A dying breed.

[EndlessWrath]

So I got a remark today based on the complicated Code of Honor and Gentlemanship that i follow. I'm a gentleman... I can't ever hit a girl, can't be disrespectful and i must abide to honor and such. Just general politeness and such.

I've heard crap from guys on how courtesy is useless... and such. But today is the first day that my girlfriends (normal friends -_-'') told me I'm a dying breed and then gentleman should be left 6 ft under...

I was appalled... Has society really taken a turn for the worst? has society not only forgone courtesy to people but also shun it and discourage it? What will become of such a society where men don't treat women with respect and vice versa? I imagine such a world which can end in nothing but destruction and villainy.

-------
sorry.. i just felt like ranting today after a long day of all of this
-------
~Wrath

[Gem Flower]

*sigh* I too miss the days of courtesy and gentlemen and ladies. Have we gone downhill?:smallfrown:

[Silence]

You should respect women, but only to a certain extent. They aren't gods, and there are times when you can joke with them and insult them like your guyfrineds. I agree that those who respect women are a dying breed.

Edit: Ninja'd!

[Halna LeGavilk]

It depends on your social circle. Some appreciate, some don't. It also has to do with geography. Where do you live?

[Ego Slayer]

Don't know if it's gone downhill, since I don't have much for comparison... maybe its just me, but I see far too much disrespect. So many aspects of it. So, if you're that courteous type, keep at it. Respect gains respect.

Oh, and every time I see disrespect, I want to shoot them. >.<
Granted, how I see things can be a bit extreme at times, but stillllll...

[Silence]

Too much respect? Really? I'm quite surprised.

[Ego Slayer]

Too much respect? Really? I'm quite surprised.
Did you read something wrong? :smallconfused:

[Lemur]

I've never heard of such things from the people around me. Then again, maybe I don't talk with them enough to really know.

If people think that courtesy is dead, it's because they're too secure in their own safety. Back in the days of gentlemanliness, you watched your step around people, 'cause they might decide a bullet in the gut would teach you to mind your manners. Politeness is born from lethal force, so I suggest getting yourself a knife or a gun, and proceed with your courteous ways. If you start taking too much crap about it then start hitting people with a metal glove (you'll need to get one of those too).

It's commonly overlooked, but being a gentleman generally doesn't work unless you have power to back it up, either in the form of wealth, connections, or murderin' ability.

[Silence]

Did you read something wrong? :smallconfused:

Yea, I did. You said "I see far to much disrespect", and I missed the "dis".

[Crow]

People who themselves have class will respect the gentleman who has class. Those who lack it won't really understand it.

Though additionally, there is a fine line between being polite and being walked over. Find where it is, and toe it.

[Pwenet]

One of the most interesting memories from college I have was hanging out with a female friend of mine at the mall. We were just friends, she was in a committed relationship with another guy (they are married now) and we were just chilling. As we went to my car since I drove, I opened the door for her. Partially because I had to unlock it, partially because, well, it's the polite thing.

A random older lady saw this and as I walked around to the driver side went to my friend and said this to her:

"He is a keeper. Don't give him up."

We laughed about that for a long time and my friend to this day says she would have dated me if she was not her relationship (and I am not the type of guy to knowingly get involved in a relationship with someone who is already in a relationship).

So yes, we are a dying breed, but there are those out there that respect what we do.

[Arrogonios]

Yeah....carrying weapons around seems like a bad idea...Especially considering a school/work setting.

'Your assignment is due today, where is it? If you haven't done it, you fail/you're fired'
*snaps* *BLAM!!*
"Whoops...I didn't mean to do that!!"
*cops tackle and beat to death with billie clubs*


If people think that courtesy is dead, it's because they're too secure in their own safety
Wonderful philosophy though.

[TeeEl]

What will become of such a society where men don't treat women with respect and vice versa?

Probably nothing significantly worse than what would become of a society where people draw arbitrary and unnecessary distinctions among themselves. Respect is a good thing, but singling people or groups out for special treatment is not always respectful.

(That said, if that special treatment is at all positive usually people will accept it in the spirit it was intended; I don't hold with strains of feminist thought that argue chivalry is a moral outrage. In my book if you're treating one of the two genders with courtesy and deference, I call that a good first step: halfway there :smallbiggrin:)

[Wraithy]

There's nothing wrong with being pleasant, as long as people don't take advantage of you and you treat everyone similarly (complete ****ers excluded).
I don't really think chivalry is dead, and even if it is dying out, I regularly see the lowest level niceties, opening doors etc. and people still seem grateful.

Last of all, if any final vestige of appreciation flies out the window, just remember: being nice is its own reward.

Wow, that really sounded mushy after rereading it :smallconfused:

[EndlessWrath]

quite frankly I understand the too much respect or the over exaggerated...

mind you the only reason i say respect ladies is because I'm a man... if I was a woman it would be vice versa.
-----------
My point is that I don't think walking up to all girls and treating them like whores or something... I don't hurt people in general... and respect has been immediate whoever... degrees varies with who earns it and such ...
------------
I have no respect for men in general... circumstantially of course people will earn it... but many think with their heads, not their brains... This is why majority of my friends are girls.
-----------
I remember a day that decency and common respect (not overdone or anything..just normal) was an everyday thing. now you couldn't buy it if you tried....
I do not let myself get walked all over, but I do not overpower my way through, nor do i fight fire with fire. I understand that it usually is just a middle school /high school thing... but still. Seniors are meant to graduate and become part of the real world... but i feel my peers understand nothing of Life more that sex/drinking/and cruelty. It fills me with shame. I encourage people to be kind and generous. a day should not go by when one does not continue to ask "what can i do for someone today?". Thats my view at least.

it doesn't bug me that people are not polite, it bugs me that people are not polite and force others to be so too. plus society accepts it these days!

-------
once again ranting... its been a long day week.

[Recaiden]

Respect for other people and courtesy isn't totaly gone, but i agree there is much less. I only object to acting nicer to either men or women.

[Boo]

Every day we get closer to being like the movie "Idiocracy".

I am one of many gentlemen of this day and age, but as people have said already, we are a dying breed. Also, I've never been told to be more rude or anything.

[Innis Cabal]

As the saying goes, "Chivalry is dead, and women killed it" and the saying couldn't be more true. Resepct, honor, chivalry and kindess are indeed dying, being ushered out by the constant need for self esteem, hugs, love and the general weakening of the human condition.

People showed honor and respect, at least where I came from, becuase if you didnt to another man's lady, car or what have you'd get beaten, or people would shun you. Now we can't even teach our children a lesson with a spanking,

You lose the FEAR and you lose the respect.

[Moff Chumley]

Why is it respect the ladies? Why isn't it respect everyone? Chivalry may be a dying trait, but is it outmoded?

[Lemur]

Yeah....carrying weapons around seems like a bad idea...Especially considering a school/work setting.

'Your assignment is due today, where is it? If you haven't done it, you fail/you're fired'
*snaps* *BLAM!!*
"Whoops...I didn't mean to do that!!"
*cops tackle and beat to death with billie clubs*


Wonderful philosophy though.

A gentleman wouldn't snap due to that, of course. :smalltongue:

Of course, as was being somewhat facetious, I don't really expect anyone to take up arms, but I do think it's true that courtesy will increase as the probability that the people around you are armed and slightly irrational increases.


Being completely serious for a moment, Crow's take on the matter rings truest for me.

[Boo]

Why is it respect the ladies? Why isn't it respect everyone? Chivalry may be a dying trait, but is it outmoded?

Well, I treat everyone the same. It's just that I can playfully hit my guy friends, where as I don't with my friends who are girls. Although they hit me (haha, everyone who hits me get's themselves hurt!)

[de-trick]

yah i follow my rules of conduct too, and i usually get bugged from my buddys bout how i dont just ask out any chick, but my code gets pretty flexible, i also i have become less gentlemanly the older i get, still I'm a gentlemen when I'm around girls i know and they now me, but girls i dont know ill whistle at them and crank the music, but yeah all fun and games:smalltongue:


but out of my friends I'm the nicest and most gentlemanly towards the female types

[EndlessWrath]

Why is it respect the ladies? Why isn't it respect everyone? Chivalry may be a dying trait, but is it outmoded?

once again. I point out, I only stated "respect to ladies" because I'm a man. The general population of people who have earned my respect is women... not because they are weak or fragile, but the characters and personas of many women tend to be kind toward me (at least around here) where as men around here are wangsters, obnoxious perverts, or wanabee criminal scum. Therefore my lack of finding more than 10 or so guy friends I respect everyday is somewhat limited to who I see.
-------
As an addition. Many (if not most) of the people on the playground have or are earning my respect based on their actions, ideals, or courtesy. Therefore Courtesy and kindness are not limited to Male or Female, but those who have earned respect and those who will accept kindness.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

I like to think of myself as a gentleman, just not so rigid and rules-oriented. I just know now to be a total jerk, but I do have tendencies to make fun of people and other cruel things... I'm just a Gentleman Bastard.

[TeeEl]

once again. I point out, I only stated "respect to ladies" because I'm a man. The general population of people who have earned my respect is women... not because they are weak or fragile, but the characters and personas of many women tend to be kind toward me (at least around here) where as men around here are wangsters, obnoxious perverts, or wanabee criminal scum.

So essentially your courtesy is a matter of reciprocity. Again, kudos to you just for going that far... as you note, a distressingly high number of people prove themselves incapable of even returning the kindness extended to them... and it's a solid basis for social interaction, but your moral high road is not quite as lofty as you might think. If you can choose to designate someone as being unworthy of your respect, that implies that they are equally free to decide that you aren't worthy of their respect. That then leaves you at a mutually disrespectful impasse unless one of you resorts to intimidation or coercion to force a display of respect, which leads back to the thuggery you decry.

[reorith]

i like to think of myself as an honorless cur, while the gentleman prides himself on being a pretty cool guy, it is his contrast to me and my ilk that gives him his white knight status.

[EndlessWrath]

So essentially your courtesy is a matter of reciprocity. Again, kudos to you just for going that far... as you note, a distressingly high number of people prove themselves incapable of even returning the kindness extended to them... and it's a solid basis for social interaction, but your moral high road is not quite as lofty as you might think. If you can choose to designate someone as being unworthy of your respect, that implies that they are equally free to decide that you aren't worthy of their respect. That then leaves you at a mutually disrespectful impasse unless one of you resorts to intimidation or coercion to force a display of respect, which leads back to the thuggery you decry.

I do not disrespect people that disrespect me my friend. I merely do not go out of my way to extend the kindness that would be wasted on someone who would not want it... instead of giving it to one who deserves it. I'm rather flexible. One day you could be pissed and yell and hate everyone... but the next day you could utterly change and be the nicest guy in the world... Which version of you should I choose? Neither, I should respect you enough to not have to. Respect + kindness are two different things. Respect is earned..not just given where as kindness should be constantly given. I take both seriously. You don't have to respect me for me to hold the door open for you... or hand you the wallet you just dropped.

[TeeEl]

Ah. Thank you for the clarification; that is a much more tenable attitude than what I had interpreted from your previous posts, so I apologize for any implied criticism (although your expressed attitude towards men seems disturbingly generalized, even if perhaps somewhat justifiably so). I still believe that it is better to give respect freely until it is proven to be undeserved, but if you're treating people with courtesy anyhow then this is a purely philosophical rather than practical matter.

[SurlySeraph]

i like to think of myself as an honorless cur, while the gentleman prides himself on being a pretty cool guy, it is his contrast to me and my ilk that gives him his white knight status.

People like you are the reason we run out of milk. Slash! Slash! Slash! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html)

[reorith]

People like you are the reason we run out of milk. Slash! Slash! Slash! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html)

tl;dr
your rebuttal has fallen on deaf ears.

[xPANCAKEx]

i try to be a good guy and a gentlemen... but more often than not i find myself feeling disgusted with how the majority of girls go about treating guys. i find it easier to be 'chivalrous/gentlemenly' to a total stranger than most girls i know

they're not bad people, they just treat guys like rubbish when it comes to romance

[Cubey]

@The original poster: Correct me if I misunderstood, but did you mention both of these?
1. You remember the days when courtesy and gentlemanly behaviour were the norm.
2. You are in high school.

That idea makes my mind boggle. People do not change that fast - that gentlemen are a no now, but 10-15 years ago they were not. In fact, people change to a very small extent. I do not exactly know how humans were 50 years ago (because I wasn't even alive back then), but from what I discovered by hearing to words of wisdom of older people, and reading historical materials, gentlemen were ALWAYS a minority. High class (and I do not mean material standing, but rather moral) only had a small percentage of people in it, the rest were either total jerks or people who are moderately courteous towards others, but not very so. While it may be depressing at first, that the "golden age" of chivalry where every man was a knight in shining armor is probably just a myth, there is a sunny side too - there were few gentlemen during all the ages, but it also means that few will remain in the future. This wonderful kind of a person is not dying - its population remains more or less stable, if small.

I find myself overusing long sentences and brackets again. My point gets diluted, so I'll go straight towards it. Your surroundings disapprove of being honest and chivalrous, and you fear that your peers will only know the life of sex, alcohol and violence. That's not the fault of the age you live in, but the environment itself. If people around think being chivalrous is stupid, don't deal with them if you can. Find people who are worth your affections - treat the others with respect but do not associate with them.

Also, Sturgeon's Law is a lie. It doesn't apply to neither works of man nor the human being itself. It's an illusion, created by the fact that the crappier parts of anything are easier to notice. If one in five people you meet is a total jerkass, soon you will be convinced that the entire mankind is made of total ********s. While in fact, it was only 20%. The same possibly applies to your situation. For every person who disapproves of your ways, there probably is one (or two, or five) who appreciate them, but they choose to remain silent about it.

[Stormthorn]

Gentalmanship like in old movies does seem on its way out.

That being said, i tend to always hold doors for women and often for men. I dont get complaints but sometimes i get confused looks.

[averagejoe]

This is silly. So, what, you're better than other people because you follow a certain set of actions? That's all "gentleman" and "chivalry" and such words mean; they're just ways for people to justify putting themselves into a better class of people. Then words like "dying breed" and such are bandied about in order to simultaneously play the victim. This is blatant elitism, and that's all the "gentleman" has ever been.

[Crow]

It's as simple as showing respect to everyone you meet, every day. You don't need to like somebody in order to show them respect. You can hate everything that somebody stands for and still show them respect. You can vehemently disagree with someone and still be polite about it. You don't worry that some people don't appreciate it, or decide that certain people don't deserve it.

That is only part of what they call "class".

[Swok]

That is only part of what they call "class".

Which is only completely subjective based on where you live.

[ghost_warlock]

This is silly. So, what, you're better than other people because you follow a certain set of actions? That's all "gentleman" and "chivalry" and such words mean; they're just ways for people to justify putting themselves into a better class of people. Then words like "dying breed" and such are bandied about in order to simultaneously play the victim. This is blatant elitism, and that's all the "gentleman" has ever been.

Exactly, being courteous is one thing, but following some sort of 'gentleman's code' is nothing more than thinly-veiled misogyny because it assumes that women are "weaker" and need to be protected and coddled.

As for not hitting women, etc. usually, the "need" to strike another human being (regardless of sex or age) is nothing so much as a childish temper tantrum. Virtually all interpersonal conflicts can be solved more effectively through non-violent communication and an impartial mediator. I'm not advocating blind pacifism, but I really don't see a need for much of any violence in daily life. Self-defense notwithstanding, violence is the modus operandi of fools and bullies.

[zeratul]

violence is the modus operandi of fools and bullies.

I'd say in some ways yes but in other ways no. At least in my circle of friends, we tend to hit and kick each other and such a lot. It's just a more physical version of insult wars to us, more for fun than anything. Someone does something to you, you find a way to get them back and such, not incredibally malicious, just sort of fun in an odd way. None of these have ever devolved into actual fights of course.

