218358 Bullies, 4911 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 91 to 100 of 200
Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910 11121314 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    You know me...the snakebite hiss, the Devil's Grip, the Iron Fist

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    7,537

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:03pm

    supporting member
     Style: Hung Fist, BJJ, Qi Gong

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by helmutlvx View Post
    Hey, Rabbit. Why don't you go do Aikido and get the **** out.
    You guys are right I've probably gone over my post threshold here but it was a good debate, until the idiots showed up because they think I make for an easy target. I'm more sublime than they give me credit for.

    Trying to cite 800 year old manuscripts that I'll bet money very, very few here have read or could quote...that was a good one. Unless everyone has read it, no one should be posting anything about the topic, right?

    Dogshit. Off to train.
  2. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    You know me...the snakebite hiss, the Devil's Grip, the Iron Fist

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    7,537

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:09pm

    supporting member
     Style: Hung Fist, BJJ, Qi Gong

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by karma2343 View Post
    Yes, there is also all that self-discipline, mental fortitude, etc that come with doing MAs. But that comes from anything- sports, reading, running, writing, dieting, whatever.
    You're right, it does.

    Quote Originally Posted by karma2343 View Post
    I do a lot of volunteering in my spare time, but it has nothing to do with my martial arts training. I go to martial arts to learn how to hurt people.
    Yet, I wonder whether or not your martial training has positively influenced your altruistic efforts. I'll bet it has. In fact, I'll argue your philanthropy is probably reinforced by your martial arts training.

    Quote Originally Posted by karma2343 View Post
    And yet you did nothing to define what makes someone weak or strong at all. The idea that there is some invisible line dividing people between weak and strong is asinine.
    It's just a dualism, you'll find them everywhere. You yourself suggested it when you made the association that there is "always a bigger fish". I don't have to "define" strength or weakness, they are always relative to each other, regardless of how they are defined.

    Go read some of the Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus quotes. It's all there, the same principles that combine martial code with the public good.
  3. Homernoid is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    130

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:12pm


     Style: Taijiquan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    There are two types of people in the world, the weak and the strong.
    at this point you are heavily oversimplifying.
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    The strong often become that way through discipline and training,
    IMO this is a naive assumption. I don't believe in achivement ideology.
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    then what is their responsibility?
    another assumption. why should there be a responsibility?
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    To use that strength for your own immediate desires or to use them to better the world around you. Maybe for some people this is both and in that case, more power to you. The strong defending the weak...that is a pretty clear-cut concept. If you are for it, you'll find many friends, if you are against it, you're probably on your own.
    my observation about this would lead to the opposite conclusion. selfish people usually gang up easily with similar minded others to mutual benefit and at the expense of those, you may call the weak ones.

    EDIT: I assumed, you are not trying to discuss history or ethics in a darwinstic manner. however, I needed some time to write this, and a lot new posts appeared leading in exactly this direction.
    so to make it clear: IMO social darwinism is pure nonsense I refuse to discuss for obvious reasons...
    Last edited by Homernoid; 8/03/2010 3:23pm at .
  4. Barrett is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Nome, AK
    Posts
    177

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:15pm


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    150 years is not a long time for the world's largest empire, ever. In fact it was built on a house of cards based on the most devastating example of Scorched Earth the world has ever seen.
    Alexander's empire erupted in civil war and split apart just 2 years after his death. Since you seem to consider his leadership as more honorable than then the Mongols', I'm curious why you think his empire was so unstable. At least when Genghis Khan's empire divided (which also didn't happen until after his death), the pieces were still controlled by his sons and descendants.

    Also, The Golden Horde dynasty actually lasted for closer to 300 years in Russia. Not to mention the fact that the Mongol Empire was many times larger than the Macedonian's (or the Romans for that matter), and that it held together at all over such a vast area is an amazing feat in itself.

