats' message was more along the lines of Bush's mismanagement and possible deception, NOT specifically troop withdrawal.
quote:When US troops pulled out of Somalia in 1993 is was because the REPUBLICAN Congress pressured and then forced Clinton to do so. What is so honorable about Republicans? What has been honorable about what they have done during the last seven years especially?
OSC said:
quote:But George Bush, Sr., found his honor when Kuwait was invaded. "This will not stand," he said, and he put together the coalition that made it true.
Thus, after a couple of decades of being missing, we became, once again, a nation that kept its word.
Oh, wait. I forgot about that call for an uprising against Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War, which we then did nothing to support.
And about Rwanda, where we did nothing to save the Hutus even though any display of force would have stopped the genocide.
Oh, yes. Somalia, too.
OSC criticized both the Reagan and Bush I administrations for dishonorable conduct in foreign affairs.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My impression was that the blame was being pinned on Clinton for leaving after Mogadishu, and not Republicans. I was curious as to whom he believes was at fault there.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on our perceptions of the midterms. In dozens of articles and stories I saw and read during the run-up to the midterms, Democrats were pounding the message that we needed to bring the troops home. Yes that was tied into the greater argument on how Bush botched and bungled the war itself, but the thrust of the argument was to pull out. "Bring the troops home," was an anthem. They also talked about raising the minimum wage and other big hot ticket liberal items too, but ending the war was easily the biggest campaign issue, and from day one they said it would be a top priority.
Newly elected Blue Dog Democrats knew exactly what they were getting into. It's why Rahm Emmanuel specifically went looking for ex-soldiers who just got back from the Iraq War and were wholly disenchanted by it.
#6 is not hyperbole. There are major manpower shortages in the Army right now. People really are leaving in droves. The Army has had to steal personnel from the Navy and the Air Force and task them to non "combat" roles (though such a post doesn't exist in reality) like driving trucks in order to free up more troops for the front lines. It's also why they've had to severely lower the requirements, both in age, criminal records, and physical condition for new recruits, in order to shoehorn them in the door. They also like more recruits to at least be high school graduates, and yet new recruits have the highest drop out rate from high school since the draft ended. In other words, not only do we have fewer recruits, but the ones we are getting are increasingly too old, too fat, too unhealthy or less educated than we used to want them to be.
And if you read the Army Times and other military magazines, you'll see polling data that indicates thousands of US troops think we can't win the war through military means, and thousands more who think we should just leave.
On top of that, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars (and that is not hyperbole at all) more this year than we were just two years ago on enticing people to stay in the military. We're offering outlandish bonuses to soldiers to resign. Frankly I wonder at what point they stop being soldiers and start being mercenaries. We're spending a couple billion dollars on bonuses to keep soldiers in who otherwise wouldn't reenlist. Doesn't sound like they are eager to finish the job to me.
And I wasn't being hyperbolic about the readiness state of the Army either. Equipment is breaking down, or it's just plain not available. And resupply isn't keeping up with the rate our materiel is breaking down or being destroyed.
To be honest, I don't have specific data on who has left the service in the last year, or more, but I know from articles that I have read that the numbers are high, and given everything that's being done to force or cajole them to stay in the service, and given the high disapproval ratings the war has amongst the enlisted ranks, I don't think my statement was hyperbole at all.
Edit to add: The drain of soldiers isn't just among the enlisted men, it's also among the officers. West Pointers, especially recent graduates, are either dropping out of school, or they are leaving the service after just a few years. 46% of officers who graduated in 2001, and more than %53 of those who graduated in 2000, had left the service by January of 2007. It is the highest rate of officers leaving after their mandatory 5 year service in the last 30 years.
[ April 20, 2007, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:My impression was that the blame was being pinned on Clinton for leaving after Mogadishu, and not Republicans. I was curious as to whom he believes was at fault there.
OSC doesn't even mention Bill Clinton in relation to foreign affairs.
We have precisely one line from which you're deriving your criticism-- and in context of the article, your point of view does not hold up.
quote:I don't have specific data on who has left the service in the last year, or more, but I know from articles that I have read that the numbers are high, and given everything that's being done to force or cajole them to stay in the service, and given the high disapproval ratings the war has amongst the enlisted ranks, I don't think my statement was hyperbole at all.
By "leave," I think you mean, "doesn't re-enlist." I have found some numbers on it, and you're right, there are lots of people electing to not re-enlist, or to retire. I don't imagine that the 15-month deployment change is going to help things at all...
That treats mostly with the US Army in Europe, but mentions that re-enlistment rates for soldiers in Iraq/US are predictably lower.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
quote:For myself, I shudder to think of the family in which it takes honor to drive these things.
&
The idea that, without honor, the people in a family wouldn't take care of each other is a horrifying one to me.
&
I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
It's not a matter of not having it. It's a matter of being horrified at the idea that all the other things that, in my opinion, should drive this behavior aren't there or are insufficient.
If you're interested in an explanation for the surprised and mocking reactions to what you said, Mr. Squicky, I'll give it to you now as politely as possible (and please bear in mind, my use of the word 'mocking' is not meant to be insulting in and of itself, but as a mere description of what happened).
The first quote is not so objectionable, in my opinion. I agree with you, a family that takes care of each other solely out of obligations of honor and duty is deeply disturbing at best to me. I feel the same way about the second quote, although I and many others did not read the OSC quote the same way you did...and to be honest, given many other statements OSC has made in the past regarding family and committment, I do believe that ours was the more reasonable, rational interpretation. But be that as it may, well-meaning people can disagree on all of that, and I still agree with the statements you made, when I take into account the interpretation you were working from, despite disagreeing with that interpretation.
It's the quotes in bold that, in my opinion, led to the reaction you got. You're certainly a proponent of speaking your mind to someone you're disagreeing with, even if the thoughts are rude or aggressive, so I'm not going to shy from doing so here. I'll try to keep it as cut-and-dried as possible, though.
