Honorverse ramblings and musings

Daryl wrote:The best human societies are founded on egalitarianism, with equality of opportunity and no discrimination.
That may not be optimal with a society made up of very different species with very different abilities and outlooks. There may well have to be safeguards to protect all sentient citizens, just as we now have laws to protect the slower witted from con merchants.
As an example, code duello where the challenged gets to choose the weapons would have to be different.

cthia wrote:Spray paint that thought onto the canvass of a society exclusively founded on religion and righteousness, colored by the current discussion. Burdette's ignorance should have been protected by righteousness. He was still innocent until proven guilty. And the charge of guilt could have been tainted by Satan and his harlot. There is an ongoing war between God and Satan - good and evil. A true Christian should not await secular laws to catch-up with righteousness.

All I know is that honestly, I personally could not have kept the truth from him and lived with myself afterward, sleeping peacefully at night. There must be something intrinsically wrong there, or I wouldn't be too hard on myself, having survived a duel.

My notions, though they have a tendency to be controversial in nature are oftentimes like pulling teeth. Oftentimes you eventually come around. Eventually.

I very much doubt that the rules of the dueling code would be changed much: perhaps some limits on the choice of weapon, but the right to choose is already a safeguard to make a challenger think twice. However the code is more likely to change that a little noted, rarely used part of the Constitution; that is more likely to be simply removed.

Burdette may have the right to be considered "innocent, until proved guilty" in a judicial proceeding; but he both rejected a judicial proceeding and admitted to the Protector and his peers that all counts against him were true, except for knowingly causing the death of Reverend Hanks. Had the proof against him been needed, it was a direct confession to Church and the Protector of his armsman, who shot Reverend Hanks; something that was in no way "tainted by Satan and his harlot".

Whatever the truth about the strength of your feelings; that says nothing about the strength of the truth of your assertions.

tlb wrote:

Daryl wrote:The best human societies are founded on egalitarianism, with equality of opportunity and no discrimination.
That may not be optimal with a society made up of very different species with very different abilities and outlooks. There may well have to be safeguards to protect all sentient citizens, just as we now have laws to protect the slower witted from con merchants.
As an example, code duello where the challenged gets to choose the weapons would have to be different.

cthia wrote:Spray paint that thought onto the canvass of a society exclusively founded on religion and righteousness, colored by the current discussion. Burdette's ignorance should have been protected by righteousness. He was still innocent until proven guilty. And the charge of guilt could have been tainted by Satan and his harlot. There is an ongoing war between God and Satan - good and evil. A true Christian should not await secular laws to catch-up with righteousness.

All I know is that honestly, I personally could not have kept the truth from him and lived with myself afterward, sleeping peacefully at night. There must be something intrinsically wrong there, or I wouldn't be too hard on myself, having survived a duel.

My notions, though they have a tendency to be controversial in nature are oftentimes like pulling teeth. Oftentimes you eventually come around. Eventually.

I very much doubt that the rules of the dueling code would be changed much: perhaps some limits on the choice of weapon, but the right to choose is already a safeguard to make a challenger think twice. However the code is more likely to change that a little noted, rarely used part of the Constitution; that is more likely to be simply removed.

Burdette may have the right to be considered "innocent, until proved guilty" in a judicial proceeding; but he both rejected a judicial proceeding and admitted to the Protector and his peers that all counts against him were true, except for knowingly causing the death of Reverend Hanks. Had the proof against him been needed, it was a direct confession to Church and the Protector of his armsman, who shot Reverend Hanks; something that was in no way "tainted by Satan and his harlot".

Whatever the truth about the strength of your feelings; that says nothing about the strength of the truth of your assertions.

Granted. But you are still missing the forest for the trees. The fact that someone else has a notion that inexorably leads to the same fork in the road, is enough to entertain that the mindset of Masadan like dissidents left on Grayson can be riled to conversely sympathize with the accepted outcome of the duel.

My "feelings" from a righteous mindset are simply more fuel for the plaintiffs - other plaintiffs who would likewise also be influenced by righteousness.

Add to that the Malign's completely different set of algorithms let loose on genetic modification in the - hopefully not too distant - future whose baseline human abilities may potentially be even far-removed from Honor's and even farther-removed from the baseline of non genies or similarly modified humans. At some point, things become very unfair on the average planet. Without disclosure it becomes unrighteous on Grayson.