It alters in different groups of course. If i know someone can't take a punch then I'm not gonna hit them and such. Violence has it's place and can be usefull. If someones runring after you to beat the crap out of you, it's not like your going to talk them out of it. You do something physical, either running away or fighting, either of which I veiw as acceptable. I am all for the use of words and such in order to solve our problems, however I would not say violence is restricted to the simple minded and cruel.

[Crow]

Exactly, being courteous is one thing, but following some sort of 'gentleman's code' is nothing more than thinly-veiled misogyny because it assumes that women are "weaker" and need to be protected and coddled.

I think this only the case if you believe it to be. But as I said earlier, I think that a person should be a gentleman towards everyone they meet, not just women. Just because you treat someone with respect or you hold a door open for somebody does not mean you automatically consider them "weaker" than yourself.

Although truth be told, most women tend to be physically weaker than most men. I know a lot of women who are stronger than most guys, but they certainly aren't the majority. I don't think that if I hold a door open for one of them or pull a chair out for one of them that they will assume I am a caveman misogynist and only doing it because I'm "stronger" than they are.

And if we're talking about a situation where somebody really does need protecting (like getting their ass beat by a mugger), I think a true gentleman would help the victim out (assuming he is capable of doing so) regardless of their sex.

[Artemician]

This is silly. So, what, you're better than other people because you follow a certain set of actions? That's all "gentleman" and "chivalry" and such words mean; they're just ways for people to justify putting themselves into a better class of people. Then words like "dying breed" and such are bandied about in order to simultaneously play the victim. This is blatant elitism, and that's all the "gentleman" has ever been.


Exactly, being courteous is one thing, but following some sort of 'gentleman's code' is nothing more than thinly-veiled misogyny because it assumes that women are "weaker" and need to be protected and coddled.

I don't see how doing things like being polite, non-violence, doing small favours for people etc can be considered elitist or misogynistic if you extend this behaviour to everyone. Granted, considering yourself somehow "better" because of it, or doing these actions only to a select group of people is so, but at its core, the "Gentlemens'/Gentlewomen's Code" is nothing more than something you do to people because you'd like for them to do the same to you. There isn't really anything wrong with that.


...
And if we're talking about a situation where somebody really does need protecting (like getting their ass beat by a mugger), I think a true gentleman would help the victim out (assuming he is capable of doing so) regardless of their sex.

That should be what a true Gentlewoman should do as well.

[reorith]

so i got a remark today based on the complicated code of honor that i follow. i'm a paladin... i can't ever associate with evil characters, can't be disrespectful to legitimate authority and i must abide to honor and such. just general lawfullness and goodness.

i've heard crap from guys on how the codes of conduct and honor are useless... and such. but today is the first day that my girlfriends (normal friends -_-'') told me i'm a dying breed and then paladins should be left in 3.5 edition...

i was appalled... has society really taken a turn for the worst? has society not only forgone righteousness but also shunned and discouraged it? what will become of such a society where the holy don't slay the profane? i imagine such a world which can end in nothing but destruction and villainy.

-------
sorry.. i just felt like ranting today after a long day of all of this
-------
~reorith

[TeeEl]

So, what, you're better than other people because you follow a certain set of actions?

Er, yes. That tends to be how values systems work.

[averagejoe]

It's as simple as showing respect to everyone you meet, every day. You don't need to like somebody in order to show them respect. You can hate everything that somebody stands for and still show them respect. You can vehemently disagree with someone and still be polite about it. You don't worry that some people don't appreciate it, or decide that certain people don't deserve it.

That is only part of what they call "class".

I said nothing about giving or taking respect, or how one should act. However, if it is necessary to present my credentials...

In fact, in many ways I could be considered a gentleman, and have been called such on many occasions, sometimes to my surprise. At the very least, I think, you could find few people who would call me unkind. It is almost automatic for me to hold a door open for anyone within easy distance of it, and this is always coupled with a smile and a hello or nod. I smile at people just because I find it immensely rewarding when that rare (and, sometimes, not so rare) person smiles back. I am immensely polite to people who don't know me well enough to understand my rather antagonistic brand of humor. (At least, it would be antagonistic to people who don't know me so well; people who know me find me pretty funny, for the most part.) I have had many people surprised at the fact that I sometimes swear, simply because I never do around family, people I don't know very well, or, really, anyone except my closest friends. Anyone who knows me well will tell you how willing I am to help people, even those I don't know very well. In fact, people's unwillingness to accept help remains the limiting factor in these cases.

However, this is irrelevant, wholly and completely, to the point I was making. I do not reject courtesy and politeness, only the concept of the "gentleman" and the thought processes that seem to run with it. My thoughts on this are in my previous post, and have not actually been addressed.


Exactly, being courteous is one thing, but following some sort of 'gentleman's code' is nothing more than thinly-veiled misogyny because it assumes that women are "weaker" and need to be protected and coddled.

As for not hitting women, etc. usually, the "need" to strike another human being (regardless of sex or age) is nothing so much as a childish temper tantrum. Virtually all interpersonal conflicts can be solved more effectively through non-violent communication and an impartial mediator. I'm not advocating blind pacifism, but I really don't see a need for much of any violence in daily life. Self-defense notwithstanding, violence is the modus operandi of fools and bullies.

Erm, maybe, but this isn't the point I was trying to make either.

As an aside, I really have no problem with hitting girls. What can I say, I grew up with my sisters, and have never had a brother. I don't see why anyone should have such a problem; I've known few worthwhile women who needed to be coddled.

However, I generally find hitting girls to be illogical and inadvisable, simply because most girls have little chance of hurting me unless they are making a persistent, deliberate effort to do so, and that's even when I'm not defending myself. Which is to say, hitting girls is generally less necessary than guys, because girls tend to be physically weaker, and it tends to be a good idea to use the minimum force necessary to diffuse a situation. So, while I have no actual problem with hitting girls, I can think of few scenarios where it would be appropriate. That said, if I actually met a girl who was willing and able to physically crush me, I would do all I could do to defend myself. Although, such a thing would be such an oddity that maybe I wouldn't, being the curious type.

Edit: Ah! Ninjas! Not very gentlemanly. :smallwink:

@TeeEl: No. No it isn't.


I don't see how doing things like being polite, non-violence, doing small favours for people etc can be considered elitist or misogynistic if you extend this behaviour to everyone.

That's true. However, statements like the OP's pretty much are elitist and self-victimizing. I said nothing about misogyny, but perhaps that was directed more at the other guy. Also see my response to Crow.

[TeeEl]

@TeeEl: No. No it isn't.

Good point. After all, some value systems place more emphasis on genetic traits and circumstances of birth than on actions. Still, I find the ones that revolve around judging people by they actions they take are generally preferable.

Now, of course, there's always the idea that there is no such thing as being a "better" or "worse" person, which is a lovely thought that I am pretty enthusiastic about myself but does admittedly have some issues of its own, since it tends to make rendering value judgments impractical. For example, implicit in your post condemning the idea of a "gentleman's code" is the idea that adhering to one, or at least holding yourself up as being superior because you adhere to one, is somehow inferior or undesirable in a person.

[ghost_warlock]

I'd say in some ways yes but in other ways no. At least in my circle of friends, we tend to hit and kick each other and such a lot. It's just a more physical version of insult wars to us, more for fun than anything. Someone does something to you, you find a way to get them back and such, not incredibally malicious, just sort of fun in an odd way. None of these have ever devolved into actual fights of course.

What you're talking about here is a form of bonding that sometimes occurs among certain groups of adolescent males; sometimes known as "wrasslin.'" Note that it isn't a serious form of violence as there's no real intent to hurt one another. Instead, this behavior is intended to reinforce the group's identity that the members are tough enough to take a bit of bruising.

Is it violence? Technically yes, but it's not the type of violence I was discussing; which is violence with intent to cause harm or as a means of subjugation.


It alters in different groups of course. If i know someone can't take a punch then I'm not gonna hit them and such. Violence has it's place and can be usefull. If someones runring after you to beat the crap out of you, it's not like your going to talk them out of it. You do something physical, either running away or fighting, either of which I veiw as acceptable. I am all for the use of words and such in order to solve our problems, however I would not say violence is restricted to the simple minded and cruel.


And if we're talking about a situation where somebody really does need protecting (like getting their ass beat by a mugger), I think a true gentleman would help the victim out (assuming he is capable of doing so) regardless of their sex.

Most of this was already covered when I said "self-defense notwithstanding." Obviously, if someone is running after you (or someone you care about) while waving a knife around, your first response isn't likely to be "hey, do you want to sit down and talk about this?" The trick is to determine whether an individual situation is immediately dangerous or not, and respond accordingly.

If someone is being mugged/raped/attacked, I'd think that the decent, courageous, human thing to do would be to help them out/defend them; which has absolutely nothing to do with some sort of gentlemanly code of behavior.


I think this only the case if you believe it to be. But as I said earlier, I think that a person should be a gentleman towards everyone they meet, not just women. Just because you treat someone with respect or you hold a door open for somebody does not mean you automatically consider them "weaker" than yourself.

Although truth be told, most women tend to be physically weaker than most men. I know a lot of women who are stronger than most guys, but they certainly aren't the majority. I don't think that if I hold a door open for one of them or pull a chair out for one of them that they will assume I am a caveman misogynist and only doing it because I'm "stronger" than they are.


I don't see how doing things like being polite, non-violence, doing small favours for people etc can be considered elitist or misogynistic if you extend this behaviour to everyone. Granted, considering yourself somehow "better" because of it, or doing these actions only to a select group of people is so, but at its core, the "Gentlemens'/Gentlewomen's Code" is nothing more than something you do to people because you'd like for them to do the same to you. There isn't really anything wrong with that.

Doing nice things/small favors is perfectly reasonable so long as that's exactly the intent. If you do these things to be nice it's fine. When you start worrying about a woman's "honor" and/or "virtue" and similar terms is when you run into misogyny. Traditionally, a good chunk of a gentleman's code has to do with nothing so much as "protecting" a woman's honor/virtue; which is really just code for controlling their lives.

[averagejoe]

Good point. After all, some value systems place more emphasis on genetic traits and circumstances of birth than on actions. Still, I find the ones that revolve around judging people by they actions they take are generally preferable.

Now, of course, there's always the idea that there is no such thing as being a "better" or "worse" person, which is a lovely thought that I am pretty enthusiastic about myself but does admittedly have some issues of its own, since it tends to make rendering value judgments impractical. For example, implicit in your post condemning the idea of a "gentleman's code" is the idea that adhering to one, or at least holding yourself up as being superior because you adhere to one, is somehow inferior or undesirable in a person.

I don't know if there is no such thing as being a "better" or "worse" person; however, I'm fairly certain that such a judgment shouldn't arise from a person's belief system, except in extreme cases.

To continue your example: the problem is that you seem to have some concept of "worth" of a person, and you assume everyone else is using the same scale. I think that his beliefs on this matter are "wrong;" however, I don't believe that a person's beliefs are somehow defining of them, so it would be silly to place value on such a thing. I believe how I do because, as I see it, such beliefs are most advantageous to myself; finding superiority in such things would be like considering myself a better person than a man who uses a lower-quality knife than me, or someone who eats bananas. (Note: this last one doesn't make sense unless you consider that I don't like bananas.)

[Pyrian]

Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, it's all the same to you, huh? :smallcool:

People are going to assign worth to other people, and they're going to do so based on those people's actions, and those actions are going to be based on their beliefs. Those truths are all frankly self-evident and, barring major changes in basic human nature, irrevocable. You may as well argue that water isn't wet as argue with any of that.

[ghost_warlock]

Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, it's all the same to you, huh? :smallcool:

Hitler was a *********. But, then again, Mother Theresa wasn't the saint she's idealized to be, either. She was a human with her own flaws and biases, too.


People are going to assign worth to other people, and they're going to do so based on those people's actions, and those actions are going to be based on their beliefs. Those truths are all frankly self-evident and, barring major changes in basic human nature, irrevocable. You may as well argue that water isn't wet as argue with any of that.

The issue is that not everyone's beliefs (that guide their actions) are self-evident, furthermore their true beliefs are certainly not always the ones they claim to hold. But this may be a bit tangential for this thread... :smallcool:

[averagejoe]

Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, it's all the same to you, huh? :smallcool:

People are going to assign worth to other people, and they're going to do so based on those people's actions, and those actions are going to be based on their beliefs. Those truths are all frankly self-evident and, barring major changes in basic human nature, irrevocable. You may as well argue that water isn't wet as argue with any of that.

No. No isn't. I think if you reread my post you'll find that this isn't anything like what I said.

Also: oh noes! I am inferred to be teh liking Hitler! Therefore I must be wrong! Please, save me Godwin!

[TeeEl]

(Note: this last one doesn't make sense unless you consider that I don't like bananas.)

And therefore are a person of excellent taste and great worth. :smallbiggrin: Kidding, of course.


I don't know if there is no such thing as being a "better" or "worse" person; however, I'm fairly certain that such a judgment shouldn't arise from a person's belief system, except in extreme cases.

To continue your example: the problem is that you seem to have some concept of "worth" of a person, and you assume everyone else is using the same scale.

I do? :smallconfused:

Well, obviously I do of course have some concept of "worth" of a person; it would be impossible not to. I could define worth in the most practical terms possible and argue that I was not actually looking at any form of intrinsic worth but simply looking at what is most pragmatic or advantageous to me, but that would be dodging the issue through semantics. But clearly you have one value scale, and self-titled gentlemen have another value scale, and I have yet another value scale; this is quite evident throughout the discussion, and I am at a loss as to why you would have the notion that I believed otherwise.


I think that his beliefs on this matter are "wrong;" however, I don't believe that a person's beliefs are somehow defining of them, so it would be silly to place value on such a thing. I believe how I do because, as I see it, such beliefs are most advantageous to myself; finding superiority in such things would be like considering myself a better person than a man who uses a lower-quality knife than me, or someone who eats bananas.

From an existentialist perspective I find this fascinating. How do you define a person if not by their beliefs?

That notwithstanding, yes, I agree with you that one should not lightly place judgment on another's beliefs; the notion of thoughtcrime is doubleplusungood. But actions are eminently fair game, though as Pyrian points out actions tend to follow from beliefs.

Although for that matter there are some questions about the separability of actions from individuals as well. I'm not sure the distinction between "What Hitler did was bad" and "Hitler as a person was bad" is absolute... while you can argue that an action or even a pattern of behavior is not wholly defining of a person, if you categorize that behavior as wrong then it is difficult to argue that a person without that behavior would be better for it.

[thubby]

chivalry is dead, it was sexist. you treat people however you are going to treat them. unfortunately courtesy can be and all too often is exploited.

[averagejoe]

Well, obviously I do of course have some concept of "worth" of a person; it would be impossible not to. I could define worth in the most practical terms possible and argue that I was not actually looking at any form of intrinsic worth but simply looking at what is most pragmatic or advantageous to me, but that would be dodging the issue through semantics. But clearly you have one value scale, and self-titled gentlemen have another value scale, and I have yet another value scale; this is quite evident throughout the discussion, and I am at a loss as to why you would have the notion that I believed otherwise.

I meant from the point of view of you considering your previous statement to be right. I was responding to your statement in which you seemed to be saying that my holding different beliefs than other people necessarily means I find people with different beliefs than myself to be somehow beneath me. I assumed that you meant that you believe this, and thought that I did too. Evidently I was wrong in this assumption, or at least not completely right.


From an existentialist perspective I find this fascinating. How do you define a person if not by their beliefs?

Very carefully. It's not something like to do lightly. However, to be completely honest, on the day-to-day level I tend to find less worth in whoever I'm finding most annoying at the present.