When I think of my family, I can easily recall numerous times in the past when they upset me deeply, or just exasperated me, or wore me out, a variety of things. They've been my family for over 26 years now, that's only natural. I can also think--and I know that for other members of my family, it is the same with them--of times when I was so upset that I refrained from saying or doing things, in the heat of the moment, because they were my family, and one of the things I believe about life is that you Stick By Your Family. Blood is thicker than water. There are many aphorisms about this, pointing to the idea that love alone is not, as you claim is the case for you, the only force needed to drive you to do the right thing.
This goes as equally true for the rest of my family as well, as discussed both after arguments and in general, just about beliefs, the way people discuss the things they believe. Also, it goes as true for some of my closer friends in life, and at work. From many people I know well, I have heard stories of times when they would have rather just done their own thing instead of owning up to their obligations and duties. Instead of behaving honorably. Now, if they didn't feel those obligations, would they just have left or done the selfish thing? Who can say? The best we can do is guess, but I'm not interested in guessing. I am pointing out that for much of my family and many of my friends, from numerous walks of life, love alone was not the only thing which kept them tied to doing the right thing for their families.
Thus to me, your statement is a very surprising one. I'll be honest: I do not believe you when you say it, because it's so surprising and unlikely to me that it turns your statement from just a statement into sheer brag and bluster. I do not arrive at this conclusion because it is you doing the speaking, but for the reasons I've outlined above. And when you add in a descriptive and critical word such as 'horrifying' into your statements, well, I'm going to feel pretty insulted.
So, this is the reason why I, at least, responded the way I did. I'm not going to apologize for it, because I've thought about it for a day now, and it's still the conclusion I come up with. I wouldn't mind hearing how you meant it, but I submit that my interpretation was very reasonable...and perhaps the only interpretation that could be drawn from your words alone.
J4
[ April 20, 2007, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I am pointing out that for much of my family and many of my friends, from numerous walks of life, love alone was not the only thing which kept them tied to doing the right thing for their families.
I never said it was for me either.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The second talks of contributory things as well. The meaning is exactly the same in the two lists.
So, would you say it is fair to say that the media coverage of Columbine made the VA Tech shooter do what he did?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You have rejected honor as a motivation, and stronly implied that people are wrong when they assume your motivation is love. What are your motivations?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:stronly implied that people are wrong when they assume your motivation is love.
No I haven't. I've strongly implied people are wrong when they assume that love is my only motivation.
Edit: Haven't done this either
quote:You have rejected honor as a motivation
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What are your motivations?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The same things that most decent people feel in regards to the people they care about.
What are your motivations for taking care of the people you care about?
edit: If I had any belief that this would be an actual discussion with people trying to understand what I'm saying as opposed to people looking for ways to pick apart what I say and pile on the insults again, I might respond differently.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I am pointing out that for much of my family and many of my friends, from numerous walks of life, love alone was not the only thing which kept them tied to doing the right thing for their families.
I never said it was for me either.
Mr. Squicky,
It sounded like you were for me. I'll show you what I mean...
quote:I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
It's not a matter of not having it. It's a matter of being horrified at the idea that all the other things that, in my opinion, should drive this behavior aren't there or are insufficient.
The first statement clearly says that in your life, you don't remember ever needing anything beyond love to take care of the people you love. In the second statement, you reinforce that opinion by saying you're horrified at those who have needed honor and obligation as a prod to do so.
J4
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The first statement clearly says that in your life, you don't remember ever needing anything beyond love to take care of the people you love.
Where did I say that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The second talks of contributory things as well. The meaning is exactly the same in the two lists.
So, would you say it is fair to say that the media coverage of Columbine made the VA Tech shooter do what he did?
Exactly as fair as it would be to say "The VA Tech shooter did what he did because of the the media coverage of Columbine."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, you are using your own motivations as the standard by which you justify your recoiling in horror at the idea of honor.
Your motivations are very, very relevant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding what you said, but it really does seem plain to me. You said that you don't remember ever needing honor or obligation to take care of the people you love.
Well then, what did you need? Edit: You've answered this with "the same things that most decent people etc. etc.", which to me seems to plainly be pointing at "love".
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But quit your whining, Jutsa. In the arguments between you and me, you started that behavior, and not me. And you've kept it up. So cry me a river.
Incidentally, I checked with my brother and sister in law. "He started it." isn't something they'd accept as a valid excuse from my 4 1/2 year old neice for bad behavior on her part.
I don't think it is something we should accept from adults either.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Love, honor, trust-- to me they're very similar things. EDIT: That is to say, I recognize a semantic difference between them, but philosophically they're so intertwined in my brain that there's not much sense in picking one out to put above the others.
Who feels differently?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Exactly as fair as it would be to say "The VA Tech shooter did what he did because of the the media coverage of Columbine."
I disagree, but ok.
So, is that a fair thing to say?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Although I can understand being afraid of being treated the same way you treat others. Of course you don't want to say - when someone else shared their motivations, you immediately attacked. Of course you're paranoid - you expect others to act the way you do.
quote:So, is that a fair thing to say?
I find this question to be ridiculous, manipulative, and disingenuous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:edit: If I had any belief that this would be an actual discussion with people trying to understand what I'm saying as opposed to people looking for ways to pick apart what I say and pile on the insults again, I might respond differently.
Gee, when I do something like that (except I actually answer the questions asked) you accuse me of game-playing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Love, honor, trust-- to me they're very similar things.
Who feels differently?
Obviously, I do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
Yeah, I've heard you say that before. It didn't impress me then, it doesn't impress me now. And there's more to it than that between Jutsa and I as it is.
I'm not looking to sidetrack this discussion towards that one again, so I'll just point out that you've repeatedly accused people in this thread of duplicity and let that stand for itself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hunnert! EDIT: CONFOUNDED J!
See the edit, Squicky.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Love, honor, trust-- to me they're very similar things.
Who feels differently?
Obviously, I do.
And obviously OSC feels differently than you, so being horrified at what he said using your definitions doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I do too. There a quite a few people that I love very much, but wouldn't trust with a quarter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Exactly as fair as it would be to say "The VA Tech shooter did what he did because of the the media coverage of Columbine."