My original can-o-worms only holds water on Grayson. It doesn't come into play on Manticore. IMO.

cthia wrote:Granted. But you are still missing the forest for the trees. The fact that someone else has a notion that inexorably leads to the same fork in the road, is enough to entertain that the mindset of Masadan like dissidents left on Grayson can be riled to conversely sympathize with the accepted outcome of the duel.

My "feelings" from a righteous mindset are simply more fuel for the plaintiffs - other plaintiffs who would likewise also be influenced by righteousness.

So anyone acting on Grayson needs to worry about the hypothetical "mindset of Masadan like dissidents left on Grayson"? Since "haters gonna hate, hate, hate" that seems fruitless.

It is not simply a "duel"; it is a contest to "prove the true will of God" and that would be most strongly believed by those "Masadan like dissidents" to whom you wish to show deference.

"Masadan like dissidents" do not need your feelings of righteousness to believe that they are righteous; but they are wrong when they act to cause the deaths of others similar to the way Burdette acted.

Note that Burdette proclaimed his guilt, not just to his peers in the Conclave and to the Protector, but also to all the people on Grayson by way of the holo-vid cameras that rimmed the Spectators' Gallery.

cthia wrote:Granted. But you are still missing the forest for the trees. The fact that someone else has a notion that inexorably leads to the same fork in the road, is enough to entertain that the mindset of Masadan like dissidents left on Grayson can be riled to conversely sympathize with the accepted outcome of the duel.

My "feelings" from a righteous mindset are simply more fuel for the plaintiffs - other plaintiffs who would likewise also be influenced by righteousness.

tlb wrote:So anyone acting on Grayson needs to worry about the hypothetical "mindset of Masadan like dissidents left on Grayson"? Since "haters gonna hate, hate, hate" that seems fruitless.

In a word, yes. In actuality, Christians need to worry about turning their back on God, bringing down his wrath and appearing to do so. It is the whole charge Burdette is claiming.

tlb wrote:It is not simply a "duel"; it is a contest to "prove the true will of God" and that would be most strongly believed by those "Masadan like dissidents" to whom you wish to show deference.

My point exactly. It could be argued that the true will of God was tainted by the actions of another, supposedly, believer - Protector Benjamin and his fornicating harlot. Battles are sometimes lost by God, but not the war. IF God had wanted Harrington to lose, does not mean he would have struck down another believer who acted contrary to his wishes beforehand. There is a certain thing called free will that most non Christians do not understand, or rather, can't come to grips with.

tlb wrote:"Masadan like dissidents" do not need your feelings of righteousness to believe that they are righteous; but they are wrong when they act to cause the deaths of others similar to the way Burdette acted.

Also my point, so why give them even more fuel?

I believe it is wrong as well, yet our own military does the same thing. Or worse.

tlb wrote:Note that Burdette proclaimed his guilt, not just to his peers in the Conclave and to the Protector, but also to all the people on Grayson by way of the holo-vid cameras that rimmed the Spectators' Gallery.

Again, Burdette claimed only transgressions against man's law, in seeking to uphold God's law and the will of God. He also claimed not to specifically plan to kill kids or Reverend Hanks.

cthia wrote:Granted. But you are still missing the forest for the trees. The fact that someone else has a notion that inexorably leads to the same fork in the road, is enough to entertain that the mindset of Masadan like dissidents left on Grayson can be riled to conversely sympathize with the accepted outcome of the duel.

My "feelings" from a righteous mindset are simply more fuel for the plaintiffs - other plaintiffs who would likewise also be influenced by righteousness.

tlb wrote:So anyone acting on Grayson needs to worry about the hypothetical "mindset of Masadan like dissidents left on Grayson"? Since "haters gonna hate, hate, hate" that seems fruitless.

cthia wrote:In a word, yes. In actuality, Christians need to worry about turning their back on God, bringing down his wrath and appearing to do so. It is the whole charge Burdette is claiming.

Worrying about turning your back on God is not the same thing as worrying about the opinions of mean minded people; the first is worthy, the second is worthless.

tlb wrote:It is not simply a "duel"; it is a contest to "prove the true will of God" and that would be most strongly believed by those "Masadan like dissidents" to whom you wish to show deference.

cthia wrote:My point exactly. It could be argued that the true will of God was tainted by the actions of another, supposedly, believer - Protector Benjamin and his fornicating harlot. Battles are sometimes lost by God, but not the war. IF God had wanted Harrington to lose, does not mean he would have struck down another believer who acted contrary to his wishes beforehand. There is a certain thing called free will that most non Christians do not understand, or rather, can't come to grips with.