On the "higher" philosophical level it's a bit more complicated. The idea that, when it comes to people, there are few, if any, things which are truly universal tends to be near the core of my philosophical beliefs, and so I can't say that I have some absolute scale of ranking. For a long time I've been fascinated, and somewhat befuddled, by people's need to rank everything, and think in terms of "better" and "worse." Suffice it to say, I find the idea of some sort of absolute ranking system for people to be neither true nor useful, and so I don't dwell on it much. In fact, even if some people are better than other people, it is rare that any sort of ranking is useful at all, even one limited in scope and application.

That, however, is evading the question. In general I tend to look at intent more than action, and also willingness to think and educate themselves. I also tend to find beauty in functionality which, I suppose, ascribes a sort of worth to people.

[Ponce]

There are lots of people out there who are nice, which is just dandy. Being a "gentleman" in the historical sense, however, would also imply being quite a jerk in many respects. It IS an outdated term. If it is dying out, well, good riddance.

As far as just showing small courtesies and not being inclined to violence, well, there are plenty of people who do, they just aren't -gentlemen- in the classical sense. People who are inclined to violence tend to spend a lot of time in jail. Are these the people you are complaining about? They are not the norm. By and large, people don't just default to fisticuffs.

I mean, if anything people are treated BETTER now. The age of the gentlemen also marked a time when things like spousal abuse were simply ignored. "She shouldn't have provoked him." Very gentlemanly.

It isn't as though holding a door open is tantamount to saving a dozen children from a burning orphanage. This thread is reminiscent of similar "why do nice guys never get the girl" threads. The whole thing is just ridiculous.

I mean, "A Dying Breed?" That's rather dramatic for something so trivial as a half second delay in arriving at your destination. I see people holding doors all the time, anyway.

And why is Hitler involved in this conversation? Stop talking about Hitler.

[averagejoe]

And why is Hitler involved in this conversation? Stop talking about Hitler.

He exists in the dark part of every man, guiding their thoughts and impulses. He is in the tears of every crying child and the blood spilled from the innocent. He has a hand in the creation of every murderous thought, and in the depraved you shall see his handiwork. Whenever a spurned lover is driven to suicide, he is there; whenever a man lashes out in anger and violence, he is there; whenever someone is wrong on the internet, he is there. He is inescapable, for he is of the shadows, and someday he will come for you.

[Player_Zero]

And why is Hitler involved in this conversation? Stop talking about Hitler.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law).

Don't know about chivalry, but yeah, you don't hit girls and you hold doors open for people, it's what's called 'not being a jerk' I believe.

[Boo]

There are lots of people out there who are nice, which is just dandy. Being a "gentleman" in the historical sense, however, would also imply being quite a jerk in many respects. It IS an outdated term. If it is dying out, well, good riddance.

As far as just showing small courtesies and not being inclined to violence, well, there are plenty of people who do, they just aren't -gentlemen- in the classical sense. People who are inclined to violence tend to spend a lot of time in jail. Are these the people you are complaining about? They are not the norm. By and large, people don't just default to fisticuffs.

I mean, if anything people are treated BETTER now. The age of the gentlemen also marked a time when things like spousal abuse were simply ignored. "She shouldn't have provoked him." Very gentlemanly.

It isn't as though holding a door open is tantamount to saving a dozen children from a burning orphanage. This thread is reminiscent of similar "why do nice guys never get the girl" threads. The whole thing is just ridiculous.

I mean, "A Dying Breed?" That's rather dramatic for something so trivial as a half second delay in arriving at your destination. I see people holding doors all the time, anyway.

And why is Hitler involved in this conversation? Stop talking about Hitler.

I think the term should be "Modern Gentleman" really, but it's implied with the single word "Gentleman".

[Dallas-Dakota]

I try to be, I want to be but the stupidity of humanity makes it rather hard to be.

[Artemician]

Don't know about chivalry, but yeah, you don't hit girls and you hold doors open for people, it's what's called 'not being a jerk' I believe.

Not particularly. I know plenty of people who would hit girls, and wouldn't hold doors open for people, but yet are not jerks. Giving people Small Courtesies is but one (rather unimportant, if I say so myself) part of being a Good Person, and to define someone's moral standing entirely by this part is absurd.

[doliest]

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law).

Don't know about chivalry, but yeah, you don't hit girls and you hold doors open for people, it's what's called 'not being a jerk' I believe.

Quite the contary, I've hit plenty of girls and don't hold doors, but I'm not a jerk(well no for those reasons, anyway)admittedly I can prove the girls had it coming since they started it and I believe that 'not hitting girls' flys out the window when they hit you, as for doors, well I'm vindictive and I can remember if someone let a door shut on me.

As for chivarly, it's dead and the world is a better place for it.

[Player_Zero]

Not particularly. I know plenty of people who would hit girls, and wouldn't hold doors open for people, but yet are not jerks. Giving people Small Courtesies is but one (rather unimportant, if I say so myself) part of being a Good Person, and to define someone's moral standing entirely by this part is absurd.

Then it is a jerk-like act. Being a jerk, acting like a jerk, same thing. Alternatively you could say that holding doors for people and generally being pleasant is called 'being nice', see.

...Kinda' makes me hungry for them Fizzy Jerkz now... They weren't even very good...

[Lord Herman]

I think hitting ladies is wrong. It's a simple fact of biology that men are generally stronger than women, and that strength shouldn't be abused. Starting fights with someone weaker than you is just plain cowardly.

That said, it's okay for a man to defend himself when he's attack by a woman. The key word here being defend. Getting slapped in the face doesn't give you the right to beat someone into a bloody pulp.

Of course, chivalry isn't all about not hitting ladies; it's also about being courteous. If you see chivalry as acting like a 19th-century gentleman, then yes, these rules are outdated, and some of them could be perceived as sexist in modern eyes. But there are still some rules of courtesy in our modern society.

In the end, chivalry is all about respect. And not just for ladies, mind you - the idea that chivalry only extends to ladies is a 19th-century invention. Older codes of chivalry expected gentlemen to be respectful to everyone; to their peers, to their lessers, and even to their enemies. Chivalry is a code of honourable conduct, and for my part, I hope it never dies.

[Artemician]

Then it is a jerk-like act. Being a jerk, acting like a jerk, same thing. Alternatively you could say that holding doors for people and generally being pleasant is called 'being nice', see.

You're really telling me that you determine someone's entire moral standing based on whether or not he/she gives people Small Courtesies? Or any other small, insignificant personal issue?


I think hitting ladies is wrong. It's a simple fact of biology that men are generally stronger than women, and that strength shouldn't be abused. Starting fights with someone weaker than you is just plain cowardly.

I'm physically weaker than most women I know. That means I have free reign to hit them? Sounds good to me :smallamused:


In the end, chivalry is all about respect. And not just for ladies, mind you - the idea that chivalry only extends to ladies is a 19th-century invention. Older codes of chivalry expected gentlemen to be respectful to everyone; to their peers, to their lessers, and even to their enemies. Chivalry is a code of honourable conduct, and for my part, I hope it never dies.

The thing is, peoples' idea of the word "Respect" and the speech-acts associated with this word have changed since the word Chivalry was used to describe it. Since you're going to have to take out a large chunk of what makes up the antiquated word "Chivalry" to arrive at the meaning of the modern word "Respect", why not just cut the explanations and just use the word Respect?

[Lord Herman]

You're really telling me that you determine someone's entire moral standing based on whether or not he/she gives people Small Courtesies? Or any other small, insignificant personal issue?

It doesn't determine your entire moral standing, but being rude to people does make you a jerk.


I'm physically weaker than most women I know. That means I have free reign to hit them? Sounds good to me :smallamused:

It means you're not a coward if you do. Doesn't mean it's right, though.


The thing is, peoples' idea of the word "Respect" and the speech-acts associated with this word have changed since the word Chivalry was used to describe it. Since you're going to have to take out a large chunk of what makes up the antiquated word "Chivalry" to arrive at the meaning of the modern word "Respect", why not just cut the explanations and just use the word Respect?

True, the word respect could also be used, but it's not exactly the same. Chivalry is a code of conduct that's mostly about showing respect.

[Player_Zero]

You're really telling me that you determine someone's entire moral standing based on whether or not he/she gives people Small Courtesies? Or any other small, insignificant personal issue?


That isn't really what I said though, now is it.

[bosssmiley]

As the saying goes, "Chivalry is dead, and women killed it" and the saying couldn't be more true. Respect, honour, chivalry and kindness are indeed dying, being ushered out by the constant need for self esteem, hugs, love and the general weakening of the human condition.

People showed honor and respect, at least where I came from, because if you didnt to another man's lady, car or what have you'd get beaten, or people would shun you. Now we can't even teach our children a lesson with a spanking,

You lose the FEAR and you lose the respect.

Dear Grand Moff Tarkin

I have read your post with interest and am interested in subscribing to your newsletter. :smallbiggrin:

-----

Personal view:

Chivalrous behaviour stems from being in a position of strength: it is the courtesy and forbearance that power gives to those who lack it. Unfortunately we in the modern world - a place that likes to pretend that power disparities are either non-existent or inconsequential - have largely confused the trappings of chivalry with those of common decency, thereby throwing the baby out with the bathwater in discarding both.

IMO chivalry is a good thing. It is the thing that makes a gentleman an adornment to his name; it is the foundation of noblesse oblige; it is the social conscience of the wealthy; it compels charity in those who are under no obligation to display it. Where chivalry holds sway excellence follows and society flourishes.

Where chivalrous conduct is lacking then naked power equals right and the brute becomes master. Injustice becomes endemic, savagery inevitable. Society degenerates into naught but aggressive status display and the feral predation of man upon his brother (supply your own examples of such places here). All men become equal in the Hobbesian squalor of a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

I know which society I'd rather live in.

One thing that makes me smile about the whole gentlemanly conduct thing: gentleman behaviour is founded in strength, whereas both 'fronting' like an angry bantam cockerel and doctrinaire egalitarianism are displays originating in powerlessness. Ironic, isn't it? :smallamused:

Art of Manliness (http://artofmanliness.com/)
The Chap (http://www.thechap.net/)

[dish]

I keep reading the title of this thread as "a dying breath" and getting worried that you're all planning your famous last words. :smalleek:

(You can get back on topic now.)

[Quincunx]

One sec--

(stepladder to the thread title and a sharpie marker:
THE MAN THREAD
((and in less even lettering and a different color))
Intellectual & societal grunting & posturing

(rounds up dish & Ego Slayer, exits thread arm-in-arm)

[Oregano]

I have been called a gentleman in the past, but I don't care for chivalry to be honest, I treat everyone equally. If I'm walking with someone I'll either open the door for them or hold it open after I go through, it makes no difference what gender they are.

The only exception is when me and my friends slamed the door closed on each other to see if we could hurt each other, I'd never slam a door on a girl, mainly because I'm 6'3 and really strong, but partially because they weren't in on it.

[Lord Herman]

One sec--

(stepladder to the thread title and a sharpie marker:
THE MAN THREAD
((and in less even lettering and a different color))
Intellectual & societal grunting & posturing

(rounds up dish & Ego Slayer, exits thread arm-in-arm)

I do hope that wasn't aimed at me. I don't appreciate being called a barbarian for defending good manners and respectful behaviour.

[Artemician]

Chivalrous behaviour stems from being in a position of strength: it is the courtesy and forbearance that power gives to those who lack it.
...
IMO chivalry is a good thing. It is the thing that makes a gentleman an adornment to his name; it is the foundation of noblesse oblige; it is the social conscience of the wealthy; it compels charity in those who are under no obligation to display it. Where chivalry holds sway excellence follows and society flourishes.

Where chivalrous conduct is lacking then naked power equals right and the brute becomes master. Injustice becomes endemic, savagery inevitable. Society degenerates into naught but aggressive status display and the feral predation of man upon his brother (supply your own examples of such places here). All men become equal in the Hobbesian squalor of a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

I know which society I'd rather live in.

Again, I throw to you the same question I threw to Lord Herman: since what you're looking out for is Noblesse Oblidge, which is but one component of Chivalry? Why go and use such a loaded term? And well, he's asked me about that, so I'll give him an answer.


True, the word respect could also be used, but it's not exactly the same. Chivalry is a code of conduct that's mostly about showing respect.

The thing is, even if using the word 'Respect' is not quite the same, I feel that it is better than to have to use a loaded term like 'Chivalry', which encompasses so many things that many people often have entirely different associations when they talk about the term.


That isn't really what I said though, now is it.

You're quite right, I'm sorry.

Well, I'll rephrase that. Why does partaking in a particular act, which some people may or may not deem "Jerky" automatically make you a jerk? IMO, you have to judge people holistically. Making a thorough appraisal of a person based only on a few issues is not doing him/her justice.


One sec--

(stepladder to the thread title and a sharpie marker:
THE MAN THREAD
((and in less even lettering and a different color))
Intellectual & societal grunting & posturing

(rounds up dish & Ego Slayer, exits thread arm-in-arm)

Respect is Universal!

*shakes fist*

[Quincunx]

(accosted before fully exited)

Alright then--tell me why you have extra social graces to spare for women/humans. Some of you have mentioned physical strength, moral superiority, and societal power, which implies that whoever you're extending the chivalry towards is weaker/morally suspect/socially inferior. Is it not unreasonable that someone would be annoyed by someone else implying he's superior?

Also, thank you averagejoe for that performance of Godwin as the Shadow (or some other pontificating hero). Your free banana disintegration gun will be arriving shortly.

[EndlessWrath]

Some men will be more respectful or polite more toward women. Thats true... but when have you ever heard of a man accusing a woman of rape? sexual harassment? etc. It comes natural to people. I'm not saying its right, but please understand we're not being sexist.
--------
IMO. You should be polite to anyone everyone.... period. Respect is something earned by each individual, but kindness should freely be given. Imagine a world where people were generally kind. I'm not a hippy or something... but such a world would be paradise. No crime, no killing, no need to give money to war or such. I'm not saying perfect peace... but people would at least think twice. If you're respectful, it doesn't matter what gender you are, You've earned my respect.

[Oregano]

When I mentioned physical strength it's because I'd rather not break someone nose, especially my friends, because if I slammed a door full force at them they wouldn't be able to stop it(not anyone I know anyway, a female weightlifter probably could) hey, I don't even use my full strength with guys because I'm a lot stronger than most people. That's just restraint, not looking down on them because they're physically weaker.

[dish]

Ay-yai-yai-yai-yai.

1) Lord_Herman, you're objecting to being called a barbarian? Have you looked at your avatar recently? :smallwink:

2) Ok, Quincunx is right, and what she's saying is tied in with those who suggest that those who hold to a certain set of 'chivalrous' or 'gentlemanly' codes are only able to do so because the balance of power is heavily weighted in their favour. Look at the periods these codes originated in: the medieval and the Victorian. Those were two of the most oppressive eras for women (and that's not even getting in to issues of class and race).

If you get too into ideas of 'chivalry' or 'gentlemanlyness' (umm, neolism, deal with it) you can very easily find yourself placing women on a pedestal and admiring them like delicate china ornaments. Trouble is, it is very hard to be an active, fulfilled and self-actualised person if you're trapped on a pedestal. It's just as bad as the virgin / whore dichotomy for the objectification of women. You should not be surprised if 21st century liberated women object to this, because if this is the way you think, then you are not considering or treating us as liberated equals.

Now, for those of you who talk about showing respect to all other living beings. About being polite and courteous to everybody. About never hitting anybody who is smaller or weaker than you ... well then, cool, go ahead. We need more people like that in the world.

[ghost_warlock]

If you get too into ideas of 'chivalry' or 'gentlemanlyness' (umm, neolism, deal with it) you can very easily find yourself placing women on a pedestal and admiring them like delicate china ornaments. Trouble is, it is very hard to be an active, fulfilled and self-actualised person if you're trapped on a pedestal. It's just as bad as the virgin / whore dichotomy for the objectification of women. You should not be surprised if 21st century liberated women object to this, because if this is the way you think, then you are not considering or treating us as liberated equals.

QFT.

