Honour or pragmatism?

But that's just it: There is no point to those situations anyway. I don't see why I should hence maintain any sort of "honour" in them.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

• You may be part of a society where social concerns are resolved with ritualised violent encounters.
• In the case of modern society, where violence is used to solve social concerns, both parties are usually a part of subcultures that embrace it and are therefore willing.

The first scenario I point out has to have willing, informed participants to exist in the first place. If there's one participant fighting for honour and one fighting for real, then it doesn't exactly count because we've got value dissonance going on.

Basically, I'm saying that you have to be the arbiter of your own behaviour. If someone else is fighting you "honourably" for social reasons, it's up to you to decide whether the social benefit of fighting honourably yourself is tangible, or whether it's worth fighting at all. Or you could Take a Third Option and fight dirty, which would be perfectly justified given that you're probably feeling quite threatened.

edited 14th Jun '11 7:06:20 AM by MadassAlex

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

Well, yeah, I guess that's true what you say. And more extensive - I simply reduced my argument to my own position, instead of giving a general overview like you. To me, all honour fights are bullshit, and if somebody were to try to force one on me, I'd have no bad feelings about fighting unhonourably. Mind, I might still lose, but that's another point.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

You can shout at him to kindly fuck off and keep your distance. If he's at a few paces distance and you have a gun aimed at him chances are slim he's able to do anything at all. And attacking someone who has a knife and the slightest bit of knife fighting experience will very likely result in slashed limbs, if not worse, for the assailant.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

One time my friend's boyfriend got really drunk at a bar, and started acting very belligerent toward random strangers. They only way to get him home was to beat him down. So I did. My goal wasn't to hurt him, in fact I was trying to help him, so I did what had to be done with the least amount of damage and force possible. He apologized later.

Honor only matters if you belong to an organization that requires honor as a condition of membership. It's usually a way to manage conflicts between members of a male dominated group that accepts a certain level of violence, like a military unit, a street gang or a feudal community. If you don't belong to something like that, then the honor vs. pragmatism dilemma never comes up.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

A knife is a great advantage to have, but it's not impossible to nullify its benefits. A good martial artist can step around and void knife strikes by staying out of range of the knife-hand only.

Remember that knives don't give you a significant range advantage over an adversary. If you can cut with a knife, they're probably within striking range. So if they have the guts and know-how to deal with a knife, then that's that.

Ultimately, one can never fully predict the outcome of a high-stakes fight. There are no hard-and-fast rules, and that includes there being a solution to everything. Guns, knives, chainswords, whatever. In a real fight, you use what you've got to end it as quickly as possible, because your adversary could do something stupidly unpredictable at any moment.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

If you're defending against a knife you can disarm him, although thats still pretty hard. But attacking someone with a knife is something else entirely. A block with a knife is a cut with a knife, so after a few blows the assailant is pretty much finished.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

You don't even need to disarm — assuming that both combatants are right-handed, stepping out to your own right side and throwing a strike allows you to attack without being threatened by the knife. If they want to strike with the knife from there, they need to step in and telegraph themselves in the process.

I mean, by no means is fighting someone with a knife easy, but you've got options. The best of which is to step away from the knife without stepping away from effective fighting distance.

(If you can't or don't want to run.)

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

Yes, but that only applies to someone with a knife attacking you, not you attacking someone with a knife.

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

S'true, but my point was always meant to be position-neutral. All that matters is that someone has the knife.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

Okay. But I think that if you have a weapon that you shouldn't be the one attacking, and definitely not someone who is unarmed (as I said, you could tell him to keep his distance).

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

If they've expressed clear intent to injure or kill you, I wouldn't blame you for making the first strike. Initiative in incredibly important in any fight, and risking your health on a moral basis falls too much towards "honour" for a high-stakes fight like the one we've hypothesised about.

Swordsman Troper — Reclaiming The Blade — Watch

It depends on the environment. People around? Get attention so they see you aren't the one who took the initiative? Dark alley in the middle of nowhere? The enemy is at your mercy (although I would still suggest showing the weapon and telling him to fuck off).

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling

OP quoted someone who made the retarded statement "always fight to kill". My moral doctrine is play nice with friends, play fair in sports and versus an enemy who wants to kill me, sufficient force to neutralize the threat.