    Also, despite being called a horde, the Mongols didn't achieve their victories through sheer numbers. You make them sound like a swarm of mindless locusts. In the majority of their battles, especially early on, they were outnumbered. Instead, they won due to their incredible mobility. They were able to travel further and faster than any other army in the world. In combat, their light cavalry was unmatched, and they slaughtered opponents who couldn't avoid being outflanked.

    A favorite tactic of the mongols was to retreat on horseback, while firing volleys of arrows point blank into their attacker's faces. Enemy infantry and heavy cavalry couldn't keep up with them, and they'd stay just out of range of their weapons. They'd keep this up until the attackers inevitably broke formation in desperation to catch them, at which point they'd circle back around and charge them from the rear.

    Many of your posts are full of stereotypes of the Mongols, and I won't go into all of them. I just couldn't sit by and let you write off one of the most successful military commanders of all time as a stupid, violent barbarian with a lot of friends though.
  5. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    You know me...the snakebite hiss, the Devil's Grip, the Iron Fist

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    7,537

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:20pm

    supporting member
     Style: Hung Fist, BJJ, Qi Gong

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Homernoid View Post
    at this point you are heavily oversimplifying.
    I may be simplifying things to a dualistic concept of strong vs. weak but its necessary to make any point on the side of an "altruistic" martial arts code.

    Quote Originally Posted by Homernoid View Post
    IMO this is a naive assumption. I don't believe in achivement ideology.
    It's naive to believe strength comes from discipline and training? Please list some other ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Homernoid View Post
    another assumption. why should there be a responsibility?
    Responsible use of force/strength is at the very heart of this thread. Teaching responsible use of force/strength is where the codes come in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Homernoid View Post
    my observation about this would lead to the opposite conclusion. selfish people usually gang up easily with similar minded others to mutual benefit and at the expense of those, you may call the weak ones.
    Sure, selfish people gang up and prey on the weak from the dawn of time. Which is why its even more important for the martially proficient to use their skills in their everyday lives to work together and form a greater society. This type of thing is not limited to martial artists, but the codes (as someone else pointed out) ensure our warrior classes (civilian or professional) co-exist peacefully, while they train for combat.

    If you truly just train to "hurt people", well...
  6. Suprore is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    423

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:21pm


     Style: Bjj

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Chivalry is for faggots, i never let go when people tap.
  7. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    You know me...the snakebite hiss, the Devil's Grip, the Iron Fist

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    7,537

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:25pm

    supporting member
     Style: Hung Fist, BJJ, Qi Gong

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Barrett View Post

    Many of your posts are full of stereotypes of the Mongols, and I won't go into all of them. I just couldn't sit by and let you write off one of the most successful military commanders of all time as a stupid, violent barbarian with a lot of friends though.
    That was a good post. But you're also sounding like another Mongol apologist.

    I have nowhere depicted Ghenghis Khan or the Mongols as stupid or unintelligent, or stereotyped them as savages. I have actually painted them as ruthless, lightning fast warriors led by a calculating warlord who utilized brutal policies to expand his empire, which in turn influenced how his warriors treated civilians and enemies on the battlefield.

    I have great respect for both generals. And I don't view them as "Good/Bad" at all we established that in previous posts.

    Stop jumping on the W. Rabbit bandwagon, and try reading the entire thread before posting bullshit.
  8. W. Rabbit is offline
    W. Rabbit's Avatar

    You know me...the snakebite hiss, the Devil's Grip, the Iron Fist

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Work
    Posts
    7,537

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:28pm

    supporting member
     Style: Hung Fist, BJJ, Qi Gong

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Suprore View Post
    Chivalry is for faggots, i never let go when people tap.
    Yeah see?

    Congratulations. This guy is your hero. You can have him.
  9. Suprore is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    423

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:41pm


     Style: Bjj

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Because i sarcastically answered the entire debate in the thread, or because you foolishly took me seriously?

    There isn't a single poster here who doesn't train through a warrior code. We all respect our training partners and our opponents, both in our thoughts and actions. This is silly. Chivalry is an antiquated form a universal ideology.