This is not your point, because you do not seem to accept that Trial by Combat in a religious society expects that God will affirmatively act to give victory to the righteous. That is what everyone prays to receive. So the true will of God is expressed by the victory of one side over the other and cannot be tainted. Free will in this case is joining a contest to prove one's righteousness or lack of it; that is what Burdette wanted and that was what he got. If God had wanted Honor to lose, then she would have lost.

tlb wrote:"Masadan like dissidents" do not need your feelings of righteousness to believe that they are righteous; but they are wrong when they act to cause the deaths of others similar to the way Burdette acted.

cthia wrote:Also my point, so why give them even more fuel?

I believe it is wrong as well, yet our own military does the same thing. Or worse.

They will make their own fuel no matter what is done, so it is worthless to give their concerns a priority in any way. What our military might do is irrelevant, because their goals are different.

tlb wrote:Note that Burdette proclaimed his guilt, not just to his peers in the Conclave and to the Protector, but also to all the people on Grayson by way of the holo-vid cameras that rimmed the Spectators' Gallery.

cthia wrote:Again, Burdette claimed only transgressions against man's law, in seeking to uphold God's law and the will of God. He also claimed not to specifically plan to kill kids or Reverend Hanks.

That is factually wrong, he only denied a plan to kill Reverend Hanks; but accepted the charge of acts leading to the deaths of children and others.

tlb wrote:

Daryl wrote:The best human societies are founded on egalitarianism, with equality of opportunity and no discrimination.
That may not be optimal with a society made up of very different species with very different abilities and outlooks. There may well have to be safeguards to protect all sentient citizens, just as we now have laws to protect the slower witted from con merchants.
As an example, code duello where the challenged gets to choose the weapons would have to be different.

cthia wrote:Spray paint that thought onto the canvass of a society exclusively founded on religion and righteousness, colored by the current discussion. Burdette's ignorance should have been protected by righteousness. He was still innocent until proven guilty. And the charge of guilt could have been tainted by Satan and his harlot. There is an ongoing war between God and Satan - good and evil. A true Christian should not await secular laws to catch-up with righteousness.

All I know is that honestly, I personally could not have kept the truth from him and lived with myself afterward, sleeping peacefully at night. There must be something intrinsically wrong there, or I wouldn't be too hard on myself, having survived a duel.

My notions, though they have a tendency to be controversial in nature are oftentimes like pulling teeth. Oftentimes you eventually come around. Eventually.

I very much doubt that the rules of the dueling code would be changed much: perhaps some limits on the choice of weapon, but the right to choose is already a safeguard to make a challenger think twice. However the code is more likely to change that a little noted, rarely used part of the Constitution; that is more likely to be simply removed.

Burdette may have the right to be considered "innocent, until proved guilty" in a judicial proceeding; but he both rejected a judicial proceeding and admitted to the Protector and his peers that all counts against him were true, except for knowingly causing the death of Reverend Hanks. Had the proof against him been needed, it was a direct confession to Church and the Protector of his armsman, who shot Reverend Hanks; something that was in no way "tainted by Satan and his harlot".

Whatever the truth about the strength of your feelings; that says nothing about the strength of the truth of your assertions.

****** *


Please be kind. Rewind.

Oftentimes you eventually come around. Eventually.

tlb wrote:I very much doubt that the rules of the dueling code would be changed much: perhaps some limits on the choice of weapon,[1] but the right to choose is already a safeguard to make a challenger think twice.[2]

Again

[1] Oftentimes you eventually come around. Eventually.
Honor's ability is a tailored weapon to detect the crease.

[2] What about Burdette's right to choose whether to enter into an unacceptably lopsided unrighteous, unfair contest?

tlb wrote:However the code is more likely to change that a little noted, rarely used part of the Constitution; that is more likely to be simply removed.

Expound?

Burdette may have the right to be considered "innocent, until proved guilty" in a judicial proceeding; but he both rejected a judicial proceeding and admitted to the Protector and his peers that all counts against him were true, except for knowingly causing the death of Reverend Hanks.

He chose to take it to a higher court. No problem.
Higher court unrighteous, bribed and brainwashed. Problem.
And the kids.

tlb wrote:Had the proof against him been needed, it was a direct confession to Church and the Protector of his armsman, who shot Reverend Hanks; something that was in no way "tainted by Satan and his harlot".

It was a confession to the transgression against man's laws to the Sacristy.