Chivalry and the code of the gentleman are rooted in the notion that you should treat certain people women as equals even though you don't actually believe they are equal to you. It's thinly veiled sexism/misogyny and certainly isn't an admirable trait.

[reorith]

Now, for those of you who talk about showing respect to all other living beings. About being polite and courteous to everybody. About never hitting anybody who is smaller or weaker than you ... well then, cool, go ahead. We need more people like that in the world.

too much work. brb, shaking down middle school students.

[Lord Herman]

Ay-yai-yai-yai-yai.

1) Lord_Herman, you're objecting to being called a barbarian? Have you looked at your avatar recently? :smallwink:

RAAARGH! MAN-PERSON HIDE SIMPLE-MINDED NATURE WITH PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL DEBATE! NOW WHERE BE ALE AND WENCHES? :smalltongue:

Edit: Also, this avatar fits the barbarian theme better, don't you think?


Now, for those of you who talk about showing respect to all other living beings. About being polite and courteous to everybody. About never hitting anybody who is smaller or weaker than you ... well then, cool, go ahead. We need more people like that in the world.

Now that's what I'm talking about! Respect for all! And hugs! Hugs for all! Except for those who don't like to be hugged by strangers, which is okay too! :smallsmile:

But I can still call it chivalry if I want to. If you object to the term, call it my personal code of honour.

[Artemician]

Okay... people..

Know here that many people who use the word 'Chivalry' do not use it in the same way that you do. You take it to mean the entirety of its usage in the Victorian eras, but many people here are using it in a different sense. Like, 'Respect', or 'Noblesse Oblidge'. Which is why I advocate stopping the usage of 'Chivalry': it carries too many hanger-ons and connotations from the past, and using it inevitably results in misunderstanding, like what has been going on here.

[ghost_warlock]

I have a word that I use to describe a stance of politeness, respect, and courtesy towards others. I call it Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism). :smallsmile:

[Artemician]

I have a word that I use to describe a stance of politeness, respect, and courtesy towards others. I call it Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism). :smallsmile:

Not perfect (animals :smallconfused:) but good 'nuff. We're never going to find a completely neutral term in any language anyway, so we might as well use this one until we can't.

[dish]

Edit: Also, this avatar fits the barbarian theme better, don't you think?
I think it's less barbarian. Does have interesting class struggle connotations though.


But I can still call it chivalry if I want to. If you object to the term, call it my personal code of honour.
Just watch out for saying things like "I would never hit a woman". Because

it would be best if you never hit anybody.
if a woman attacks you, then I think you are allowed some self-defence.


...'Noblesse Oblige'...
I'd avoid this one too. It also has serious class, race (imperialistic) and gender connotations. Waaay to popular with our good friends the Victorians.

[loopy]

Oddly I've found that a mix between old-school gentlemanly ways and the 'new' method of snarky put-downs works really well, both in relationships and in general.

The difference between being a gentleman and being a doormat, as it were.

[Lord Herman]

(Multi-simu'd! i was talking about the word 'Humanism')

But doesn't that word have religious connotations? In the end, all terms have multiple meanings and connotations. It's silly to stop using a word because one of its meaning is offensive. That sort of thinking leads to absurd politically correct euphemisms.

In the end, it doesn't matter what word you use - what's important is how you use it. Just like calling someone 'black' can be a simple description of their skin colour, or a racial slur. In the end, it doesn't matter if you say 'african american' instead - even a convoluted term like that can be used to insult people.

So... uhm... I'm not out to offend or insult anyone.

...

Hug?

[Artemician]

But doesn't that word have religious connotations? In the end, all terms have multiple meanings and connotations. It's silly to stop using a word because one of its meaning is offensive. That sort of thinking leads to absurd politically correct euphemisms.

In the end, it doesn't matter what word you use - what's important is how you use it. Just like calling someone 'black' can be a simple description of their skin colour, or a racial slur. In the end, it doesn't matter if you say 'african american' instead - even a convoluted term like that can be used to insult people.

Well, it's true that we can't not offend everyone, but we have to *try* not to. The trying is important.

You are, however, right in that there are plenty of ways to convolute *any* phrase into an insult

Case in point:


I'd avoid this one too. It also has serious class, race (imperialistic) and gender connotations. Waaay to popular with our good friends the Victorians.

"Everything I have just told you can be summarized by an old word: noblesse oblige!" His advice had included comments like "others will respect you for detesting people who have done detestable things," but nothing about generosity or benevolence. He later includes the exhortation that a noble person performs services for others not for gain or recognition, but simply because it was the right thing to do." - the Lily of the Valley.

Chivalry I'll grant (rooted in sexism and all), but I for one see nothing wrong with the use of the term Noblesse Oblige.

[Oregano]

We should just say Altruism or something, even though it's not completely correct.

[dish]

(Multi-simu'd! i was talking about the word 'Humanism')

But doesn't that word have religious connotations?
In the UK the term "humanist" is very strongly linked to "ethical agnostic/atheist" - but it doesn't actually have to be so. Also, all major world religions tend to preach a doctrine of respecting your fellow humans (and sometimes even all living beings).



In the end, all terms have multiple meanings and connotations. It's silly to stop using a word because one of its meaning is offensive. That sort of thinking leads to absurd politically correct euphemisms.

In the end, it doesn't matter what word you use - what's important is how you use it. Just like calling someone 'black' can be a simple description of their skin colour, or a racial slur. In the end, it doesn't matter if you say 'african american' instead - even a convoluted term like that can be used to insult people.
The basic idea behind political correctness is, in my understanding, respect. (Yet again.) The idea is, you actually ask the people you are referring to (be they female, African American, people with disabilities, LGBT folks, or whatever) and actually ask them to tell you how they would like to be referred to. It's about paying attention to people and not treating them like objects. You know...


So... uhm... I'm not out to offend or insult anyone.

...

Hug?
Hugs are allowed. :smallwink:

[ghost_warlock]

Not perfect (animals :smallconfused:) but good 'nuff. We're never going to find a completely neutral term in any language anyway, so we might as well use this one until we can't.

Nah, we're not really going to find a 100% acceptible term that doesn't leave something out, besides maybe "universalism" (which I believe is already defined as something...else).

As for my own personal stance of "who" to extend respect, etc., I generally restrict myself to vertebrates with a central nervous system. I'll let my1 cat chase around and torment a spider, for instance, but when she caught a baby mouse the other day I took it from her and put it out of its misery (she'd already hurt it pretty bad by the time she literally brought it to my attention).

At the same time, though I don't wish "prey" species to suffer unduly, I'm not giving up steak or porkchops anytime soon. :smallamused:

1I use the term "my" here much as one would say "my daughter;" not so much to assign ownership as to denote familiarity.


The basic idea behind political correctness is, in my understanding, respect. (Yet again.) The idea is, you actually ask the people you are referring to (be they female, African American, people with disabilities, LGBT folks, or whatever) and actually ask them to tell you how they would like to be referred to. It's about paying attention to people and not treating them like objects. You know...

Yes, asking innocently is usually a good idea. For instance, I used to live in a part of the U.S. where the terms 'Hispanic', 'Latino/Latina', and 'Chicano/Chicana' were thrown around a LOT. Using the wrong one to refer to someone bordered on Serious Business (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeriousBusiness). I actually saw at least one fistfight break out over someone 'accidentally' referring to someone else by the 'wrong' term.

[EndlessWrath]

Just as laws change. so does chivalry. Its based on the times. Chivalry doesn't just apply to men as it did back in Medevil times. I'm quite sure that Chivalry must be adapted based on what time period you're in. long ago, you could declare a duel upon a man based on honor, it would be a duel to the death... well now of course we can't because laws change. Everything in life changes to adapt to the times. Chivalry is added to this list, you must respect life and such... and you should be courteous and kind to all folk... not just women or men. It doesn't matter what race or gender you are, where you live or what you want to do for a living, how smart you are or how fun you are to be around... Kindness applies to all of you.

I call it Neo-Chivalry.

[dish]

...Chivalry I'll grant (rooted in sexism and all), but I for one see nothing wrong with the use of the term Noblesse Oblige.

Ok, lets check the dictionary.com definition shall we? (Here it is (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noblesse%20oblige).) Notice anything? All that 'high birth', 'higher class', 'nobility', 'wealthy', 'privileged' stuff?

The great British empire-builders and propogators used 'noblesse oblige' as an excuse to invade and then retain possession of a huge portion of the globe throughout Africa and Asia. The way they framed it, they, as superior, richer, more powerful, European (mainly) males had a duty, a noblesse oblige, to civilize those poor, wretched, uneducated, uncultured natives.

Sorry, but that term has serious class, race and unequal-balance-of-power connotations.

[Oregano]

That's why I say Altruism, it has nothing to do with any of that, does it? It's helping someone for the sake of helping, which could be, be repectful for the sake of it. I think it works anyway.

[Artemician]

Ok, lets check the dictionary.com definition shall we? (Here it is (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/noblesse%20oblige).) Notice anything? All that 'high birth', 'higher class', 'nobility', 'wealthy', 'privileged' stuff?

The great British empire-builders and propogators used 'noblesse oblige' as an excuse to invade and then retain possession of a huge portion of the globe throughout Africa and Asia. The way they framed it, they, as superior, richer, more powerful, European (mainly) males had a duty, a noblesse oblige, to civilize those poor, wretched, uneducated, uncultured natives.

Sorry, but that term has serious class, race and unequal-balance-of-power connotations.

In our world today, as it was then, some people are born into, or work their way into more fortunate circumstances than others. This is self evident.

I, along with other people who use this term, am of the belief that these people should contribute back to society.

The use of 'Noblesse Oblige' to justify White Imperialism - you're correct, the White Man's Burden was nothing more than a disguise for Colonializers to justify their actions. However, it is a misuse of the term; Noblesse Oblige in itself is not wrong. It has negative connotations affirmed to it, but I am of the belief that these connotations are too weak in a modern day context, that will make me think twice about using such a term.

I do try to be non-offensive, but I have my limits.

[Castaras]

Same with chivalry though.

It has negative attachments, but it's connotations are weak in nowadays context.

Can't we just call it "Being kind"? It's what we need more of. Not people arguing over the name of what they're trying to do, and thus getting angry, and thus not doing what they're arguing about the name of.

[averagejoe]

I do hope that wasn't aimed at me. I don't appreciate being called a barbarian for defending good manners and respectful behaviour.

See, this sort of thing is exactly what I was talking about. You're basically saying, "You're saying negative things about me for being morally superior? What is this?" Because this is just a bunch of posturing. It's a bunch of guys saying, "Look at me, I do the right thing even though everyone else is against me, and look at what an awesome, moral person that makes me. People like me may be dying out, but I'll sit here, taking the unpopular stance, because it's the right thing to do." Why does one need to be a "gentleman" or "chivalrous" or whatever less loaded terms are being decided on? What use do these labels have besides posturing?


Also, thank you averagejoe for that performance of Godwin as the Shadow (or some other pontificating hero). Your free banana disintegration gun will be arriving shortly.

:smallyuk: Alright, bananas, your time has come!

[Tom_Violence]

I'm sorry but what? Unfortunately this just comes across as "Guys in my class/year/whatever just want to run around getting tanked and shagging things, but girls are lovely." The entire soapbox seems full of horrible generalisations and elitist sentiments, with a hefty dose of sexism thrown right in there.



I have no respect for men in general

So, women deserve respect right off the bat, but men have to earn it? Either that statement should read "I have no respect for people in general", or you're a sexist.


i feel my peers understand nothing of Life more that sex/drinking/and cruelty. It fills me with shame. I encourage people to be kind and generous. a day should not go by when one does not continue to ask "what can i do for someone today?". Thats my view at least.

First off, that's an incredibly strong view, so don't be too surprised if not many people share it. A lot of us are too busy in our own everyday lives to take care of everyone else's needs. Secondly, small niceties have little to no impact on someone's moral standing - you can hold doors for people all you like but it won't help you if you still drop the ball on actual issues. And finally, what are you basing your opinions of your peers on? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you don't know these people very well outside of the small glimpses that you get in your daily school life, so not only is it very presumptous to assume that they only care about sex, drinking and cruelty, but to then say you feel ashamed because of it is also incredibly arrogant.

So hop off that high horse, and try focusing a bit more of that 'kindness and respect' on how you judge people, rather than just on making sure that they can get into buildings.

[dish]

In our world today, as it was then, some people are born into, or work their way into more fortunate circumstances than others. This is self evident.
Ok. Yes, the world has uneven balances of privilege and power. I would argue though, that those who are born into privileged positions greatly out-number those who worked their way into them. Nobody worked their way to being caucasian, very few worked their way to being male, very few worked their way to being hetero-normative*, and the vast majority of the middle and upper classes were born into that position**.


I, along with other people who use this term, am of the belief that these people should contribute back to society.
Yes, but, what about the underprivileged? Do they have the right to 'give something back'? To help others who need it? To treat others with consideration and respect?

Just as 'chivalry' or 'gentlemanlyness' can lead to women being objectified and turned into passive recipients, so 'nobless oblige' can lead to the underprivileged being treated in the same way. They become passive receivers of charity or good works, rather than being active participants in society or the local community. The voiceless continue to be silenced.

* Intellectual posturing? Probably.

** It is possible for someone to work their way up in the class system, and I'm sure we can all provide examples, but we also have to admit that those people do not form the majority of the middle or upper classes.


Can't we just call it "Being kind"? It's what we need more of. Not people arguing over the name of what they're trying to do, and thus getting angry, and thus not doing what they're arguing about the name of.
Yeah, many alternate terms have already been suggested. However, when somebody is wrong on the internet....:smallwink: (This is not meant to suggest that having a different opinion from mine may be in any way 'wrong'.)

It is interesting to see what Quincunx and averagejoe are saying about why this topic appeals much more to the male members of the forum than to the females. Could be a sociology paper in it.

[Lord Herman]

See, this sort of thing is exactly what I was talking about. You're basically saying, "You're saying negative things about me for being morally superior? What is this?" Because this is just a bunch of posturing. It's a bunch of guys saying, "Look at me, I do the right thing even though everyone else is against me, and look at what an awesome, moral person that makes me. People like me may be dying out, but I'll sit here, taking the unpopular stance, because it's the right thing to do." Why does one need to be a "gentleman" or "chivalrous" or whatever less loaded terms are being decided on? What use do these labels have besides posturing?

What, may I ask, is so horrible about trying to be a good person? Why do you feel it necessary to twist my words and make me sound like an arrogant snob? Do you really think people only do good things to show off or to outdo others?

[Innis Cabal]

What, may I ask, is so horrible about trying to be a good person? Why do you feel it necessary to twist my words and make me sound like an arrogant snob? Do you really think people only do good things to show off or to outdo others?

I think what he is trying to say is. Saying your a good person because thats what your supposed to be comes off as just a bit haughty.

As for whats wrong with being a good person. Its a matter of degree. At least the way I see it. Should I be a gentleman all the time to people i'd much rather see buried and done with? No. And I never will. Should I treat women differently because they are women? Bet your last buck I wont. Women live in a very nice world in America, being able to vote, get good jobs, leave the house. And, in this day in age, alot of women(See:Feminists) seem to only focus on they weren't allowed, and demand they get treated differently because of the past, which goes against their equality, but thats a rant of a different color.

Being a gentleman and going around saying you are, makes you at the very least shallow. Action, not words or indignation that its dying out.

[Fan]

I think what he is trying to say is. Saying your a good person because thats what your supposed to be comes off as just a bit haughty.

As for whats wrong with being a good person. Its a matter of degree. At least the way I see it. Should I be a gentleman all the time to people i'd much rather see buried and done with? No. And I never will. Should I treat women differently because they are women? Bet your last buck I wont. Women live in a very nice world in America, being able to vote, get good jobs, leave the house. And, in this day in age, alot of women(See:Feminists) seem to only focus on they weren't allowed, and demand they get treated differently because of the past, which goes against their equality, but thats a rant of a different color.