My pragmatic doctrine in sports, if I want to kill Bob, I do not kill him in the rink and pretend it's an accident. That would e too obvious. No, I will sabotage Bob's fight with Alice and I will arrange or my other enemy Charles to be rude to Angela Lansbury.

In war, standard military tactics are rarely maximum kill rate. Usually orders are of the form "Capture that hill and kill any enemy who get in your way."

British law OFFICIALLY permits self-defence, but in practise forbids it. If I am attacked by a burglar and kill him, then I put the title deeds in his pocket, I claim that I am the burglar and he is the house-holder, I get loads a money from the Evil tory Government.

edited 14th Jun '11 10:40:26 AM by Trotzky

Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!

"A true pragmatist avoids a fight in the first place."

Indeed, if you call yourself a pragmatist and end up in a fight your doing it wrong.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Occasionally, a fight is unavoidable...but yes, there's a definite inconsistency in saying that you don't care about honor and still getting in a whole bunch of fights.

Shinigan (Naruto fanfic)

While honor is good and all, a fair fight is a sign of very poor tactics.

Way I see it, fighting pragmatically isn't fighting dirty or cheating, it's fighting efficiently. Fighting smarter.

Yeah, but sometimes you have to get outside of your house and dive into the world. Things aren't always nice there.

Those that are saying you can't retain a semblance of humanity in a fight: I have a reputation for complimenting people while duking it out. (Most of the fights I am involved in are boxing matches, but there are exceptions.) If I can take the time to comment on the effectiveness of an opponent's fighting style in a match, I'd think people can avoid being degenerate psychopaths in a more serious fight.*

Alex's observation about unarmed people being able to pose a threat to an armed opponent are correct. In fact, there are specific techniques designed to disarm someone that has a knife or a gun. (I can't use the 'circling' techniques myself because I'm left-handed)

His other observation that there are some subcultures in modern society that view one-on-one combat as a perfectly acceptable way to resolve a personal issue is also correct, and more what I was talking about in the OP than, for instance, someone jumping you in an alley.

I myself am intimately familiar with some of said subcultures, and I frequently forget that most people don't realise that single combat didn't die when the Modern Era was born.

edited 14th Jun '11 11:47:13 AM by Diamonnes

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

Oh of course one can be honorable in a fight; I'd just rather kick the other dude's ass as fast and efficiently as possible so I get back to drinking/whatever I was doing.

Diamonnes, I think that you're conflating "matches" with "fights" in a way that is muddying the water.

To me, wording the question in terms of "a fight" with no modifiers noted means that I'm going to assume you mean a for-real, he's-trying-to-hurt-or-kill-me, no-rules fight. In that case, honor goes out the window. Do what it takes to either put him down first or get away, whichever you choose.

If you're talking about a match, like boxing a friend, or fencing, or sparring in martial arts that's a whole other ball of wax. The point there is to measure your skill against your opponent's under mutually agreed-upon limitations. (Those limitations may be "no-holds-barred", but you both (or all) agreed to them beforehand.) In that case, ignoring "honor" and breaking the rules isn't going to get you a "win" in the eyes of anyone but yourself, no matter how soundly you think you beat him.

So, in the OP, are you talking about a for-real fight? or a match?

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Madru: In the OP, a serious fight that is unlikely to end without serious injury to one or both parties. Said fight, however, isn't spontaneous; one or both parties have a score to settle so to speak. "Fight" without modifiers is a fight as you describe it, wherein at least one party is attempting to cause serious harm or death to the other.

edited 14th Jun '11 12:24:15 PM by Diamonnes

My name is Cu Chulainn. Beside the raging sea I am left to moan. Sorrow I am, for I brought down my only son.

Well, there are fights, and then there are fights. I don't think those one on one honour grudges are really "matches", they are fights, just not very high-stake.

That being said, as far as I'm concerned, I don't want to get into either, and if I should be forced into either, I would surely respect no honour. I don't give a fuck about honour, manliness or whatever.

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

@Mad- "...To me, wording the question in terms of "a fight" with no modifiers noted means that I'm going to assume you mean a for-real, he's-trying-to-hurt-or-kill-me, no-rules fight. In that case, honor goes out the window. Do what it takes to either put him down first or get away, whichever you choose..."

In my previous post I provided an example of a fight where I didn't want to hurt the other guy. He was in fact trying to hurt me, though...

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Way I see it, if someone tries to hurt me and for their efforts they get a punch to the throat and a pool cue upside the head, they asked for it.