I disagree, but ok.
So, is that a fair thing to say?
Which one do you think is more fair and why?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The because of. It provides a reason. It is, as porter said, a statement of contributory factors (although it is more so when combined with other statements of the same sort as porter did when he presented the example).
The first identifies it, not as something that contributes to the behavior, or that influences it, but as the thing that "made" him do it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:There a quite a few people that I love very much, but wouldn't trust with a quarter.
Likewise, there are people that I trust that I do not love in any sort of inter-personal way.
Also, I think that honor that is performed only towards people you love doesn't deserve the name of honor. As has been said, honor is a completely separate thing from love.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So have you ever needed to fall back on duty and obligation--even in part--to take care of and do the right thing by your family?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So have you ever needed to fall back on duty and obligation--even in part--to take care of and do the right thing by your family?
Where would you get the idea that I didn't?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Not that I want to get too drawn into this convo., it looks like ya'll are having so much fun...
But I agree MrS. (<- regarding 2:20 post)
My take: Honor intales obligation, and if I feel obligated to do something, that makes it very unlikely that I'll do it. I subscribe to the "I do what I want. You can't make me do anything else" school of thought.
Of course, I want to help and support my family now and forever into the future, based on a variety of motivations ranging from liking them as people, loving them as family and showing general appreciation for the support they've shown me. If I felt like I was obligated to help them, as honor would imply (as far as my understanding of honor goes) it would make me resentful. I'd still do it, because I still want to do it, but it would make it more dificult on me and I'd prefer to just leave honor out of it, completely seperate. Honor's more of an anti-motivator for me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hmmm...thinking about how doing something (or not doing something) for someone I love feels different than something I do (or don't do) because I am honour-bound. They do seem to be very different to me. What I do for people I love is because their happiness is essential to my own happiness. Honour seems to be to be more abstract, doing something because not doing it reflects on my own character.
Musing...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Because of my own ideas of what the word 'honor' means, and also every definition I've ever heard used in writing or in speech.
But if you don't define honor that way, why must OSC? The word is mentioned only twice in the essay, and it was mentioned specifically alongside and seperate from the word 'honor'.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The word is mentioned only twice in the essay, and it was mentioned specifically alongside and seperate from the word 'honor'.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. What word?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Duty'. You say that, for you, honor does not include duty and obligation. Why do you assume OSC's definition is different from yours?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You say that, for you, honor does not include duty and obligation.
No I didn't.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:So have you ever needed to fall back on duty and obligation--even in part--to take care of and do the right thing by your family?
Where would you get the idea that I didn't?
I'm guessing it's from this statement of yours:
quote:I have no recollection of a time in my adult life where I needed honor as a prod or reinforcement to take care of the people I love.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Where does that talk about duty and obligation? I thought it said honor.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, how about you explain how you define honor.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Where does that talk about duty and obligation? I thought it said honor.
You said that the following definition of honor is "close to the definition [you were] using" : "the desire to perform one's moral obligations even at cost to oneself or in the face of temptation to shirk them"
By your own words, honor and obligation are tied together.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This is so confusing...
What part, exactly, do you object to in OSC's remarks? If OSC's definition of honor does include obligation and duty, then you're admitting that sometimes you too fall back on those things.
If it doesn't include duty and honor, then exactly how are you objecting to it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
More musing...
I think that if a hypothetical child told me that it was honour (or obligation or duty) that made him take care of me in my dottage, I would be very tempted to tell him where to shove his honour.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:honor and obligation are tied together.
Of course they are. But though all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares (yeah, not the best example to get my point across. Sorry.). Honor and obligation are related, but they are not equal nor is one a strict subset of the other.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't see the point of separating honor, love, and trust as you seem to do, Squick. At least not as it pertains to family living.
Can you explain?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Please explain more how your definitions of honor, duty, and obligation are tied together, so that we can understand how it is possible for you to have never needed honor as a reinforcement to take care of the people you love, yet you have fallen back on duty and obligation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
They are very, very different things. As has been said, you trust people that you love, love people you don't trust, and honor doesn't have much to do with either (well maybe trust, depending).
I think honor is a very important thing. It helps govern our reactions such that we do the right thing even in situations and with people that we may not like.
There is certainly room for honor in the various familial relationships, but the idea that it is the thing that is needed to make family members take care of each other is, to me, just awful.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think that if a hypothetical child told me that it was honour (or obligation or duty) that made him take care of me in my dottage, I would be very tempted to tell him where to shove his honour.
I believe it is my duty and obligation to take care of my parents, and I hope I am honorable enough to fulfill those obligations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And more...
Part of what bothered my about the section that Mr Squicky quoted was that I got the impression that, rather than being an immediate, temporary, bridge between the deeper motivation of love, that honour was the prime motivation.
That we do something out of honour instead of honour being a fallback safety net kind of motivator.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Please explain more how your definitions of honor, duty, and obligation are tied together, so that we can understand how it is possible for you to have never needed honor as a reinforcement to take care of the people you love, yet you have fallen back on duty and obligation.
If I thought that it would accomplish this goal, I surely would. But I don't see how giving people who appear to me to be acting in bad faith more things to jump on when I'm talking about a complex subject is something I have any desire to do.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
If I told my parents that I felt obligated to take care of them in their decling health and would do my duty, I think that they would be very sad.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
My parents also. If my kids told that to me, it would break my heart.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dagonee is right. When he says this sort of thing, he's playing games. When he speaks very specifically and carefully, limiting his comments to a specific area, somehow it's out of bounds and he should converse as you would like him to converse.
Why are you different?
At this point, please note that I'm no longer interested in learning more about what you think on this subject. You've danced around, you've answered questions with questions, and I think you've been deliberately obtuse in this thread. I wasn't--after my initial comment, in which I was, a bit--acting in "bad faith", but now I'm just illustrating your hypocrisy.
Good job!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If I thought that it would accomplish this goal, I surely would.