Being a gentleman and going around saying you are, makes you at the very least shallow. Action, not words or indignation that its dying out.
you apprently lack honor of any sort. were you not told to treat others as you wish to be treated? Be kind to your enemy, and you shall in turn recive a freind Innis. That is all I have to say.

[dish]

What, may I ask, is so horrible about trying to be a good person? Why do you feel it necessary to twist my words and make me sound like an arrogant snob? Do you really think people only do good things to show off or to outdo others?

I think you're feeling picked on and unfairly singled out. This is a pity because your original post wasn't that bad at all and, in the context of this thread, was quite reasonable and only contained a few questionable statements or assumptions. Unfortunately it was in the wrong place at the wrong time and thus got noticed.

In my opinion you are most definitely still worthy of hugs.

I think what interests me about some of the posts in this thread is the narrative that they are cumulatively building, and how that narrative relates to a position of power and privilege. This is power and privilege that many seem to be unconscious of possessing, but I think they feel that it is under threat, and that this thread may be one of the manifestations of that perception of threat.

[Oregano]

I think the defensive nature of the posts may actually be because it seemed like an attack on people who aren't chivalrous and then when people said they were, it started to seem like they were then being attacked because of it.

I think treating people nicely is imperative and I agree with what FF Fanboy said.

[wadledo]

I think what interests me about some of the posts in this thread is the narrative that they are cumulatively building, and how that narrative relates to a position of power and privilege. This is power and privilege that many seem to be unconscious of possessing, but I think they feel that it is under threat, and that this thread may be one of the manifestations of that perception of threat.

I just have to say, as an outside observer, girl got game.:smalleek:
I.e. is completely correct. The arguments are starting to sound very mud-slingy.


I think treating people nicely is imperative and I agree with what FF Fanboy said.To completely destroy what I just said, you're going to use poorly veiled insults to be nice to someone?:smallconfused:

[Innis Cabal]

you apprently lack honor of any sort. were you not told to treat others as you wish to be treated? Be kind to your enemy, and you shall in turn recive a freind Innis. That is all I have to say.

I never once said I didn't treat nice people nicely. Respect gets respect. I wouldnt want someone dead and buried if they were the nicest person. And frankly, the "Turn an enemy to a friend" is some of the most hippy crap i've ever heard. I don't want a blood friend, thanks. But the above is exactly the point I was trying to make.

I don't go around saying I have honor, or that I am a gentleman. And, I don't for the exact reason someone saying I lack honor(and as it implies that you do) thinks he or she does.

Your honor, all of yours, is different then mine, or anyone else's, at least most of the time. Sure, you share similarities, and some might even have identical forms. But it depends on where you've grown up, when you grew up, what your home and outside life was like. And its bloody rude to tell someone, anyone, your a gentleman because of X, Y, and Z and thats the way it is.

[Jae]

Honestly, I dont think nice guys are such a dying breed, nor are nice girls. There have always been jerks and gentleman. I think most people just tend to pass over the nice people a lot more, notice them a lot less.

[Collin152]

Strictly speaking, all breeds are dying, as we move closer to the inevitable death of all humanity.
Just saying.

[snoopy13a]

Maybe we should go back to the old definition of "gentleman" which was a man who had enough property that didn't have to work :smalltongue:

I think everyone should act with common courtesy. I'm not one to opening doors for women though nor will I seat a woman. Some women see forms of chivary like that to be patronizing and I agree. However, I will prop a door open for a person who is just behind.

[Unique]

Maybe we should go back to the old definition of "gentleman" which was a man who had enough property that didn't have to work :smalltongue:

I think everyone should act with common courtesy. I'm not one to opening doors for women though nor will I seat a woman. Some women see forms of chivary like that to be patronizing and I agree. However, I will prop a door open for a person who is just behind.*clears throat*

I agree. I would also like to add that a gentleman should be required to wear a hat.

[Collin152]

*clears throat*

I agree. I would also like to add that a gentleman should be required to wear a hat.

Yes.
Preferably speaking with a southern accent.

[Unique]

Yes.
Preferably speaking with a southern accent.And a cane.

[Collin152]

And a cane.

Dressed in white?

[Khosan]

And a cane.

And wear a monocle.

With a handlebar mustache.

[Unique]

Dressed in white?Absolutely.

Khosan: double absolutely.

[Collin152]

Absolutely.

Khosan: double absolutely.

You know we have to create this thing, now. Somehow.

[Unique]

I'll start writing up the freeform RP character if you'll roll up some stats. We'll need an avatarist.

[Khosan]

I'll start writing up the freeform RP character if you'll roll up some stats. We'll need an avatarist.

I'd do it, but I have an animation project I need to tend to.

[EndlessWrath]

I'm sorry but what? Unfortunately this just comes across as "Guys in my class/year/whatever just want to run around getting tanked and shagging things, but girls are lovely." The entire soapbox seems full of horrible generalisations and elitist sentiments, with a hefty dose of sexism thrown right in there.

So, women deserve respect right off the bat, but men have to earn it? Either that statement should read "I have no respect for people in general", or you're a sexist.

First off, that's an incredibly strong view, so don't be too surprised if not many people share it. A lot of us are too busy in our own everyday lives to take care of everyone else's needs. Secondly, small niceties have little to no impact on someone's moral standing - you can hold doors for people all you like but it won't help you if you still drop the ball on actual issues. And finally, what are you basing your opinions of your peers on? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you don't know these people very well outside of the small glimpses that you get in your daily school life, so not only is it very presumptous to assume that they only care about sex, drinking and cruelty, but to then say you feel ashamed because of it is also incredibly arrogant.

Most base is circumstantial. If you lived over here where I live... you'd understand quite quickly, as the majority of people in my school (specifically males) are wangsters, thugs, jock-bullies, or perverts... where as the majority of women in the school are either REALLY slutty... which i do not respect... (still circumstantial... this is just generalization) OR really nice homely girls. out of the guys, there's probably 50/almost a thousand that aren't fake people or the lowlife, treat people like s**t scum. So when i speak of people, its a generalization of people i deal with or see often... And since the majority of people I respect are people I either get along with or impress me... and the majority of both of those are girls.. since 70% of my friends are female. This isn't cause I like females or is a huge flirt or something. There's just not a lot of guy friends that are polite/share interests/ or just generally good hearted real (not fake) people.

On the other hand, I do have/know some very respectable and noble guy friends, but this is based where I live and who I'm around. Perhaps if I met more people outside the area I would say different, but the majority of men I see are these types listed above. Therefore my only conclusion is to be kind, but not respect them or deal with them any further than I have or must. I respect people. People who earn it. Respect must be earned like trust... sure there is a base level of respect you should show everyone... but when you earn it from people its a lot more rewarding. and you don't earn it through who ya know or your family tree or how much money you have. It's what you do that defines you. There are millions of awesome noble and kind guys out there... unfortunately, not many go to my school.

humankind is doomed with a duality of persona. a mask you where in public.. which is where i think this nature of man lies... because i do not believe anyone is purely evil or cruel at heart. But one cannot be based on his intentions.. only his/her actions. What you do is how I respect you.

So for the last time. I do not have the sexist approach to chivalry that women must be treated better than men because they're weaker or such. All people are people. There is no superior race or bloodline... no greater profession or god given power. Treat people with kindness. Respect is another matter, I'll treat you with respect, common courtesy if you will, any day normally. Thats my kindness. But great respect must be earned. If i respect you, then I might confide with you or trust you. Friends, family, and such they earn respect (once again. generalization.)


---------------
Quite frankly. Each person has their own opinion. Each person has their own definition of Respect and Chivalry, who it should be given to, how it should be given, what it entitles... etc. This results in a 4 page argument on this subject. I'm very sorry. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, perhaps my methods are flawed or just out of date.. or even possibly odd. I apologize. But a gentleman I am and so I remain.


~sorry about ranting again.

-Wrath

EDIT: wow. Colin + Khosan + Unique.... ..wow.

You just made me laugh so hard it brightened up my day from suckitude to awesome... just reading the last page. Awesome.

[Innis Cabal]

I'm sorry but what? Unfortunately this just comes across as "Guys in my class/year/whatever just want to run around getting tanked and shagging things, but girls are lovely." The entire soapbox seems full of horrible generalisations and elitist sentiments, with a hefty dose of sexism thrown right in there.



So, women deserve respect right off the bat, but men have to earn it? Either that statement should read "I have no respect for people in general", or you're a sexist.



First off, that's an incredibly strong view, so don't be too surprised if not many people share it. A lot of us are too busy in our own everyday lives to take care of everyone else's needs. Secondly, small niceties have little to no impact on someone's moral standing - you can hold doors for people all you like but it won't help you if you still drop the ball on actual issues. And finally, what are you basing your opinions of your peers on? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you don't know these people very well outside of the small glimpses that you get in your daily school life, so not only is it very presumptous to assume that they only care about sex, drinking and cruelty, but to then say you feel ashamed because of it is also incredibly arrogant.

So hop off that high horse, and try focusing a bit more of that 'kindness and respect' on how you judge people, rather than just on making sure that they can get into buildings.

Missed this scanning over it all and groaning.

I'd say, Tom here is the actual only gentleman in this debate.

The above seems strange....almost as if its in total contridiction to the title...and


So I got a remark today based on the complicated Code of Honor and Gentlemanship that i follow. I'm a gentleman... I can't ever hit a girl, can't be disrespectful and i must abide to honor and such. Just general politeness and such.

I've heard crap from guys on how courtesy is useless... and such. But today is the first day that my girlfriends (normal friends -_-'') told me I'm a dying breed and then gentleman should be left 6 ft under...

I was appalled... Has society really taken a turn for the worst? has society not only forgone courtesy to people but also shun it and discourage it? What will become of such a society where men don't treat women with respect and vice versa? I imagine such a world which can end in nothing but destruction and villainy.

-------
sorry.. i just felt like ranting today after a long day of all of this
-------
~Wrath

and its this little quote in specific that seems to really throw the whole "dying breed" thing out the window.


Quite frankly. Each person has their own opinion. Each person has their own definition of Respect and Chivalry, who it should be given to, how it should be given, what it entitles... etc. This results in a 4 page argument on this subject. I'm very sorry. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, perhaps my methods are flawed or just out of date.. or even possibly odd. I apologize. But a gentleman I am and so I remain.

Either one of two things is going on here. You don't honestly beleive that, that everyone has their own opinion, and don't want to say it, or...your values arn't as deep and "gentlemanly" as you'd like to say. Its not a "This way of life is dying but everyone has a right to think what ever they like!" That dosn't work, it makes no sense. Its either the old ways are dying, as they should imho, or everyone gets to think what they like and not be judged for shunning your way of life. What you should be upset about if its the later that other people want to impose their own way of life on you, not that their way of life goes against yours.

[Stormthorn]

Exactly, being courteous is one thing, but following some sort of 'gentleman's code' is nothing more than thinly-veiled misogyny because it assumes that women are "weaker" and need to be protected and coddled.

Interesting viewpoint. But wrong. At least as it applies to me.

Perhaps at one time this was a true blanket statement, now its only like that for specific individuals.

[Fan]

I never once said I didn't treat nice people nicely. Respect gets respect. I wouldnt want someone dead and buried if they were the nicest person. And frankly, the "Turn an enemy to a friend" is some of the most hippy crap i've ever heard. I don't want a blood friend, thanks. But the above is exactly the point I was trying to make.

I don't go around saying I have honor, or that I am a gentleman. And, I don't for the exact reason someone saying I lack honor(and as it implies that you do) thinks he or she does.

Your honor, all of yours, is different then mine, or anyone else's, at least most of the time. Sure, you share similarities, and some might even have identical forms. But it depends on where you've grown up, when you grew up, what your home and outside life was like. And its bloody rude to tell someone, anyone, your a gentleman because of X, Y, and Z and thats the way it is.

{Scrubbed}

[Innis Cabal]

you apprently lack honor of any sort. were you not told to treat others as you wish to be treated? Be kind to your enemy, and you shall in turn recive a freind Innis. That is all I have to say.

Buddy, right back at you :smallbiggrin:

As for the Jesus thing, we don't discuss religion here. For me, I don't need, or even want a ton of friends. I don't want the people I don't like as people that are in my life, for the very reason I don't like them.

Does that make me an awful honorless cur? No. Does it make me a jerk? Ya probably. But I seem to be doing better for it

[Mr. Mud]

I think we, or you all, are dying out...

I say you all, Playground, because I don't know what I am anymore...

- I'm the guy who would never hit a girl, rather, hit the guy that hits the girl.
- I'm the guy who holds the door for the little old lady, then proceeds to help the said little old lady carry her bags.
- I'm the guy who owes 50 hours of Community Service becasue I stopped kids from beating a puppy to death (that story is for a different rainy day)

- But, I'm also the guy who curses like a pirate...
- The guy who usually puts himself before everyone else.
- The guy who gets into huge political tirades with anyone who crosses him.

What am I playground? :smallsmile::smallfrown::smallconfused:.

[Fan]

Buddy, right back at you :smallbiggrin:

As for the Jesus thing, we don't discuss religion here. For me, I don't need, or even want a ton of friends. I don't want the people I don't like as people that are in my life, for the very reason I don't like them.

Does that make me an awful honorless cur? No. Does it make me a jerk? Ya probably. But I seem to be doing better for it

Please i ask you to keep this civil, adn the Jesus quote was not spouting the relegion that this forums prohibit, but instead I was refering to a more of a wisdom aspect that such a approach to life would hold. If you wish to live your life filled with hate, and anger than that is your choice. My choice however is to respect those around me, and be kind to those who bear me hate.
If you thini I'm not a gentlemen due to my prusuit of life then that is your view, and not mine.

[Innis Cabal]

I think we, or you all, are dying out...

I say you all, Playground, because I don't know what I am anymore...

- I'm the guy who would never hit a girl, rather, hit the guy that hits the girl.
- I'm the guy who holds the door for the little old lady, then proceeds to help the said little old lady carry her bags.
- I'm the guy who owes 50 hours of Community Service becasue I stopped kids from beating a puppy to death (that story is for a different rainy day)

- But, I'm also the guy who curses like a pirate...
- The guy who usually puts himself before everyone else.
- The guy who gets into huge political tirades with anyone who crosses him.

What am I playground? :smallsmile::smallfrown::smallconfused:.


You? Your a human being. Welcome to the fold. There is well over 6 billion of us.

[Mr. Mud]

You? Your a human being. Welcome to the fold. There is well over 6 billion of us.

Ah... Half of which are in Asia. THe other half are Elvis Impersonators... I STILL don't nowhere I stand :smallbiggrin:.

[Innis Cabal]

Ah... Half of which are in Asia. THe other half are Elvis Impersonators... I STILL don't nowhere I stand :smallbiggrin:.

Your new name is Hui Xu. Go get your rindstone jump suit. We've got a show in 20.

[Recaiden]

I think that it's best to treat other people with respect/kindness/whatever word we are using now unless they give you a good reason not to.

You're just an opiniated person who tries to be nice.
Wait, I'm an Elvis impersonater? Nooooo!

[Fan]

Please i ask you to keep this civil, adn the Jesus quote was not spouting the relegion that this forums prohibit, but instead I was refering to a more of a wisdom aspect that such a approach to life would hold. If you wish to live your life filled with hate, and anger than that is your choice. My choice however is to respect those around me, and be kind to those who bear me hate.
If you thini I'm not a gentlemen due to my prusuit of life then that is your view, and not mine.
Making sure this doesn't get fprgotten.

[Mr. Mud]

Your new name is Hui Xu. Go get your rindstone jump suit. We've got a show in 20.

Permission to sig-quote? :smallbiggrin:

*fills out necessary papers*

EDIT:

And Amen Fanboy. Amen.

[zeratul]

If you wish to live your life filled with hate, and anger than that is your choice. My choice however is to respect those around me, and be kind to those who bear me hate.
If you thini I'm not a gentlemen due to my pursuit of life then that is your view, and not mine.