    Edit: Anybody who trains a style that can actually hurt people, that is. I guess people living out power trip no contact kung fu fantasies might have something to discuss about the idea.
    Last edited by Suprore; 8/03/2010 3:46pm at .
  10. Hiro Protagonist is offline
    Hiro Protagonist's Avatar

    Has entered Barovia...

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,469

    Posted On:
    8/03/2010 3:49pm

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by W. Rabbit View Post
    No. Neither of those two books were the first written on chivalry.

    You just got that text's name from Wikipedia.

    Both of those books were drawn from warrior code of the Roman Legion.
    Oh, sweet goodness, I have actually read Ramon Llull's book on chivalry because I wrote a paper about chivalry and Spanish romanticism, and falsely believed he could have had an impact.

    For those who are interested, and because I am hiding from my Middle English grammar book, a few notes on Llull and the history of chivalry:

    No, he doesn't borrow that much from Vegetius (who wrote Epitoma rei militari, the Latin work you allude to); Llull, certainly knew about Vegetius, but he writes very individually, which his goal obviously being to engage the reader in the ideology of the crusades and what we Spaniards call the Reconquista (the fight against the moors who had conquered Spain a few centuries earlier).

    Medieval chivalry, in the sense of the romanticized myth begins with the connection (which was invented by the orders of the monastic knights in the Holy Land) of night watch and the accolade (which had been there in some form since the beginning of time).





    This dates it about some time in the 12th century.

    Obviously, the literary treatment of "knights" is older; the Norman warriors that invaded Saxon England are reported by the chroniclers of their time to have sung the "Chanson de Roland" during their attack. - One of the passages there is traditionally quoted as one of the first explicit descriptions of knightly values. - Which I don't like, and this is why:

    What you won't find on Wikipedia and what I can tell you is that the idealization of knights on a moral level other than their fighting (like Beowulf, for example, who is a kick-ass fighter, but scarcely characterized otherwise), started with the schism between the Catholics and the Orthodox church in 1054.

    After that, the religious orientation of the nobles was suddenly far more important for the Catholic church; Islam and Orthodoxy posed real alternatives to their religious dominance.
    Basically, to link nobility to a vow not only on the leader (like soldiers of earlier centuries had done), but also to the Catholic belief was a master trick to avoid religious conversions, like there had been in the early middle ages, when warriors had converted out of loyalty to their leader.
    So, the important thing for Western knights - and for Arab ones, as well - was to fulfill the duties and virtues of THEIR RELIGION first, and then to follow their leader. Their martial prowess is never as important, and often not even the subject of their characterization any more. Their RELIGIOUS one is.

    That's also why all knights in all medieval ballads and verse tales are always either Christian, on the way to it, or behind the Holy Grail.

    It's late and I am losing my line of thought; the later idealization and de-christianization of knights didn't happen before the 14th century, with a French poem, "The Vows of the Peacock" (yepp, I had to look that up), which named nine ideal knights of different religions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Worthies)

    After that, chivalry literature gets cool, with stuff like "El caballero Zifar" and "Amadis" in Spain, and obviously, Thomas Mallory's Arthurian novels in England. Mainly, because it's more ambivalent, and effectively, by the end of the 15th century - over.

    All the while, the vital point here is: Western knights are defined in literature by their vow on Christianity, not by an explicit martial code other than the most basic stuff. (Don't lie, don't steal, don't murder.)

    The first real secular "martial code" (meaning, a code of honor among soldiers) in Europe would probably be, and this is no joke, "one for all, and all for one". - The motto that Alexandre Dumas gives his musketeers in 1844; I am more into literature than into history, but I think this is actually an invention of Dumas himself, not a historical fact.

    Apart from that, the closest thing we have in Europe that equates a warrior code is the duel codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_duello
    Last edited by Hiro Protagonist; 8/03/2010 3:56pm at .
Page 10 of 20 FirstFirst ... 678910 11121314 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.