That means you are nothing but attacking - you refute, but do not provide. That is not a discussion, that's target practice by you.
You want a discussion? Pony up. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think that if a hypothetical child told me that it was honour (or obligation or duty) that made him take care of me in my dottage, I would be very tempted to tell him where to shove his honour.
I believe it is my duty and obligation to take care of my parents, and I hope I am honorable enough to fulfill those obligations.
See, honourable or not, I would take care of my parents because the thought of them suffering because they aren't taken care of is painful to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And more...
Part of what bothered my about the section that Mr Squicky quoted was that I got the impression that, rather than being an immediate, temporary, bridge between the deeper motivation of love, that honour was the prime motivation.
That we do something out of honour instead of honour being a fallback safety net kind of motivator.
Why is it that that is so troubling, an impression based exclusively on a judgement of the author's definition of a very subjective word...
...and yet, for some strange reason, we're supposed to not make inferences on definition when it's Mr. Squicky doing the talking, and uses words like 'horrible'?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
A friend of mine had her grandmom go into the hospital sort of around me. Her family were far away and couldn't travel for a day. They weren't getting clear answers as to how she was on the phone, so she called me up to go and see how she was doing.
She said she had no doubt that unless I was in the middle of something extremely important, I'd drop what I was doing and go. I did.
It wasn't honor that made me do this. It wasn't my sense of duty of obligation that she had faith in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: If I told my parents that I felt obligated to take care of them in their decling health and would do my duty, I think that they would be very sad.
You are nicer than I am. See my post on this.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I think that if a hypothetical child told me that it was honour (or obligation or duty) that made him take care of me in my dottage, I would be very tempted to tell him where to shove his honour.
I believe it is my duty and obligation to take care of my parents, and I hope I am honorable enough to fulfill those obligations.
See, honourable or not, I would take care of my parents because the thought of them suffering because they aren't taken care of is painful to me.
Like I said before, there are times where the feelings of love I have are inadequate to motivate me to my duty.
Maybe I would take care of them just because that's what I felt like doing -- I have no way of knowing.
But I hope to have the honor to take care of them even if I don't feel like it.
In this context, I guess that honor is pretty much synonymous with the word character.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And that's relevant how, exactly?
Edit: That's to Mr. Squicky.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bah! Semantics.
I feel a duty to take care of my parents; I feel an obligation to my children...
...because I love them.
Duh.
It's a wonderful burden.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
duty != onerous duty
obligation != unwelcome and burdensome obligation
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, If someone loves another person, say their spouse, but that spouse is abusive and treats them very poorly, do they have a duty or obligation to care for them?
I think that these are easily separate concepts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, this is an interesting conversation (at least to me). It is becoming less interested because it feels like you are "meta-izing" it.
Scott, I think that may be where you and I differ. Honour, duty, obligation, to me, suggest something more abstract and less personal. Something more about my character and who I am in the world and less about my close relationships.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And I'm the only one "meta-izing" it, hmm? It's fascinating how these double-standards Mr. Squicky complains about (but never admit to) can run sometimes.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But I hope to have the honor to take care of them even if I don't feel like it.
In this context, I guess that honor is pretty much synonymous with the word character.
porter, This suonds to me like you are including many things under the definition of honor that don't necessarily belong there and, thus, weakening what I think is a very important concept.
Also, the idea of "not feeling like" taking care of your parents as anything besides a momentary lapse is a pretty bad one to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why are you even saying that, if you're unwilling to discuss what your definition of honor is? If you're not willing to discuss it more in detail, then the only purpose of your post must be to disagree, and nothing else.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But I don't see how giving people who appear to me to be acting in bad faith
I wonder. What should be done when both sides of a discussion think that the other side is acting in bad faith?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Scott, If someone loves another person, say their spouse, but that spouse is abusive and treats them very poorly, do they have a duty or obligation to care for them?
I think that these are easily separate concepts.
I know someone in the horrible situation of caring for a husband that (not a very nice person to begin with) is suffering from a brain tumor that makes him cruel and abusive. There may be vestiges of love, but it is duty that is keeping her there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
kmboots, how do you define honor?
I suspect that while we are working from different definitions, there is more agreement than disagreement about the feelings we are having such a hard time agreeing on the appropriate terms for. This includes OSC. Maybe that wasn't understood by the original poster, which led to the strong and pejorative words which led to the reaction.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I wonder. What should be done when both sides of a discussion think that the other side is acting in bad faith?
Are you wondering, or are you just accusing me of acting in bad faith?
Because we can talk about it productively in the first case. The second, not so much.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squick, I think your world would a lot happier and your posting on Hatrack a lot more productive and relevant if you started with the assumption that people are generally decent and are acting from decent motives.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You've made it pretty clear that even if he says he was actually wondering, you won't believe him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, that's what I am trying to get at. With any "big" concept it gets tricky (that's why it's fun).
I think it is a personal commitment to do the "right" thing whatever that is. A decision that one makes about oneself to be the kind of person who does the right thing.
edit: in response to kat asking what my definition of honour is.
edit again: and similar to the definitions that Dagonee and MrS talked about about page 1.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm going to repeat this because I don't think it should be lost:
Squick, I think your world would a lot happier and your posting on Hatrack a lot more productive and relevant if you started with the assumption that people are generally decent and are acting from decent motives.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Are you wondering, or are you just accusing me of acting in bad faith?
I am not accusing you of bad faith, but I can promise you that some people in this discussion have seriously wondered whether you are or not.
I have certainly appeared to be acting in bad faith in parts of this discussion.
But then, apparently the other side has appeared the same to you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, What would you do in my position?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
How does this relate to the 4th Commandment, "Honor thy parents"?
Heinlein wrote in Job that while "honor thy parents" is throughout the Bible (besides the 4th Commandment), nowhere does it command "love thy parents." The main character says he followed the commandment in various ways, caring for his mother until her death despite not loving her. Is this better or worse than abandoning her?