Precisely, it is your choice to live in this fashion and that's great, if someone doesn't want to live this way that's fine too. Saying that someone is "wrong"for not treating their enemies the way they wan;t to be treated is more a matter of opinion than of fact. There's the golden rule philosophy, and theres the "give respect to get it" philosophy. These things are a matter of choice and what you personally believe is right. Until seriously immoral things like murder or stealing and such come into play, words like "right" and "wrong" don't really have a place in it.

[Innis Cabal]

Precisely, it is your choice to live in this fashion and that's great, if someone doesn't want to live this way that's fine too. Saying that someone is "wrong"for not treating their enemies the way they wan;t to be treated is more a matter of opinion than of fact. There's the golden rule philosophy, and theres the "give respect to get it" philosophy. These things are a matter of choice and what you personally believe is right. Until seriously immoral things like murder or stealing and such come into play, words like "right" and "wrong" don't really have a place in it.

Exactly

And I got sig quoted...i'm honored.

[Werewindlefr]

Don't know about chivalry, but yeah, you don't hit girls and you hold doors open for people, it's what's called 'not being a jerk' I believe.
I fail to see how it makes someone 'not a jerk' if they are okay with hitting men, but not women. And a person defending against a woman that's hitting him isn't a jerk either.

I will never call a gentleman someone who base this kind of behavior depending on the sex of the other person. Because such a difference of behavior means that the act either isn't innocent or genuine. I've actually read a sentence on a forum that illustrated this: that gallantry directed at women only was somewhat like a 10 dollars bill put in the panties. It is a bit of an exaggeration, and it omits that there are other origins to that difference of treatment (tradition or paternalism, for instance), but it certainly isn't totally untrue.
All of this is a relic of times when women were seen as fragile flowers to be protected; there's no need to comment on the sexism of such an image.

My idea of being a gentleman includes treating women the same as men, giving them the same respect, and without paternalistic feelings.

Also, I do not think gentlemen are a dying breed. I see many people who hold the doors for others, are ready to help others, and don't hit other people simply because they do not solve conflicts with their fists. However, the sexist kind of fake-gentlemen who only behave this way towards women is a dying breed, and I really won't complain.

[Fan]

Precisely, it is your choice to live in this fashion and that's great, if someone doesn't want to live this way that's fine too. Saying that someone is "wrong"for not treating their enemies the way they wan;t to be treated is more a matter of opinion than of fact. There's the golden rule philosophy, and theres the "give respect to get it" philosophy. These things are a matter of choice and what you personally believe is right. Until seriously immoral things like murder or stealing and such come into play, words like "right" and "wrong" don't really have a place in it.
that is where you, and I disagree. I find that if say someone is spreading lies, and creating violence in the lives of others then they are obviously not a good person. However in my view there are differences between a inhernently "good" person, and a person who merely helps people out whenever it is coveinet for him, or her to do so. Another quote that I wish to bring up is.
"When a man threatens you with a knife in the street for your cloak, Then give him your tunic as well for if he is in such a state of desperation as to come to you with the threat of death. then his need is greater than your own."

[zeratul]

I'd also like to add this quote to the argument as the topic of good people, bad people and whether or not anyone is evil or inherently evil has popped up a couple times (the quote is spoilered)

"Evil is everywhere, everybody's got it, it sits really deep in everybody, some people can't control it as well as others, but it's there. regardless of what you believe is right , everyone knows what's wrong, everyone knows theres wrong things that are just things you do not do, and the people that don't understand that they aren't really connected with themselves , it doesn't matter what the **** you believe." ~ Tom Araya

No one is inherently good or inherently bad, everyones got good and evil within them, and it's just a matter of how you deal with it. Also just because you aren't nice to people who are jerks to you or whom you don't like doesn't mean you act violently towards them. There's tons of people I've wanted to punch in the face and didn't. I merely don;t go out of my way to be nice to them also if someone hits me I generally hit them back, if someone insults me I insult them back. Such is what one has to do to be respected at least in my area, sad as it is. If everyone treated everyone the way they'd like to be treated that would be great, but they don't, so you have to stand up for yourself or be trampled on. This is all just my opinion from my experience of course.

[Innis Cabal]

So what your saying is, in contrast to what you just said, there is a right way to live and there is a wrong way to live? Or what exactly? That your way of life is better because you do good because you can? I'm really not seeing exactly where you stand on the whole thing.

The quotes are all well and good. But...honestly, thats one way to live. It sure is a nice way to live...for you and others perhaps. But some of us just don't agree with it. I don't care if the very maker of the universe, or the a common sponge(Which ever it is) comes and tells me its the "right" way to live.

I am pretty certain a gentleman wouldn't tell others the "right way to live" because its simply rude.

[Fan]

I'd also like to add this quote to the argument as the topic of good people, bad people and whether or not anyone is evil or inherently evil has popped up a couple times (the quote is spoilered)

"Evil is everywhere, everybody's got it, it sits really deep in everybody, some people can't control it as well as others, but it's there. regardless of what you believe is right , everyone knows what's wrong, everyone knows theres wrong things that are just things you do not do, and the people that don't understand that they aren't really connected with themselves , it doesn't matter what the **** you believe." ~ Tom Araya

No one is inherently good or inherently bad, everyones got good and evil within them, and it's just a matter of how you deal with it. Also just because you aren't nice to people who are jerks to you or whom you don't like doesn't mean you act violently towards them. There's tons of people I've wanted to punch in the face and didn't. I merely don;t go out of my way to be nice to them also if someone hits me I generally hit them back, if someone insults me I insult them back. Such is what one has to do to be respected at least in my area, sad as it is. If everyone treated everyone the way they'd like to be treated that would be great, but they don't, so you have to stand up for yourself or be trampled on. This is all just my opinion from my experience of course.

Wow, that last bit of zen wisdom went right over the head didn't it?
The quote was supposed to mean that yes there is evil in the world, but you cant go around being just like it. Evil begest evil, and hate begets hate. Or, in other words. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[zeratul]

So what your saying is, in contrast to what you just said, there is a right way to live and there is a wrong way to live? Or what exactly? That your way of life is better because you do good because you can? I'm really not seeing exactly where you stand on the whole thing.


He was reffering to things like murder and acts of horrific violence. I meant to emphasize the part which states that there is evil, it's just about controlling the evil within you. And that people need to recognize the evil in them as well as the good.

[Innis Cabal]

Humanity is an awful vicous and wicked creature. People do awful things everyday, as you've said, and people do wonderous and loving things, as you've said. Its not something you can disagree with frankly when we have...history books laying around

[Fan]

Humanity is an awful vicous and wicked creature. People do awful things everyday, as you've said, and people do wonderous and loving things, as you've said. Its not something you can disagree with frankly when we have...history books laying around
what I'am trying to say is that you DONT want to be one of those people remebered for how hateful, and angry they were, but how they loved, and cared for those around them in day to day life.

[zeratul]

what I'am trying to say is that you DONT want to be one of those people remebered for how hateful, and angry they were, but how they loved, and cared for those around them in day to day life.

Yes but just because when someones a jerk to you and your a jerk to them doesn't mean you'll be remembered that way. There's certain people who are perfectly kind and polite to their friend and even those they don't know, but who will stand their ground against those who hate them.

[reorith]

I think we, or you all, are dying out...

I say you all, Playground, because I don't know what I am anymore...

- I'm the guy who would never hit a girl, rather, hit the guy that hits the girl.
- I'm the guy who holds the door for the little old lady, then proceeds to help the said little old lady carry her bags.
- I'm the guy who owes 50 hours of Community Service becasue I stopped kids from beating a puppy to death (that story is for a different rainy day)

- But, I'm also the guy who curses like a pirate...
- The guy who usually puts himself before everyone else.
- The guy who gets into huge political tirades with anyone who crosses him.

What am I playground? :smallsmile::smallfrown::smallconfused:.

you're the dude playin' a dude, disguised as another dude.

[averagejoe]

What, may I ask, is so horrible about trying to be a good person? Why do you feel it necessary to twist my words and make me sound like an arrogant snob? Do you really think people only do good things to show off or to outdo others?

:smallsigh: Has a single person on this thread actually read my posts before responding? Why do you find it necessary to twist my words and make me sound like an arrogant snob?

Nothing is horrible about trying to be a good person; in fact, I find it quite commendable, and recommend that you continue to do so. However, I said nothing in my post about the rightness or wrongness of trying to be a good person.

No, I do not really think people only do good things to show off and outdo others. However, I never said that either.

I'd like to add that, while this response doesn't actually prove my point, it does support it.

[Em Blackleaf]

I don't think the gentleman is a dying breed. I know tons of genuinely polite people, men and women. I also know lots of horrible, rude, and mean people, but I choose not to give them my time. I know more of the polite people anyway. :smallsmile:

Half the people I know would hold a door open for anybody. So, I know I'm safe if I decide to carry around something really, really heavy. :smalltongue:

[Innis Cabal]

what I'am trying to say is that you DONT want to be one of those people remebered for how hateful, and angry they were, but how they loved, and cared for those around them in day to day life.

No sir. Thats how you want to be remembered. I for one won't care how i'm remembered. I'll be dead. But really, I don't honestly care how people see me or think about me. Honestly in the end, the only people that matter are the people I love, and, they'll remember me well. As for the people I don't well we have a saying in Ireland

"Let those who love me, love me. Let those who don't dont. But my god turn their legs so I know them by their limping"

As for missing the "zen" wisdom bit, its all well and good to quote lines, but some of us make a living following our own feelings and beliefs, not those written in a book.

[Oregano]

'm tending to agree with FF Fanboy in this little side debate, mainly because Innis' argument seems to be that he just doesn't care, whidh means FF Fanboy is wrong. I do think however that FFF isn't handling it very well.

One of you mentioned something about hating someone because they hate you or something, maybe they were having a bad day and now you hate them, you just ruined what could have been a good friendship because you didn't give them a chance. FFF is saying that it's better to give them that chance and try to be friends with them than hate them.

[Lord Herman]

:smallsigh: Has a single person on this thread actually read my posts before responding? Why do you find it necessary to twist my words and make me sound like an arrogant snob?

Nothing is horrible about trying to be a good person; in fact, I find it quite commendable, and recommend that you continue to do so. However, I said nothing in my post about the rightness or wrongness of trying to be a good person.

No, I do not really think people only do good things to show off and outdo others. However, I never said that either.

I'd like to add that, while this response doesn't actually prove my point, it does support it.

Looks like we're both misunderstanding each other here, then. I don't mean to offend or insult anyone, and I don't believe you mean to either. For my part, I apologise if I read something into your posts that I shouldn't have.

[Fan]

No sir. Thats how you want to be remembered. I for one won't care how i'm remembered. I'll be dead. But really, I don't honestly care how people see me or think about me. Honestly in the end, the only people that matter are the people I love, and, they'll remember me well. As for the people I don't well we have a saying in Ireland

"Let those who love me, love me. Let those who don't dont. But my god turn their legs so I know them by their limping"

As for missing the "zen" wisdom bit, its all well and good to quote lines, but some of us make a living following our own feelings and beliefs, not those written in a book.

THere is a difference between "living by the code", and living by a set of moral guidelines Innis. Its what sperates US from the animals as far as how society, and even modern livig was formed. Even the MOST BASIC of societies tend to have some osrt of tribal caste system built around a system of Elders, or people who have been around longer than you, and these elders usuall entailed more respect than the average person for the things they help EVERYONE with in day to day life. I can understand if not everyone can be kind to their enemies, and act the saint. I can live with that, but what I'm saying is that you can't always trust your feelings, and follow your heart. Sometimes you gotta think with your head, and decide "You know maybe I SHOULD help that person on crutches with her grocieres." regardless if they are male, or female it is something you should do becuase well its just the "good" thing to do.

[Om]

Even the MOST BASIC of societies tend to have some osrt of tribal caste system built around a system of Elders, or people who have been around longer than you, and these elders usuall entailed more respect than the average person for the things they help EVERYONE with in day to day lifeSo you do not believe that it is not possible to live a 'good' life in an egalitarian society? That is, without a set of instructions passed down from 'on high' by moral custodians?

I don't particularly agree with Innis' viewpoint - largely because I see moral conventions as being largely determined by society and large, something that, like it or not, we are all a part of - but I can certainly understand his approach. The only people who will remember us are those who we interact with and love. If you treat them right then who cares about strangers? Again, that view is far too narrow for my taste but I'm not going to pretend that it is the wrong one


I think what interests me about some of the posts in this thread is the narrative that they are cumulatively building, and how that narrative relates to a position of power and privilege. This is power and privilege that many seem to be unconscious of possessing, but I think they feel that it is under threat, and that this thread may be one of the manifestations of that perception of threat.Oh, very good. Any thoughts as to carrying the logic through to speculate as to the class composition of this board? :smallwink:

[Fan]

So you do not believe that it is not possible to live a 'good' life in an egalitarian society? That is, without a set of instructions passed down from 'on high' by moral custodians?

I don't particularly agree with Innis' viewpoint - largely because I see moral conventions as being largely determined by society and large, something that, like it or not, we are all a part of - but I can certainly understand his approach. The only people who will remember us are those who we interact with and love. If you treat them right then who cares about strangers? Again, that view is far too narrow for my taste but I'm not going to pretend that it is the wrong one

Oh, very good. Any thoughts as to carrying the logic through to speculate as to the class composition of this board? :smallwink:
I simply cant fathom why people OPPOSE another being who merely chooses to live his life helping as many people as he can while still managing his, or her day to day life? I also NEVER said ANYTHING about me only caring about those close to me..... I have stated time, and tiome again in the back page on this thread that I'm talking about people in general that are in need, not merely your average woman (in the spirit of the topic), but everyone possible that is within your power to aid.

[Jim Profit]

I agree that those who respect women are a dying breed.

Well I say good. Respect should be earned, not given..

Alot of women are just downright rude. And they get that way because they think because they're women, they're somehow special.


Noone is special except for me and Julz. Everyone else is crap lol.

I don't do community service either. I feel no sympathy for people who can't provide for themselves. Blame badluck and horrible economy all you want. I don't think you're lazy. I just think you're incompetent and or a drug-addict. And really, why should I believe otherwise? You can get your kids back when you get your life together.. Be lucky you're not a dog, we just euthanize them. And dogs are 100% more loyal, nice, and tolerable then you are.


Best sortof of charity would be to meet everyone in need with cold indifference. That way they learn to fend for themselves or suffer the wrath of the elements. Then there'd never be no down trodden parasites just waiting for their next victim to exploit..


I wonder if I'll win that nobel peace prize I've had my eye on.. lol!

[Om]

I simply cant fathom why people OPPOSE another being who merely chooses to live his life helping as many people as he can while still managing his, or her day to day life?You'll be hard pressed to find me, or anyone else in this thread, who opposes helping people. What does raise my hackles however is the assumption that one can only help or do good by adherence to a strict moral code (as you suggest above) while bemoaning those who do not adhere to such a code or classify their good deeds in class terms (as others, including the OP, have suggested)

Why can people simply not do good deeds without attaching status to them or insisting that others follow their example? Go ahead and be a genuinely nice person, just don't expect society to give you a clap on the back tell you what a great job you're doing


I also NEVER said ANYTHING about me only caring about those close to me..... I have stated time, and tiome again in the back page on this thread that I'm talking about people in general that are in need, not merely your average woman (in the spirit of the topic), but everyone possible that is within your power to aid.Hmm? I was speaking in reference to Innis' feelings that "Honestly in the end, the only people that matter are the people I love, and, they'll remember me well"

[Artemician]

I don't do community service either. I feel no sympathy for people who can't provide for themselves. Blame badluck and horrible economy all you want. I don't think you're lazy. I just think you're incompetent and or a drug-addict. And really, why should I believe otherwise? You can get your kids back when you get your life together.

