Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Publius Valerius]

And thats what I dont think. As can be seen in the chrismas truce. The "plebs" as you call it, had the same thinking and attitude as the officer-corps of the army (Yes, you read right army  . All airforces were born out of the army. During the first world war no faction had his own independent air force as we know it today. There was just army and navy.).  So the idea, that army officer in the air (pilot) can understand, he has more in commen with the guy on the other side and the army officer which is on the ground, or the so call "plebs" soldier,  cant understand that he as more in commen with the guy on the other side is a little tasty.... Of not really arrgg bad.

Not what I said: I'm quite sure it wasn't a thing if reason for the common soldier either, but it was the holdiay spirit and the emotion transported by that that lead to the christmas truce. Point is: It's not about reason to begin with.

First funny: "it wasn't a thing if reason for the common soldier either"

.... I havent said it was about reason it is about emotion (please dont do a Mithra again  . Like in the slavery "talk". Read what I have said, and dont argument against stuff which I havent said in the first place  ... ). You have said is about reason; but reason isnt my point, emotion is. I can repeat myself all day long: emotion. I havent said it is about reason vs code.... I said it is emotions vs code. And as you said by yourself: "emotion transported by that that lead to the christmas truce." Emotion lead... to a behavior, In which officer on the ground forget his code (to kill the enemy of the fatherland).  HERE YOU SAID BY YOURSELF. Emotion lead to behavior outside of the code.

Second. you havent still explain to me to post earlier: Why "officer in the air" can feel with the other site and others not? I qoute:"but because they felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air than the plebs or the political avantgarde " Why can officer in the air do this but not others? It was and still is a "Tony G explanation".... Tony Gish, in the meaning, you split tools. It is just crazy to think, just because someone is a officer in the army (in the air), that he has more tools then others; as the from you so call "plebs".

So my critique on: "but because they felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at in the air than the plebs or the political avantgarde and because they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real." Still stands.
To make my critque a little bit more clear: can I say: ""but because they ("plebs") felt they had more in common with the people they were shooting at than the "army officers in the air" or the political avantgarde and because they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real."? See what I have done? I have change the position of some of your groups.

<,< I didn't make an inference there, Publius. I didn't say, because they felt to have more in common with the other pilots they shot at them. I said they felt they had more in common with the opposing pilots and felt it was their duty to shoot them. So, I don't have to explain an inference I never talked about.

A okay.. I get it... But it is then even worse. It goes then again with point one. You have done a Tony G... for the second time then.... I quote: "because they felt that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real." So I ask again. Why do people in your example again have different tools... Why can "officer in the air" felt [feel] that it was their duty to try to take their opponent down for real?

In emotional settings codes of chivalry survived, because they are emotional. vOv You make up a false dichotomy between codes and chivalry and emotion.

I actually dont. It is emotion... love to the ememy or hate which always stands against the code of chivalry (to be more precisely: emotions which are conflicting with the code of c.). Lets make a really stupid example... Instate to honor our enemy and kill him with the sword (bushido style), you kiss him and bareback with him in the woods. You do bareback him, and step away of the code, because of emotions....

Or in your example above, the Christmas truce. Guys, step away from their code, because of emotions (love, Christmas spirit, etc). The same counts for hate... Every emotion which, changes your individual attitude to another individual, will (if they not in line with the code, I could imagine a code in history, where bareback your enemy in the wood could be part of the code  ) lead to the problem: Your individual emotion** vs. a code of chivalry.

Edit: Some misspellings... by the way... what is with victory symbol? "vOv" Dude... please dont go full Tony G, you never go full Tony G  By the way I think it was way to early, have I said: "In emotional settings codes of chivalry survived, because they are emotional." ? NO... so please dont go full Tony G. Have I make a dichotomy ("you make up a false dichotomy between codes and chivalry and emotion.")?* NO ... P.S. It reminds me on your Reason vs. Debate example...LOL... I think, the guy with the shit dichotomy sits in the other end  (by the way, you still havent explain to me, why reason and logic isnt part of a debate/talk?  *joking*)....

P.S. It is very funny, that you havent answer none of my questions. Why? No respect for Publius? No code of chivalry for Publius? I think it would very noble, to answer my question  . (P.P.S. I actually give a crap if you answer my questions or not. And I could think, that you havent answer it, for the same reason as Eterne hasnt answer my about the Kingdom  . Or Caul on the same topic. Oh, by the way can you see, how we come back to emotions again? But this time not some nice lovely bare love; no... no, no...  So please step over you emotions against me and answer the first question in the earlier post.)).


*As I said again, and again. Emotions are outside and inside of the code of chivalry. But are to only ones which are outside and inside? No. As you said, reason can be outside and inside too (It can be also inside the "code of chivalry" (being part of it)). What I mean with it? I mean Reason can lead to behavior which is totally in line with it and to behavior which isnt totally in line with it (it=the code). The same counts for emotion. So, dont see it as a full split (two circles, which never touch; a dichotomy). So it more... in a way that emotions can be in line with the code of chivalry and outside the line of the code of chivalry. The point (my point) is; that were individual emotions (that kind outside of the code of chivalry) are comming into account; you will not have a setting in which the code of chivalry can nicley work. And this was my point in the earlier post about the setting in EVE, to be more precisely the setting in "the summit".
Edit2: **conflicting emotions, would be a better term maybe?

[Morwen Lagann]

[mod]Personal attacks, specifically in the first paragraph. Knock it off.[/mod]