Also, where is Tresopax/Xaposert in all this? To really stoke up a semantics/redefinition brou-haha we need him to redefine terms that we can all then disagree with. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: porter, What would you do in my position?
I don't understand your position well enough to fairly answer that question. I'm afraid that if I tried it would come across as misrepresenting you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:If someone loves another person, say their spouse, but that spouse is abusive and treats them very poorly, do they have a duty or obligation to care for them?
The point is that because of their love, they may feel that they have a duty to them.
I disagree strongly with the compartamentalization of these emotions-- "Love, go thus! AND NO FURTHER! Honor, you get back in your cubby... AND NO WHISPERING!"
Dude, it's futile to pick at the strands of honor, love, and trust-- they all knit up in the human heart in a big, floppy, tangled mess. But you go ahead, if that makes you happy.
quote:Honour, duty, obligation, to me, suggest something more abstract and less personal. Something more about my character and who I am in the world and less about my close relationships.
...and from thus, we determine that Mormons are not all cut from the same Jell-o mold. I disagree, but I think you're peachy all the same.
When Christ says 'Take up your cross and follow me,' to me that bespeaks a wonderful burden, that is exactly tangled up with my concepts of honor, love, and trust.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you think, looking over the comments directed at me, comments that, as far as I can tell, got this thread locked, that I have reason to believe that I am not being treated with respect or in good faith? If so, how would you handle it?
Do you think I have reason to believe that if I tried to explain the complexities here, that it would be met by some here as just something to try to jump on and trip me up with? And if so, what would you do in my position?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Morbo, I think that the commandment is using a different definition of "honor" To bestow upon someone the respect they are due etc.
This is different than a sense of personal honor.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I think it is a personal commitment to do the "right" thing whatever that is. A decision that one makes about oneself to be the kind of person who does the right thing.
This is not in disagreement with honor as a motivating factor.
Does anyone actually disagree with anyone here on anything except for Squick's judgmental and pejorative assumptions about OSC?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Do you think, looking over the comments directed at me, comments that, as far as I can tell, got this thread locked, that I have reason to believe that I am not being treated with respect or in good faith?
No, I don't they were acting in bad faith. I think that they many weren't terribly kind in pointing out that what you said didn't seem make sense, but I think they were acting in good faith in saying that they didn't make sense.
quote:If so, how would you handle it?
It depends on whether I suspected they were acting in bad faith or whether I was sure of it. If I suspected it, I'd probably continue the discussion and try to find out. If I were sure they were acting in bad faith, I would probably not continue the discussion at all, because what would be the point?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Dude, it's futile to pick at the strands of honor, love, and trust
I disagree. As has been said, you can trust without love, love without trust, have honor without either. They are actualyl pretty easy to separate, in my view.
Do they combine in many instances? They surely do and may even result in a whole greater than the sum of its parts, but, especially in a statement that isolates them like what OSC literally said, I think it is often very easy to see them distinctly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:especially in a statement that isolates them like what OSC literally said
What OSC said does not isolate them at all.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Thinking 'out loud'...
Honor is something I always though of as other people saying about someone, not something one says about themselves. Kind of like humility. If I do something for my own motives, whether they be duty or love or whatever, and someone says "That was very honorable" I would be a bit suprised and flattered. Whereas if I heard someone say "I am doing this because I am honorable" I would think they are full of themselves. How does this apply to the conversation? Dunno...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Honour, duty, obligation, to me, suggest something more abstract and less personal. Something more about my character and who I am in the world and less about my close relationships.
...and from thus, we determine that Mormons are not all cut from the same Jell-o mold. I disagree, but I think you're peachy all the same.
I think you are peachy, too, but I think you may be confusing me with that other "small K, female theist" who is certainly peachy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I would probably not continue the discussion at all, because what would be the point?
They keep claiming I said things that I didn't say and trying to cast me in a bad light that I don't deserve. Plus, I am actually interested in discussing this with some of the people who are also interested in discussing it and perhaps trying to understand what I'm saying.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:As has been said, you can trust without love, love without trust, have honor without either.
It's been said. It may have even been voted upon.
I don't agree with it as it pertains to family relationships. Honoring your family implies love; and love implies trust.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots:
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I think it is a personal commitment to do the "right" thing whatever that is. A decision that one makes about oneself to be the kind of person who does the right thing.
This is not in disagreement with honor as a motivating factor.
Does anyone actually disagree with anyone here on anything except for Squick's judgmental and pejorative assumptions about OSC?
I disagree in that to me it did seem very much like OSC was naming honour as a "main" motivation in a way that was distateful to me. I don't think that is necessarily perjorative; different people have different motivations. In other words, I read it much the same way MrS did. I think it can be a motivator when all else fails, but I am saddened by personal relationships where it is either a prime motivation or even an oft used safety net.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:and love implies trust.
And yet we have already had people come forward saying that they love people that they don't trust. How do you resolve the paradox? Are they not telling the truth?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:They keep claiming I said things that I didn't say and trying to cast me in a bad light that I don't deserve.
It really, really looks like you did say those things or something similar, and you have repeatedly declined to explain how it is possible that what you said doesn't mean that.
quote:Plus, I am actually interested in discussing this with some of the people who are also interested in discussing it and perhaps trying to understand what I'm saying.
If they are trying to understand what you're saying, then they aren't acting in bad faith. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by vonk: If I told my parents that I felt obligated to take care of them in their decling health and would do my duty, I think that they would be very sad.
You are nicer than I am. See my post on this.
Well, in all honesty, they would probably be very sad and then tell me where I could shove it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:In other words, I read it much the same way MrS did.
Aw. I disagree. I did not read it the way Squicky did at all. There is a great deal left to assumptions here, but I really don't think he meant what y'all think he meant.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:And yet we have already had people come forward saying that they love people that they don't trust. How do you resolve the paradox? Are they not telling the truth?
I was gonna say the same thing, but the discussion is more about honor than trust, so I let it go.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In other words, I read it much the same way MrS did.