Best sortof of charity would be to meet everyone in need with cold indifference. That way they learn to fend for themselves or suffer the wrath of the elements. Then there'd never be no down trodden parasites just waiting for their next victim to exploit.

Have you talked to any of these people whom you deem to be 'parasites', and/or made an effort to understand their circumstances?


:smallsigh: Has a single person on this thread actually read my posts before responding? Why do you find it necessary to twist my words and make me sound like an arrogant snob?

I'll say it's because they're too emotionally attached to what they're talking about. It *is* a touchy issue, after all.

[Jim Profit]

Have you talked to any of these people whom you deem to be 'parasites', and/or made an effort to understand their circumstances?
I've talked to one crazy old veteran.

Now, I've always fealt that veterans should be provided for. Mostly because I'm very militarstic. And believe it sends good morale to cover their hospital/therapy bills etc..

However, sense not everyone is dying for some war. I don't really care about their circumstances. And even the crazy old vet was not fun to talk to.

[Artemician]

I've talked to one crazy old veteran.
...
However, sense not everyone is dying for some war. I don't really care about their circumstances. And even the crazy old vet was not fun to talk to.

You've talked to one person. Do you think that qualifies you to make generalizations about all people who make charity?

[Jim Profit]

You've talked to one person. Do you think that qualifies you to make generalizations about all people who make charity?
Yes, yes I do lol.

[Bluelantern]

Just to post my 2 cents. Probably people already posted similar views:

I try to be nice and educated with anyone, or don't try anything at all (I am shy). I often open and hold doors to people, regardless of gender.

I think anyone deserves a amount of civilized respect, that don't need to be earned, but might be lost because of some actions.

The idea of "not hitting a girl" is ridiculous and implies sexism, there is plenty of women out there who could kick male-ass at anytime, even so, weak people can be nasty too and earn a swift kick in the butt. Of course, as long the person deserves it.

[Artemician]

Yes, yes I do lol.

Then we have no more to talk about. Why don't you go back under your bridge?

[Arang]

My attitude on violence against females is this: I will never hit a lady. I will, however, hit a woman.

[Innis Cabal]

THere is a difference between "living by the code", and living by a set of moral guidelines Innis. Its what sperates US from the animals as far as how society, and even modern livig was formed. Even the MOST BASIC of societies tend to have some osrt of tribal caste system built around a system of Elders, or people who have been around longer than you, and these elders usuall entailed more respect than the average person for the things they help EVERYONE with in day to day life. I can understand if not everyone can be kind to their enemies, and act the saint. I can live with that, but what I'm saying is that you can't always trust your feelings, and follow your heart. Sometimes you gotta think with your head, and decide "You know maybe I SHOULD help that person on crutches with her grocieres." regardless if they are male, or female it is something you should do becuase well its just the "good" thing to do.

Again, you beleive that. And while it may be true that the over all societies of the world develop like that(I wont argue social overlay) I for one don't really agree with social constraints or following any of it simply because "Its the right thing to do"

No one is opposing your lifestyle, they all are merely telling you its not the one they follow. The only one who isn't being accepting, is you. Which was the original point of this all, is that its an arrogant view point to state that "Gentleman are a dying breed".

[Jim Profit]

Then we have no more to talk about. Good day to you. Why don't you go back under your bridge?
Man, as soon as I learn how to report you. You're getting it.

This is why people can never have a solid discussion. You could've just left it at "we have nothing more to talk about". And I would've not even answered and left it there.

But no, then you had to go and be a jerk about it. Call me a troll. Why? Because I think differently then you do?:smallannoyed:


Then you wonder why I don't care if people are homeless. That's what it is, right there. That sense of entitlement backed with snarky little comments.


Why should I care if someone starves to death when they're going to disrespect me like that? Infact.. why shouldn't I just laugh in their face and dangle some food over them?

You are correct, I don't know every person's circumstance. But why should I make the automatic assumption that everyone is a nice and poor little victim just down on their luck? Is that any reason for me to go out of my way to be compassionate and giving? Why should I waste my time and resources on a minority?

From now on. I'm going to think of you everytime I see a homeless person. And be all the more thankful that I never contribute a dime. Good job.

[Bluelantern]

My attitude on violence against females is this: I will never hit a lady. I will, however, hit a woman.

*aplauds* well said

[Tom_Violence]

However I must say that you MUST have respect for women in most modern cultures in order to be considered honorable, and there do exist certain guidelines that you must stay within in order to be respected.

Why women in particular? What does 'respect for women' even mean?


It is not a matter of X, Y, and Z, but a matter of what is right, and what is wrong.

Sounds like exactly the same thing to me. 'Right' and 'wrong' are just your way of defining your own X Y Z.


the majority of people in my school (specifically males) are wangsters, thugs, jock-bullies, or perverts... where as the majority of women in the school are either REALLY slutty... which i do not respect... (still circumstantial... this is just generalization) OR really nice homely girls.

Is this the respectable language of a gentleman that we're supposed to feel sad about dying out? I must say I don't feel much affinity for a lifestyle that defines its opponents as 'wangsters'.


out of the guys, there's probably 50/almost a thousand that aren't fake people or the lowlife, treat people like s**t scum. So when i speak of people, its a generalization of people i deal with or see often... And since the majority of people I respect are people I either get along with or impress me... and the majority of both of those are girls.. since 70% of my friends are female. This isn't cause I like females or is a huge flirt or something. There's just not a lot of guy friends that are polite/share interests/ or just generally good hearted real (not fake) people.

Define 'dealing with and seeing often'. I'm guessing this means in the course of everyday school life, right? If so, I'm gonna again presume that you probably don't know these people half as well as you think you do, and once again point out that unless you've taken the time to really properly get to grips with who these guys are then its pretty hideous of you to put them down so much.


So for the last time. I do not have the sexist approach to chivalry that women must be treated better than men because they're weaker or such. All people are people.

Then why such emphasis on how women should be treated, and why say that you don't respect men at all as a general rule? If experience has made you jaded then fair enough, but at least own up to it.


Wow, that last bit of zen wisdom went right over the head didn't it?

Again, where's the gentlemanly attitude here? Peace and love and kittens for everyone should at least mean you ought to talk to people nicely too, right?


Half the people I know would hold a door open for anybody. So, I know I'm safe if I decide to carry around something really, really heavy. :smalltongue:

I like this quote. To me it neatly sums up the status of this gentlemanly way of life - a bit shallow. Great if you need someone to open a door for you, or tuck your chair in, or whatever. But I worry that its so intently focused on the little details that it misses the big picture.

Some of my very good friends are the kind of people that forget to hold doors open for people, don't notice when there's a pregnant women standing on the train, and expect women to be able to get into cars all on their own. But I've been through some genuine crap in my life, and these people have bent over backwards to help me out, sacrificing a lot in the process. A so-called gentleman sounds like quite the opposite of all that, and that I don't need. Do what matters, don't waste time bragging about how many tiny 'good deeds' you've done.

Speaking of which, can the gentlemen here actually give us some real examples of what their creed has done for the world? "I'm nice" is hardly a persausive advert for a moral code. What does this 'being nice' actually involve? When was the last time you went above and beyond the call of duty? I'm curious.


Then you wonder why I don't care if people are homeless. That's what it is, right there. That sense of entitlement backed with snarky little comments.

I don't know what kind of homeless people you've met, but I pretty sure I hardly ever see ones with a 'sense of entitlement'. Usually its more of the 'horrible desperation' thing.


Why should I care if someone starves to death when they're going to disrespect me like that? Infact.. why shouldn't I just laugh in their face and dangle some food over them?

Because, as you say, they're starving to death. For most people, the fact that someone immediately near them is dying is enough to motivate action, regardless of the chance that they might be sarcastic occasionally. I'm sure you're going for the 'hilarity in shock value' angle, but I don't think its really working.

[Jim Profit]

Speaking of which, can the gentlemen here actually give us some real examples of what their creed has done for the world? "I'm nice" is hardly a persausive advert for a moral code. What does this 'being nice' actually involve? When was the last time you went above and beyond the call of duty? I'm curious.
I like you Tom. You got moxie.:smallwink:

[Artemician]

Call me a troll. Why? Because I think differently then you do?

If you don't agree with my assessment, go and makes posts that are not trolly, and I will revise this accordingly.


Then you wonder why I don't care if people are homeless. That's what it is, right there. That sense of entitlement backed with snarky little comments.

Why should I care if someone starves to death when they're going to disrespect me like that? Infact. why shouldn't I just laugh in their face and dangle some food over them?

You are correct, I don't know every person's circumstance. But why should I make the automatic assumption that everyone is a nice and poor little victim just down on their luck? Is that any reason for me to go out of my way to be compassionate and giving? Why should I waste my time and resources on a minority?

First off: I'm hardly a person who needs your charity. I was born into a loving and whole family, which is comparatively well-off compared to others. There is nothing that I lack, that would make me ask for Charity. In fact, my upbringing was such that I am disposed to give charity to other people, which is why I am arguing for it.

Secondly, you are correct that you cannot assume everyone is 'nice and poor little victim just down on their luck', as you put it. By the same corollary, you cannot assume that everyone is a 'parasite', as you also put it.

Thirdly, there is no reason for you to go out of your way to do charity, if that's the way you so feel. However, my issue is, rather, with you generalizing all people who need charity as 'parasites', when that is obviously untrue.

[Jim Profit]

I generalize most people as parasites. Not just the homeless.

The homeless just happen to be more blatantly parasitic by their demand for basic essentials that they should be able to cover by having a job. I mean Christ, don't they have families or something they could live with if their lives are that crappy?


I find it hard to believe so many could be povershed in a country with good job demand, minimum wage, and nearly everyone has atleast some family members..


I think we should generalize more often. It would save us the undo burden of constantly being dissapointed when we try to find that special individual. That's why they're called special.


But most people aren't special. Most people are just selfish morons, getting by day-to-day, and thankfully. Will leave you alone if you leave them alone..


Is it cynical? Yes.. But can you prove me wrong?

[Trog]

*skims thread*

Last time Trog checked, guys who thought they were something special for *fill in the blank here* have never been a dying breed.

*exits*

[Innis Cabal]

The homeless just happen to be more blatantly parasitic by their demand for basic essentials that they should be able to cover by having a job. I mean Christ, don't they have families or something they could live with if their lives are that crappy?


I find it hard to believe so many could be povershed in a country with good job demand, minimum wage, and nearly everyone has atleast some family members..


I think we should generalize more often. It would save us the undo burden of constantly being dissapointed when we try to find that special individual. That's why they're called special.


Is it cynical? Yes.. But can you prove me wrong?


Won't tell you its all wrong, some parts are, not because their your way of life, just because...well I bolded it.

Good job demand-Unemployment is the highest its ever been. And its going up
Minimum Wage- Has been increasing but its still lower then alot of countries based on inflation etc etc.
Everyone has family-Not always true. There are some people that just don't. Death, people leaving them for being "parisites" or having severe mental problems that have forced them to be on the street. There are alot of reasons.

So, sometimes its not great to use blanket terms

But, its your life, and its good you've found something that works for you.

[Jim Profit]

Won't tell you its all wrong, some parts are, not because their your way of life, just because...well I bolded it.

Good job demand-Unemployment is the highest its ever been. And its going up
Minimum Wage- Has been increasing but its still lower then alot of countries based on inflation etc etc.
Everyone has family-Not always true. There are some people that just don't. Death, people leaving them for being "parisites" or having severe mental problems that have forced them to be on the street. There are alot of reasons.

So, sometimes its not great to use blanket terms

But, its your life, and its good you've found something that works for you.
Well thanks for being considerate and giving a dissenting opinion while not disrespecting me. I appreciate it.:smallcool:

[Artemician]

I generalize most people as parasites. Not just the homeless.

The homeless just happen to be more blatantly parasitic by their demand for basic essentials that they should be able to cover by having a job. I mean Christ, don't they have families or something they could live with if their lives are that crappy?

I find it hard to believe so many could be povershed in a country with good job demand, minimum wage, and nearly everyone has atleast some family members..


I think we should generalize more often. It would save us the undo burden of constantly being dissapointed when we try to find that special individual. That's why they're called special.

But most people aren't special. Most people are just selfish morons, getting by day-to-day, and thankfully. Will leave you alone if you leave them alone..

Is it cynical? Yes.. But can you prove me wrong?

This is what I mean when I say: "Make a non-Troll" post. Make more like these, and I'll apologize for calling you a troll. Publicly, if need be.

Now, to the points:

As Innis has said: Not everyone has a job, not everyone has family, and, lots of people don't have high-paying jobs. Even in America.

Now, imagine what the situation is like in other countries. China, for example, where one child has to support 2 aged parents and 4 aged grandparents. Or India. Or Indonesia. Countries without state welfare, or in fact, without a state. Most African countries. Somalia, the Southern Congo, Chenya.

Having, and living with relatives who have had their entire livelihoods destroyed simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I can sympathize with people who are the same.

My Grandfather died of a heart attack, leaving my Grandmother and all her children to fend for themselves. They had to resort to charity to survive, and that's why I'm here. My Godaunt - my Grandmother showed her charity by taking her in and taking care of her when her parents couldn't, and that's why she's here as well. My uncle died in the Cultural Revolution - his wife's and my cousins are here today because of charity as well.

The large majority of my family was lucky. Many other people aren't. People get screwed over by factors beyond their control all the time.

I'm going to quote some statistics:



* Some 1.1 billion people in developing countries have inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation.
* Almost two in three people lacking access to clean water survive on less than $2 a day, with one in three living on less than $1 a day.
* More than 660 million people without sanitation live on less than $2 a day, and more than 385 million on less than $1 a day.
* Access to piped water into the household averages about 85% for the wealthiest 20% of the population, compared with 25% for the poorest 20%.
* 1.8 billion people who have access to a water source within 1 kilometre, but not in their house or yard, consume around 20 litres per day. In the United Kingdom the average person uses more than 50 litres of water a day flushing toilets (where average daily water usage is about 150 liters a day. The highest average water use in the world is in the US, at 600 liters day.)
* Some 1.8 million child deaths each year as a result of diarrhoea
* The loss of 443 million school days each year from water-related illness.
* Close to half of all people in developing countries suffering at any given time from a health problem caused by water and sanitation deficits.
* Millions of women spending several hours a day collecting water.
* To these human costs can be added the massive economic waste associated with the water and sanitation deficit.… The costs associated with health spending, productivity losses and labour diversions … are greatest in some of the poorest countries. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about 5% of GDP, or some $28.4 billion annually, a figure that exceeds total aid flows and debt relief to the region in 2003

And this is only with regard to water issues. How many more are in trouble if you count the effects of war, economic recession, unemployment, corruption and infectious disease?

Can you really blame these people for having problems? Certainly they wouldn't choose to be out of a job, or to have government officials seize their land, or to be stricken by malaria, or to have their legs blown off by land mines and artillery. It's not a small amount either: the figure cited tells us that about 14% of the world's population has no access to clean water. The 'Special Individual' you mentioned isn't really that hard to find.

My grandparents lived beneath the poverty line for much of their lives. It is extremely difficult to break above that line. We lucked out - my mother was able to land a Government scholarship which got her a University Education and a high-paying job. But what about the people who never had such luck?

Charity is not a panacea - for sure there will be problems with graft, with people hanging around for the free buck, with disproportionate distribution of funds. But what else do you propose? To let these people die off?

[bibliophile]

I generalize most people as parasites. Not just the homeless.



Some statements are so preposterous, I feel they can only be responded to with humor, so.....

Presumably, when you characterize most people as parasites you do not include yourself. In that case, please accept my congratulations for you're remarkable achievement. You are not only financially, socially, philosophically and physically independent of the entire human race, you independently created an electronic digital computer with the proper hardware and software protocols to access the Web, all with out anyone's help in your entire life.


Forgive the sarcasm, but do you truly consider yourself completely independent?




