Why is chivalry good for anyone?

Post Reply New Topic

This thread turned surprisingly civil. Kudos to Ann and TheLibrarian.

As a Morally Relativist Ubermensch, I question how your conduct on this thread makes any sense.........

You claim to despise tolerence but get openly upset when you percieve others as being intolerant of your intolerance when they disagree with you.

You dislike others using conservatism as an insult, but are constantly declaring anything you disagree with as liberal.

You claim to be morally relativist yet you paint liberalism and other phylosophical viewpoints with a sweeping universalist brush and speak in very black and white terms in regards to morality.

You claim to respect other viewpoints then your own yet you revere countries like China with very little tolerance for outspoken opinion.

You claim to espouse the "golden rule" yet advocate for chivalry (something that's quite different.)

You're all over the place........

"Couldn't they put him in solitary?"

Sure, but the guards who have to feed and take care of his other needs would still be risking their lives. It has been argued that the death penalty doesn't deter crime, and due to the low intelligence of the average criminal, I suspect this partially correct. But death does deter at least one criminal, namely the executed criminal. He will never victimize an innocent person again.

I would argue that spending the rest of one's life never being around other people is what the US Constitution calls cruel and unusual punishment. Even as much of a loner as I am, I would go nuts. I've gone for as long as ten days without speaking to or seeing another person. Speaking from experience, that's not healthy. In fact, it's torture for non-aspies.

"It sets a precedent that it is okay to kill under certain circumstances and in so doing, devalues us all."

I'm really enjoying this discussion. You are keeping me on my toes

To answer your question, deathways are something that every culture and people has to address. And every culture does so in its own way.

Nor should we be too quick to judge. In pre-modern times, before Western societies could afford prisons for common criminals, two forms of punishment were developed that societies could afford: Corporal punishments, such as floggings, stocks, etc.; and the death penalty.

One of the reasons the death penalty became common was in an effort to stop slavery in Europe. Since thugs couldn't be allowed to roam free and victimize even more innocent people, they were frequently enslaved to live in torturous conditions until they died. Hanging was considered more humane, and I agree.

To digress briefly, prisons to house common criminals were developed in part because criminals were being acquitted by juries. Standard procedure for thugs was to give them very painful corporal punishments. If that didn't deter the thugs, then the only thing left was the death penalty.As liberal sensibilities began to take hold of the popular imagination, juries increasingly rebelled, and would acquit rather than condemn the convict. An American named Joseph Rush, a humanitarian by all accounts, was the father of the American prison system, and for these reasons (as well as to try to rehabilitate the criminal, which hasn't exactly proven successful).

Again, every culture decides for itself when the use of lethal force is appropriate and not appropriate.

I'm guessing you've figured out what my special interest is now. May I ask what interests you?

Last edited by Thelibrarian on 10 Jun 2013, 2:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thanks much, Awesome. I cordially invite you to join in on either side.

Thanks!


Well, that's certainly true.


That's true too. I'm sure some criminals would prefer death.





Interesting. Regarding rehabilitation, I think prison probably does the opposite. You go in bad, you come out a lot worse.


Lots of things . . . but, I especially like Victorian London and the Industrial Revolution. But also, Ancient Near Eastern history. Oh, and zombie movies. lol

I just had a strange thought. I wonder if chivalry goes hand in hand with anti-abortionism. That is, if a woman cannot get rid of an unwanted baby, she is even more vulnerable because a rape would not only be the act itself, but also the follow-up of having to carry and give birth to a baby. So perhaps she would need greater protection. Anyway, just a thought.

WTF happened? This discussion is completely off topic, and has almost nothing to do with chivalry.

Anyways, if a lady gets pregnant from a rape, what is the reason so many would abort the child anyways? There are things called orphanages, foster homes, and adoption programs that can take care of the child. Just because the child is the product of rape, doesn't ean you have to treat it like a parasite.

On the other hand, how about people don't rape, or people watch out for those women, and save them, or don't be f****d up weirdo's and stand around and watch. People need to stop watching, and start to actually be chivalrous. If this happened there might be a greater appreciation for chivalry.

You skipped over the 9 months where the woman has to carry her attacker's baby, and the actual delivery. To me this is not acceptable. It's a violation as much as the rape is.

"Interesting. Regarding rehabilitation, I think prison probably does the opposite. You go in bad, you come out a lot worse."

Sadly true. In some cases rehabilitation does occur, but not often enough. Just my opinion, but I think the reason for this is that we were not all created equal. The vast majority of criminals have two distinct features: Very low intelligence combined with very high testosterone levels. Rehabilitation won't change either.