It's one thing to read (and possibly mis-read) something said and be horrified by it. It's quite another to continue to be horrified by it even when shown that very likely that interpretation is not the one intended by the writer.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It really, really looks like you did say those things or something similar, and you have repeatedly declined to explain how it is possible that what you said doesn't mean that.
Have I missed a refutation?
Person X says "You said this." I response "No, I didn't." or "Show me where I did." I've even explained in several places where they got it wrong.
Actually reading what I said, especially after I've contradicted the simplistic, make-me-look-bad explanation they gave, would, I think, clear up that no, I did not say what you claimed I did. In fact, I'm almost positive that doing so is one of the things PJ recommended in his post about this, after he locked the thread based, I think, on people's attacks on me.
---
quote:If they are trying to understand what you're saying, then they aren't acting in bad faith.
I agree. I never said these people were acting in bad faith.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:In other words, I read it much the same way MrS did.
Aw. I disagree. I did not read it the way Squicky did at all. There is a great deal left to assumptions here, but I really don't think he meant what y'all think he meant.
I can see that. I can also how a personal knowledge of him would give added insight to what OSC meant. I do think that, without that knowledge, my interpretation is a reasonable one.
All I am evaluating is words on a screen, the idea they convey and how well they convey it. I am not evaluating a person.
Those words either convey an idea that I dislike or they don't convey to me the idea they meant to convey.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And yet we have already had people come forward saying that they love people that they don't trust. How do you resolve the paradox? Are they not telling the truth?
I don't think they're lying. Do you?
I don't think love can exist without trust. Strong emotional attachment can; dependency can. Not love, as I define it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"A" reasonable one, okay. Not the only reasonable one. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I edited somewhat. See above.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't think they're lying.
But you don't think that what they are saying is true, correct?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I don't think love can exist without trust. Strong emotional attachment can; dependency can. Not love, as I define it.
There is someone in my immediate family who is very financially irresponsible. In the past, when I have given him/her money to pay for mutual debts, he/she has held on to the money for a while and spent it on other things. He/she has also not thought about the consequences of their actions and consumed large amounts of consumables that belong to me. Hence, I don't trust him/her. But he/she is still my sibling and I love him/her very much.
I'm not saying your definition is wrong, by any means, but trying to show how I believe it is possible to love without trust, and by extension, to love without honor.
(all the he/she stuff is cause some of my siblings might read this, but there's six of 'em, so they might not be able to figure out who it is)
[ April 20, 2007, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think given the tone of the rest of the piece and the absoluteness it carries, the interpretation I had was the most reasonable one for what OSC wanted to covney. I don't know what he, himself, believes, but that still seems to me to be the thing he wanted to convey.
edit: However, if it is more in line with what (in what seems to be in some cases to be some pretty heavy stretching) some of you are saying, as I've actually said in this very thread, I don't have a problem with that. I'm talking about the idea.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There is someone in my immediate family who is very financially irresponsible. In the past, when I have given him/her money to pay for mutual debts, he/she has held on to the money for a while and spent it on other things. He/she has also not thought about the consequences of their actions and consumed large amounts of consumables that belong to me. Hence, I don't trust him/her. But he/she is still my sibling and I love him/her very much.
You don't trust s/he with money. But I bet you trust her/him with other things, still.
I think that realizing that a person is not good/capable/morally strong enough in one particular area is not the same as not trusting the person as a whole.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
That's true. 'Trust' covers a lot of ground. In a Good Son ending, I'm pretty sure s/he would drop a perfect stranger instead of me.
(The Good Son ending is how I put all loved ones to the test )
Edit: but then 'love' covers a lot of ground to. I love all of humanity, but I certainly don't trust all of humanity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: (The Good Son ending is how I put all loved one's to the test )
So the fact that you're still alive and posting means all your loved ones are worthy of at least some trust. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
But still, I can concieve of a possibility of any one of my siblings somehow becoming addicted to drugs or hooking or whatever and losing all ability to trust that person. But I would still love them, possibly even more.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Hypothetical Good Son ending, silly. Beside, we don't have cliffs in [south] texas.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think that we have different definitions of the word. That's all.
No one's lying. No one's greviously mistaken, or being hurtful.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Also, where is Tresopax/Xaposert in all this? To really stoke up a semantics/redefinition brou-haha we need him to redefine terms that we can all then disagree with.
Hey, I would just like to point out that Hatrack is entirely capable of starting a lengthy discussion of "semantics" entirely without me - and that most of those who regularly complain about it are involved.
I'd add, though, that like most disagreements we have about "semantics" this thread isn't really about the definitions of words; it is about the concepts those words point to. It's not that you all have arbitrarily assigned different definitions to words like "honor". Instead, I think you all know exactly what concept you are talking about when you say "honor" - you simply disagree on the nature of that concept, what it applies to, and how it relates to another concept we all know of as "love". And that is why this discussion is important: because while the definitions of words are arbitrary, the nature of the concepts behind words like "honor" and "love" are critically important to most families. It influences the way people view their relationships. So I don't think this is a waste of four pages of posts.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I do, too. There's some overlap, but it's not required at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:My impression was that the blame was being pinned on Clinton for leaving after Mogadishu, and not Republicans. I was curious as to whom he believes was at fault there.
OSC doesn't even mention Bill Clinton in relation to foreign affairs.
We have precisely one line from which you're deriving your criticism-- and in context of the article, your point of view does not hold up.
quote:I don't have specific data on who has left the service in the last year, or more, but I know from articles that I have read that the numbers are high, and given everything that's being done to force or cajole them to stay in the service, and given the high disapproval ratings the war has amongst the enlisted ranks, I don't think my statement was hyperbole at all.
By "leave," I think you mean, "doesn't re-enlist." I have found some numbers on it, and you're right, there are lots of people electing to not re-enlist, or to retire. I don't imagine that the 15-month deployment change is going to help things at all...
That treats mostly with the US Army in Europe, but mentions that re-enlistment rates for soldiers in Iraq/US are predictably lower.