The homeless just happen to be more blatantly parasitic by their demand for basic essentials that they should be able to cover by having a job. I mean Christ, don't they have families or something they could live with if their lives are that crappy?


I find it hard to believe so many could be povershed in a country with good job demand, minimum wage, and nearly everyone has atleast some family members..



Believe it.




I think we should generalize more often. It would save us the undo burden of constantly being dissapointed when we try to find that special individual. That's why they're called special.


But most people aren't special. Most people are just selfish morons, getting by day-to-day, and thankfully. Will leave you alone if you leave them alone..


Is it cynical? Yes.. But can you prove me wrong?


Have you ever noticed how common cynicism is? Everyone who has thinks they're the only one who can see how stupid everyone else is.

Here's my two cents. People are selfish to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not usually define them. I see no reason to see you as different than the average cynical individual.

[averagejoe]

Looks like we're both misunderstanding each other here, then. I don't mean to offend or insult anyone, and I don't believe you mean to either. For my part, I apologise if I read something into your posts that I shouldn't have.

Well, I should apologize too; I didn't really mean to snap. It's just that whenever I get involved in a discussion like this everyone seems to read my saying "The concept of the gentleman and chivalry is silly and false" as "people should not be nice to each other ever," and then all I do is try to clarify my points. It's not unlike trying to knock a wall down with my head.

People: I am a very straightforward speaker. You can typically take what I say at face value. Reading anything into it will almost certainly be wrong. I also never mean to insult, but I do speak plainly.

Bottom line: people should do things for each other. People should be polite and courteous and hold doors for one another. However, what the OP is talking about seems like self congratulation and self victimization, using the fact that one takes certain actions to place oneself up on a pedestal.

[wadledo]

Some statements are so preposterous, I feel they can only be responded to with humor, so.....

Presumably, when you characterize most people as parasites you do not include yourself. In that case, please accept my congratulations for you're remarkable achievement. You are not only financially, socially, philosophically and physically independent of the entire human race, you independently created an electronic digital computer with the proper hardware and software protocols to access the Web, all with out anyone's help in your entire life.


Forgive the sarcasm, but do you truly consider yourself completely independent?I'm sorry, but did he say that he himself was not a parasite?:smallconfused:


Believe it.You have to admit, most Americans are either lazy or living off of the ideals of an older generation.


Have you ever noticed how common cynicism is? Everyone who has thinks they're the only one who can see how stupid everyone else is.

Here's my two cents. People are selfish to a greater or lesser degree, but this does not usually define them. I see no reason to see you as different than the average cynical individual.Yes it does.:smalleek:
One of the most basic points of psychology is that people will do what's best for them first, then the people closest to them, then to society at large.
People are little balls of greed that say "Mine" to whatever they touch.

Also, to return to the topic of your quote, without generalization, we wouldn't be able to understand the world around us, nor form connections to people places and things.
Generalization is the only reason why you know that pizza will taste good, or that it's good to be nice to everyone you meet, because generalization tells you that you might have to interact with that person again, no matter how small the chance is.

[Innis Cabal]

I'm sorry, but did he say that he himself was not a parasite?:smallconfused:

You have to admit, most Americans are either lazy or living off of the ideals of an older generation.



Not going to go with your other points in depth. A simple "there are many idea's on human thought and evoltution, each with its own merits and issues to be considered" will do just nicely.

For the second, a "Assumption makes a what out of you and me?"

As for the quote.

He never said he wasn't a parisite, or that he was.

Second. Your concept of the "general" american is....at best....narrow. At worst, wrong. "Most american's are lazy" ....say that to anyone who works a 9 to 5 job for 30 years. Bet you more then most who -do- have a job will be at the very least miffed.

As for living off the ideal's of a past generation.....what exactly is being a gentleman doing? It certainly isn't a concept of this age.

I have to agree with Average here on the majority of Pro-Gentlemanly life. You shouldn't feel you should be congratulated or even told good job for something you should do because its right. But if its what it takes

Good job guys! You make people who want to live their lives differently then you look awful simply because your standard is clearly so much better!

[wadledo]

Not going to go with your other points in depth. A simple "there are many idea's on human thought and evolution, each with its own merits and issues to be considered" will do just nicely.

For the second, a "Assumption makes a what out of you and me?"

As for the quote.

He never said he wasn't a parisite, or that he was.Very true.


Second. Your concept of the "general" american is....at best....narrow. At worst, wrong. "Most american's are lazy" ....say that to anyone who works a 9 to 5 job for 30 years. Bet you more then most who -do- have a job will be at the very least miffed.


As for living off the ideal's of a past generation.....what exactly is being a gentleman doing? It certainly isn't a concept of this age.

I have to agree with Average here on the majority of Pro-Gentlemanly life. You shouldn't feel you should be congratulated or even told good job for something you should do because its right. But if its what it takes

Good job guys! You make people who want to live their lives differently then you look awful simply because your standard is clearly so much better!

To this, I wasn't actually referring to Gentalmanlynses(I should have said this, but, well lazy:smalltongue:).
I was referring to the ideals of
"freedom is our right, but when things get tough the government should step in and do their jobs"(Depression)
"Luck is more important than skill when you don't have any skill to begin with"(a bit difficult to place, but pre-revolutionary war is close)
"Non-conformists are *ethem* "cool" *ethem*"(70's, and a good amount of modern pop culture)

Also, could you say specifically what that last bolded comment was for?
I'm a bit confused by it.

[zeratul]

Just out of curiosity Wadledo, where are you from?

[wadledo]

Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA.

[Innis Cabal]

I was referring to the ideals of
"freedom is our right, but when things get tough the government should step in and do their jobs"(Depression)
"Luck is more important than skill when you don't have any skill to begin with"(a bit difficult to place, but pre-revolutionary war is close)
"Non-conformists are *ethem* "cool" *ethem*"(70's, and a good amount of modern pop culture)

Also, could you say specifically what that last bolded comment was for?
I'm a bit confused by it.

I don't see how any of those are...lazy. Maye you should look for a better word? Like over entitled, even then...well lets wait to address this? But i'll go over all your points, because....well...lets start?

America fought wars for its freedom. It is their right. The government is there to protect the freedoms of the american people when they can't. Like war. I can't go over and blow up an insurgent bunker, because I don't work for the american military.

Luck...how is it bad they used luck to win against an oppresive rulership. Lets not forget...history when it comes to this. Took a bit more then luck, say....the deaths of innocent people?


The "non-conformist" thing is hardly an American-centric movement or mindset. And whats wrong with saying "screw what the herd thinks"? So long as it dosn't hurt you or anyone else, then you shouldn't care if they drink motor oil and dress up in roast beef. Their life, not yours, who are you to judge them on it.

As for the last bit, it was going along with Averagejoe's very well made point


However, what the OP is talking about seems like self congratulation and self victimization, using the fact that one takes certain actions to place oneself up on a pedestal.

More sarcasm then anything else. But you'll have that. It is the internet

[zeratul]

Guys this seems like nigh political territory. That aspect of the debate might want to be toned down.

[wadledo]

I don't see how any of those are...lazy. Maye you should look for a better word? Like over entitled, even then...well lets wait to address this? But i'll go over all your points, because....well...lets start?I was trying to give an alternative to lazy, not examples of lazy itself.

America fought wars for its freedom. It is their right. The government is there to protect the freedoms of the American people when they can't. Like war. I can't go over and blow up an insurgent bunker, because I don't work for the american military.This is why I put the little blurbs about where I'm taking this from.
In the Depression, as far as I learn it, a good number of people thought that the government wasn't being active enough with the economy, which is why there was a change of presidents and the whole "world war one veterans being fired upon by soldiers.

Luck...how is it bad they used luck to win against an oppresive rulership. Lets not forget...history when it comes to this. Took a bit more then luck, say....the deaths of innocent people?Pre was the key word there.
I was referring to the classic "Yankee ingenuity" for people who didn't have any ingenuity.
If you couldn't make a barn or sell an apple kind of thing, you pan-handled.

The "non-conformist" thing is hardly an American-centric movement or mindset. And whats wrong with saying "screw what the herd thinks"? So long as it dosn't hurt you or anyone else, then you shouldn't care if they drink motor oil and dress up in roast beef. Their life, not yours, who are you to judge them on it.I was referring to 70's cultural phenomenon of "hey, I discovered some awesome new style!"
"Hey, that's old news, here's the new trend and whatever rebel tendencies you picked up to subvert popular culture is now a new substyle of it's own.

As for the last bit, it was going along with Averagejoe's very well made point
More sarcasm then anything else. But you'll have that. It is the internetNo offense meant, but I really don't understand what your trying to say with that, but that's most likely my fault.

Guys this seems like nigh political territory. That aspect of the debate might want to be toned down.
Shhhhhhh...
If you don't talk about politics, they don't exist.

[Suzuro]

For this entire subject: I used to be exactly like the OP, I was always respectful, I'd hold the door open for women, I'll never hit a woman.

Now, however, the times are changing. I'll still never hit a woman, but that is about the only thing that remains. I find myself calling people the B-word more and more often, I'm a selfish arrogant prick nowadays. The old adage is true, "Nice Guys Finish Last."

It's legitimate to be mean-spirited, and, granted, the nice guys are sure to be there when you need them, but how many of them are actually liked for being that way? The last time I checked "Oh, He's nice" Wasn't exactly a "Oh, I'd go out with him" statement.

Okay, there you have my rant.

-Suzuro

[streakster]

For this entire subject: I used to be exactly like the OP, I was always respectful, I'd hold the door open for women, I'll never hit a woman.

Now, however, the times are changing. I'll still never hit a woman, but that is about the only thing that remains. I find myself calling people the B-word more and more often, I'm a selfish arrogant prick nowadays. The old adage is true, "Nice Guys Finish Last."

It's legitimate to be mean-spirited, and, granted, the nice guys are sure to be there when you need them, but how many of them are actually liked for being that way? The last time I checked "Oh, He's nice" Wasn't exactly a "Oh, I'd go out with him" statement.

Okay, there you have my rant.

-Suzuro

Just as a curiousity, does anyone genuinely like you?

Not being insulting. Just curious. Being a "selfish arrogant prick" would seem to preclude that.

[Purple Cloak]

Well I have to say for myself, I don't strike anyone, unless I'm forced to in self defence, but even them I would feel guilty about striking a lady.

I hold the door open for anyone, simpaly because its comman curtisy, while it's nice to recieve a thankyou, or for others to do it for you, I stoped expecting it a long time ago.

But yeah I realise what your saying Suzuro, its unfortunate but more and more people are feeling that way.

But I'm glad to say I've never been told that my chivalry is pointless and being a gentleman is a worthless habit or whathaveyou.

Oh, someone said somthing about now knowing how to report, you click the red triangle next the the circle that goes green if they are online, but think twice about whether it it realy report worthy, I havent read the whole thread so I can't say one way or another.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep this discussion civil and keep real world religion and politics out of it. Also, if you believe that someone is trolling/flaming/etc., please report the offending post. Don't engage with them or respond in kind and don't call them a "troll" - that's flaming, even if the person is a troll.

[Em Blackleaf]

I agree with Purple Cloak about hitting. Striking anybody is just... savage. Unless, of course, in self defense, it's obviously fine. I'm pretty sure the "don't hit girls" thing made sense up until we turned 11 or 12, by then it just became "don't hit."


I like this quote. To me it neatly sums up the status of this gentlemanly way of life - a bit shallow. Great if you need someone to open a door for you, or tuck your chair in, or whatever. But I worry that its so intently focused on the little details that it misses the big picture.
I just think this whole gentleman thing is simple common courtesy.
Not doing it just so people will like you more or think highly of you, just because you choose to and think it's the right thing to do.
I dunno, it seems that way to me.


Some of my very good friends are the kind of people that forget to hold doors open for people, don't notice when there's a pregnant women standing on the train, and expect women to be able to get into cars all on their own. But I've been through some genuine crap in my life, and these people have bent over backwards to help me out, sacrificing a lot in the process. A so-called gentleman sounds like quite the opposite of all that, and that I don't need. Do what matters, don't waste time bragging about how many tiny 'good deeds' you've done.
That's true. I know tons of people who would do the same. But some people just do courteous things like we've pointed out in this thread because they choose to be nice to strangers, I guess.

You're really only a bad person if you're a complete jerk and purposefully keep doors closed on people. :smallwink:

[Purple Cloak]

You're really only a bad person if you're a complete jerk and purposefully keep doors closed on people. :smallwink:

I agree with that. :smalltongue:

Although I think I do such curtious things simpaly because I was raised that way, I don't even conciesly do it ususaly so its a possability that with some people (myself incuded) our 'politeness' is reflex not chivalry.

But thats just a theory due to thinking about my own behaviour.

[bibliophile]

I agree with that. :smalltongue:

Although I think I do such curtious things simpaly because I was raised that way, I don't even conciesly do it ususaly so its a possability that with some people (myself incuded) our 'politeness' is reflex not chivalry.

But thats just a theory due to thinking about my own behaviour.

I must politely disagree. People often chose to act in the manner that they were raised, but I thinks that's because one is more likely to feel the way one is raised is correct, and chose to act that way. If acting they way your parents did is a reflex, then the '60s hippies would never have happened.

[Purple Cloak]

I must politely disagree. People often chose to act in the manner that they were raised, but I thinks that's because one is more likely to feel the way one is raised is correct, and chose to act that way. If acting they way your parents did is a reflex, then the '60s hippies would never have happened.

That is a very good point, I retract my prior statment.

[Telonius]

Chivalry is an attitude, not a set of behaviors. Stuff like holding the door open and not hitting a woman and so on, doesn't matter in and of itself. The reason it matters (or mattered) was the attitude it implied - one of mutual respect. (Because you better believe that women had rules to follow just as much as men did!)

Now the rules are changing and not really agreed-upon. That's what's mixing people up. They could install robot door-openers at every portal tomorrow and chivalry would survive, if the attitude of respect is still there.

[Innis Cabal]

Chivalry is an attitude, not a set of behaviors. Stuff like holding the door open and not hitting a woman and so on, doesn't matter in and of itself. The reason it matters (or mattered) was the attitude it implied - one of mutual respect. (Because you better believe that women had rules to follow just as much as men did!)

Now the rules are changing and not really agreed-upon. That's what's mixing people up. They could install robot door-openers at every portal tomorrow and chivalry would survive, if the attitude of respect is still there.

The rules arn't changing. People are. You better beleive people are different then they were even 20 years ago. If the "attiude of respect" is still there. Then the actual rules of chivalry haven't changed. Its at best archaic.

[UncleWolf]

I don't see how doing things like being polite, non-violence, doing small favours for people etc can be considered elitist or misogynistic if you extend this behaviour to everyone. Granted, considering yourself somehow "better" because of it, or doing these actions only to a select group of people is so, but at its core, the "Gentlemens'/Gentlewomen's Code" is nothing more than something you do to people because you'd like for them to do the same to you. There isn't really anything wrong with that.

I personally show respect to almost(about 99.9%) everyone I meet, even people i severely dislike. I don't consider myself "better" than anyone I meet because that would make me into someone I don't want to be. Also, I really don't think any person of the so called "gentler sex" is any weaker than me, most are most likely stronger. Sure I have a code of honor but, it is just everyday stuff that people should follow anyways. Such as:
Be nice
Hold the door for other people if they are close enough and if there aren't too many of them (provided you have time)
show respect to everyone (especially enemies)
Say thank you and please.
Help people pick up stuff they drop

It is all just stuff that you learned in Kindergarten.

I also try not to get angry and hit people. But, if my sister ever attacks you, you better start hitting back because she is the toughest person I know.

[Vuzzmop]

I don't think that these things are dead, it just depends on the circles you travel in. I personally try to maintain a level of manner and such, but people have never called me out on it.
I never hit a lady. Hit a girl, but not a lady. If they hit you they are not a lady or a gentleman, and are therefore fair game.