Of course, not all of those who suffer from low intelligence are criminals anymore than all aspies are; in both cases these problems are a condition of birth and shouldn't be held against somebody if they behave themselves.

Interestingly, when high testosterone is associated with high intelligence, it is associated with creativity. So, not all men with high testosterone levels are violent either.

"Lots of things . . . but, I especially like Victorian London and the Industrial Revolution. But also, Ancient Near Eastern history. Oh, and zombie movies. lol"

Actually, the Victorian period is one of my favorites to study as well. Right now, I am fascinated with liberalism--if you can believe that --and am planning on working on the Progressive Era next. What facets of Victorian England do you like? That's a broad topic.

Zombie movies? The last one I saw was "Dawn of the Dead" when I was in the Navy. Had I not gotten myself a snootfull of beer afterward, I don't think I would've slept

I just had a strange thought. I wonder if chivalry goes hand in hand with anti-abortionism. That is, if a woman cannot get rid of an unwanted baby, she is even more vulnerable because a rape would not only be the act itself, but also the follow-up of having to carry and give birth to a baby. So perhaps she would need greater protection. Anyway, just a thought.

Ann, I've never heard that. Abortion wasn't even an issue during the Medieval Ages. Actually, extramarital obviously did occur, but was not common, at least amongst ordinary people.

There was a north African plant in Roman times that was an abortifacient. It also went extinct during Roman times.

Here is something interesting on the role of abortion in the rise of Christianity. In imperial Rome, as with today, premarital sex was very common, and the birthrate for Roman women very low. Besides abortion, infanticide was very common among Romans, particularly of infant girls. There were places where these infant girls would be abandoned to die of exposure. (After the extinction of the abortifacient plant, abortion became much more dangerous, and infanticide more common).

Roman Christians not only didn't believe in abortion, but because of their belief in the sanctity of life, Christian women would scour these places where baby girls were abandoned, take them home and raise them as their own.

Well, this obviously created a sex imbalance, and left lots of horny Roman dudes dateless, and they had to look at Christian girls. And one of the requirements for marriage was that the Roman boy convert to Christianity.

Abortion is actually a big reason why the West became Christian. Every day the Christians became more numerous and the pagans less so.

Bazalgette and the creation of the London sewer system is my main interest. For some reason I find sewage management very interesting.


That is a great movie! Not sure how many times I've watched it.


I mean in a modern functioning of chivalry. There's probably no correlation, but accepting special treatment based on gender (chivalry) surely comes with a cost.

"Bazalgette and the creation of the London sewer system is my main interest. For some reason I find sewage management very interesting"

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what Bazalgette is. I will look it up when I get home. Work has been very hectic today.

The history of sewage management is fascinating. Actually, it had a major role in shaping the development of the modern West.

As far as chivalry having anything to do with rape or abortion, I must admit I don't see it. While women do get pregnant from being raped, it's simply not that common.

Some food for thought: Out where I live, ammunition is sold in the convenience stores, and shootings are very rare, though they do happen occasionally.

Actually, all serious crimes, including rape, are rare. I put up a new house five years ago. I've never put my house keys on my key ring because I never lock my doors; I've never felt the need to.

It is also the case that if one were to redline out the inner cities in the US that we would have some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

Outside the cities is where chivalry still flourishes, where crime is still relatively rare.

Not what, who . . . Joseph Bazalgette


Sounds like a nice place to live. I live in the city - chivalry is rare and crime rates are high.

Sounds like a nice place to live. I live in the city - chivalry is rare and crime rates are high.

Sorry about the mixup on Bazalgette. Today has been one crazy day at work!

I sure like where I live, but it's not for everybody. Other than a couple of small grocery stores, shopping is pretty much limited to Walmart, and that's almost forty miles away. Culture out here consists of the rodeo and country/western dances.

Since I'm so sensitive to noise, I particularly appreciate the silence. When I turn off my household appliances, the only things I can hear are the birds singing and the blood rushing through my head. When people come to visit, they find the silence and stillness unsettling.

I understand the difference betwen this and the city. I'm originally from Houston. The final straws were when one of my sixty-year-old neighbors with terminal bone cancer was raped in her bed because she left the window open. Then, a few days later the girl on the back side of me had the first floor of her apartment burglarized while she slept on the second floor.

That's horrible! I can see why you'd move.

Ann, that was just the final straw. At the time I had never heard of AS, and only had a desire to escape people.

I was living in inner city Houston at the time, actually in the bohemian-type district. I moved there from the suburbs, which I disliked even more. Since leaving the big city, I've never regretted it.

Do you live right in town, or out in the suburbs?

(picture removed to save space)

I don't see why not. Both groups look equally stupid to me.

I've sent you a PM.