I'd imagine, and I've read that things are, considerably worse since that article was written two years ago. But it's an early indicator of my point.
I am curious though, why you chose to nitpick "doesn't re-enlist" in place of "leave."
Do you find there is a substantive difference in terminology there?
I'll apologize for the Clinton comment, and retract the question. It's a side point from the main thrust of my argument anyway, and I think it was less from a substantive position (of mine) and more from an emotional position of being sick of Democrats being attacked for trying to stop a war while Republicans are paraded around as defenders of the realm when they did the exact same thing in 1993. I chalk it up to being into the heat of the moment, and not thinking that point through clearly, and making assumptions and connections outside of the material directly in front of me, and I apologize for that.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I will get ignored, but-
Why did I read that? I'm already stressed out these days? He's being too black and white in the article. It's not that simple. For example, when I have children (And adopt) I will take care of them to the best of my abilities, and raise them better than my relatives raised me and discipline them with compassion and love not out of honour, not because their bad behaviour may shame me, but because it's the right thing to do! The world can be such a terrible place filled with cruelty and a lack of compassion, why add more to it? Why treat my children with contempt and cruelty when they will grow up and do the same thing to other people? If I want to make the world better, I would do it by treating everyone with compassion and respect even if they are my enemy. Also, I don't think honor would make a person assume a relative's debts. That wouldn't be a good idea, it's their responsibility to pay, I would not insist a relative of mine take over my debts, I would instead work hard to pay them and put myself in a position where that would not be nessasary. I cannot say I agree with his views on the Republican party. I, perhaps illogically blame them for problems the state's social programs (foster care and the like) because they are the first to insist that taxes be cut for the wealthiest percentile. Perhaps that is not accurate, but it seems to me if that happens the money has to come from somewhere, and usually social programs are cut and if that happens, the first thing to go are programs that help a lot of families. I'm sorry to highjack this thread with this, but nothing, not one thing on earth can possibly be more important than reforming and improving the foster care system. I do not like how the Republican party is in the pocket of the Religious right who inaccurately insists that gays are responsible for the decay of the moral fiber. That's so incorrect. The worse thing, the thing that really negatively effects families is abuse, drug use and alcohol abuse. Think about how these things effect children, how abuse can affect a child's brain development! And a loving adoptive home or foster home is NOT ENOUGH because they have been scared by their abuse and being put in one foster home after another after one failed reunification attempt after another doesn't help either! So why can't more money be spent on foster care? Why can't more money go towards these struggling foster parents who have to deal with all sorts of behavioral problems? But I digress... I don't think the Republicans believe in honor. I don't trust most politicians. Also, what he said about China and their abuse isn't really accurate. Why are so many people on the side of the Dalai Lama trying to free Tibet from the control of China? There are so many things frustrating about this article. I don't think you can state America is always, always good and honourable, it would be different from another perspective, Vietnam, Guatemala, It's hard to know what is true or false when everyone has a different perspective based on politics and religion. His concept of honor is dangerous though, and he continues to speak of Islam as if all practioners of Islam are the enemy. We do not NEED that attitude. That is simular to a lesser degree to the attitudes of Islam clerics. We do NOT NEED A WAR AGAINST RELIGION ANYMORE THAN WE NEED A CULTURE WAR. It's a waste. It's a distraction from the things that really matter that we should be taking care of. I think more energy should be spent on alleviating the things that lead a young man to decide to blow himself up instead of giving him more excuses to destroy his life along with other people. But most likely it will not happen. It's easier to smack a child than to find out what's bothering him... A heck of a lot easier to bomb and fight and attack and do the same thing over and over and get no result but more of the same....
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Bujold, in A Civil Campaign, gives a definition that I found very interesting:
quote:Reputation is what other people know about you. Honour is what you know about yourself.
This may or may not have anything to do with what's going on in the preceding 193 posts, I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Further on the language we use to describe this kind of thing, and random musings towards the end of the work week: In Norwegian, we use the word 'ære' to mean both 'honour' and 'glory' or 'face', while the adjective form 'ærlig', corresponding to 'honourable', actually translates to 'honest'. For example, where the Lord's prayer in English has 'the power and the glory', we have 'the power and the honour'.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Reputation is what other people know about you. Honour is what you know about yourself.
I like that.
I like the book, too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't agree with it as it pertains to family relationships. Honoring your family implies love; and love implies trust.
I agree with this.
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: How does this relate to the 4th Commandment, "Honor thy parents"?
Heinlein wrote in Job that while "honor thy parents" is throughout the Bible (besides the 4th Commandment), nowhere does it command "love thy parents." The main character says he followed the commandment in various ways, caring for his mother until her death despite not loving her. Is this better or worse than abandoning her?
The Torah commands actions, not feelings. (And for the obvious counterexamples you are going to argue with, I insist those are dictating actions. "Love" means "act in a loving way.") Feelings cannot be dictated; behavior can.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I thought I saw 4th Commandment somewhere--now, I dunno. "Feelings cannot be dictated; behavior can." That makes sense, Rivka. Thanks for the response.
Lynn, I'm digesting your post, along with a massive all-you-can eat fish dinner. If I don't pass out I'll comment on your thoughts later. I almost always read your posts when I see them, so don't think you are ignored! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:(At least the way Jews count 'em.)
And the way I've always counted them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know that some Christians count 'em differently than we Jews do. (F'rinstance, it is one of many things bugs the snot out of me about the "writing of the tablets" scene in The Ten Commandments.) I don't recall how the count is different, just that it is. Hence my parenthetical.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
According to wiki, "honor thy parents" is 4th for the Roman Catholic, Lutheran & Anglican faiths and 5th for LDS and the Jewish faith. I assumed everyone agreed at least on the 10 Commandments, but they don't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I love many people I do not trust, especially in my family.
I honor many people I do not love.
I trust many people I do not honor.
And while we're at it, I think the act of "honoring someone" is substantially different in meaning from "possessing honor" or "behaving honorably."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I assumed everyone agreed at least on the 10 Commandments, but they don't.
Why would you assume that?
In fact, I only use the term "Commandments" to avoid confusion (it is the common usage). Better would be "Statements" -- there are more than 10 commandments in there, as well as parts that are declarative alone.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It's 5th for most Protestants as well, but the Protestant and LDS numbering is still different than the Jewish numbering, because the division between #1 & #2 is in a different place. The Jewish break is between "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods before me." The LDS and Protestant numbering includes that all under #1 and has the "no graven images" line by itself as #2. Catholics group all of that together as #1 and split what everyone else calls #10 into coveting your neighbor's wife as #9 and coveting all the other stuff as #10.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think there are multiple definitions of honor, that they inter-relate to a degree, but that their free intermixture leads to a certain amount of confusion. So 'tis in my head, anyway.
Joe has honor: he does what he says he will, he accepts responsibilities even when they are onerous to him, he carries through to the best of his ability in the name of a moral code without other consideration of outcome.
Joe has honor: He honors traditions, establishments, his parents, his elders, his nation, God. He has honor because he honors those he should honor.
Joe has honor: He maintains a successful business, a sound marriage, a family that is progressing in the expected ways. He does not evidence flaws in what are expected of someone in his caste/class/position/status/standing.
As I say, all three could be said to have honor/show honor/be honorable; arguably there are overlaps and similarities; but the three are not identical.
To one standard, honor could never be taken away by the actions of another, because honor is only how one judges oneself and one's actions. Yet in some times and some places, a woman could be dishonored by losing her virginity (willingly or unwillingly), a husband could be dishonored by an insolent child or an unfaithful wife, a businessman could be dishonored by a failure of his company or division (whether he had any direct control over the failure or no.)
I *think* what Mr. Squicky is trying to say is that a relationship maintained only on a basis of honor is the horrible, and that while honor could be an element of a relationship, it should not be anticipated that honor is in some sense the "sine qua non" of a relationship.
And while a single line or lines taken out of context in Card's essay wouldn't necessarily be attributed to the point of view that honor is the crucial factor in any number of societal structures, I could easily see that interpretation based on the combination of lines such as
quote:It is honor that keeps a married man from flirting with a woman who is not his wife. It is honor that holds parents to their responsibility to their children, sacrificing much so their children can thrive. It is honor that makes adult children care for their aging parents to the grave.
along with the succeeding paragraphs that the downfall of honor has led to cheating spouses, dishonest businesspeople, and... Um, Democrats in Congress, I guess.
Without honor, the theme seems to be, all these things fall to pieces.
And, as I say, I think there's a confusion here... The honor due one's country, the honor due the office of the presidency, the honor of keeping one's word, the honor of performing in the expected fashion of a member of Congress or a soldier.
As far as relationships go, while I certainly believe that honor- perhaps in all three senses- can and should be a part of the relationship between spouses or parent and child, I hesitate to make it mandatory. Wolves and ravens, for example, have been known to display elaborate social behaviors, care for young, mate for life... Yet I would hesitate to ascribe the human notion of 'honor' to them.
I mirror Synthesia and Lyrhawn's frustration. It amazes me how callously and ignorantly Card can insult and dismiss millions of people, determining all their motivations as base and duplicitous by fiat. I can and do understand the beliefs and fears that cause people to conclude that the efforts in Iraq are righteous and/or necessary, though I do not agree. Card continues to show neither such an understanding nor any interest in acquiring one.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the two most important definitions are these:
1) "Honor" as respect 2) "Honor" as commitment
Arguing that Democrats do not recognize that a commitment has been made to Iraq would be, in my opinion, a much more effective way to make the same point -- and also offer the opportunity to discuss alternative methods by which this commitment can be fulfilled if we agree that the current approach is failing.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
One more thing... In that line about China and all the other country's human rights violations it makes me think of a younger brother whining about how the older brother can do whatever he wants. The problem is that because America is represented as a country of freedom and honor, it has to be held to a higher standard in a way, especially in the eyes of other countries who will just state, "You talk about how free you are and yet, here you are doing this? How dare you tell us what to do?" Which China has done just rrecently...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lyrhawn-- sorry if I came off nitpicky. I think I misinterpreted your statement as saying that soldiers were abandoning the army.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Scott R -
No problem.
"Abandoning" to me would assign motive to the troops. I have no idea what reasons they have for leaving the service, I just know they are.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
From what I've read, I'm not sure if the Republican party is totally honorable when it comes to troops. Stating that a soldier with post tramatic stress disorder and problems from it got into the military with a pre-existing mental condition to avoid paying a pention...
If that is true...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think they are any more honorable than Democrats as a rule. It was Bush, the leading Republican, who threw a hissy fit when Congress wanted to restore full Veteran's benefits because it would cost so much and screw up his Defense budget. I'm not aware of how Congressional Republicans behaved during the incident.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I cannot comprehend that. Usually I try to keep open-minded. I dislike Bush, but I try not to let it cloud my judgement, but what little I know of him makes me mistrust him and his party so much... I feel that they lack honour and do not care about the troops as much as they'd like people to think they care about them. They also seem to use very tired arguements against people who disagree with them, the way a small child might. Like if you state that they were not prepared to fight the war in Iraq or that the war in Iraq is doomed to failure they'd call you a defeatest or something and site some instances that seem watered down. They posture alot. They, and Bush especially have the stereotypical aspect of masculinity I hate because it's just so dangerous, these attitutes that they nourture and keep alive. Do they have any idea what a war against Islam would DO to this world? We barely have enough resources as it is. We do not need much of the world's population destroyed because of their foolishness and the foolishness of Islam fascists who are only interested in control and not the people. Really, there needs to be a shift into focusing on things that really matter and not illusions the way we have over the last millenium of human history. But I doubt this will happen any time soon and the attitutes Bush, OSC and so many others support really do not help us one bit...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm mostly just staring dumbfounded at my screen, trying to come up with ways to defend against an attack that seems to come completely out of nowhere, based apparently on a willfull hyperliteral interpretation of OSC's statements.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)