It was an appeal for proper justice to the Church. Justice devoid of hidden costs of the price of [un righteousness].

tlb wrote:Whatever the truth about the strength of your feelings; that says nothing about the strength of the truth of your assertions.

Spoken like a true secular man. It says plenty if I'm right about the condition of my faith. E = MC²

Daryl wrote:The best human societies are founded on egalitarianism, with equality of opportunity and no discrimination.
That may not be optimal with a society made up of very different species with very different abilities and outlooks. There may well have to be safeguards to protect all sentient citizens, just as we now have laws to protect the slower witted from con merchants.
As an example, code duello where the challenged gets to choose the weapons would have to be different.

cthia wrote:Spray paint that thought onto the canvass of a society exclusively founded on religion and righteousness, colored by the current discussion. Burdette's ignorance should have been protected by righteousness. He was still innocent until proven guilty. And the charge of guilt could have been tainted by Satan and his harlot. There is an ongoing war between God and Satan - good and evil. A true Christian should not await secular laws to catch-up with righteousness.

All I know is that honestly, I personally could not have kept the truth from him and lived with myself afterward, sleeping peacefully at night. There must be something intrinsically wrong there, or I wouldn't be too hard on myself, having survived a duel.

My notions, though they have a tendency to be controversial in nature are oftentimes like pulling teeth. Oftentimes you eventually come around. Eventually.

tlb wrote:I very much doubt that the rules of the dueling code would be changed much: perhaps some limits on the choice of weapon, but the right to choose is already a safeguard to make a challenger think twice. However the code is more likely to change that a little noted, rarely used part of the Constitution; that is more likely to be simply removed.

Burdette may have the right to be considered "innocent, until proved guilty" in a judicial proceeding; but he both rejected a judicial proceeding and admitted to the Protector and his peers that all counts against him were true, except for knowingly causing the death of Reverend Hanks. Had the proof against him been needed, it was a direct confession to Church and the Protector of his armsman, who shot Reverend Hanks; something that was in no way "tainted by Satan and his harlot".

Whatever the truth about the strength of your feelings; that says nothing about the strength of the truth of your assertions.

cthia wrote:What about Burdette's right to choose whether to enter into an unacceptably lopsided unrighteous, unfair contest?

Burdette rejected the secular court and demanded to be judged by God, in a Trial by Combat with the Protector's Champion; that was his right no matter how "unacceptably lopsided unrighteous" and "unfair" you chose to call it. It was a rational decision faced with the evidence against him, because if he won, it gave him the chance to kill Honor, discredit the Protector and vindicate his honor; and he would not be any worse off if he lost.

tlb wrote:However the code is more likely to change that a little noted, rarely used part of the Constitution; that is more likely to be simply removed.

cthia wrote:Expound?

FIE, chapter 29 wrote:no one had claimed challenge right in over three hundred years!

Burdette may have the right to be considered "innocent, until proved guilty" in a judicial proceeding; but he both rejected a judicial proceeding and admitted to the Protector and his peers that all counts against him were true, except for knowingly causing the death of Reverend Hanks.

cthia wrote:He chose to take it to a higher court. No problem.
Higher court unrighteous, bribed and brainwashed. Problem.
And the kids.

Not sure what why you mention "the kids", since he did accept responsibility for actions that led to their deaths. Since God is expected to judge the Trial by Combat, are you calling God "unrighteous, bribed and brainwashed"?

tlb wrote:Had the proof against him been needed, it was a direct confession to Church and the Protector of his armsman, who shot Reverend Hanks; something that was in no way "tainted by Satan and his harlot".

cthia wrote:It was a confession to the transgression against man's laws to the sacristy.

It was an appeal for proper justice to the church. Justice devoid of hidden costs of the price of [un righteousness].

No, the armsman confessed to both the Church and the Protector so that the statement could be admitted in court against Burdette, the man who had ordered him to the place where he shot Reverend Hanks.

tlb wrote:Whatever the truth about the strength of your feelings; that says nothing about the strength of the truth of your assertions.

cthia wrote:Spoken like a true secular man. It says plenty if I'm right about the condition of my faith.

It would be better, for this purpose, if your assertions were as strong as you claim your faith is (I did not mention your faith in the selected line, only your use of "feelings" as evidence). Why do you keep referring to "the transgression against man's laws" as though causing the deaths of children and others is not also against God's Laws?

I wonder, had Burdette won the fight, how well he would have been allowed to live despite having been shown the favor of God, after having so publicly admitted all that he had done? Note that he did accept responsibility for Reverend Hanks death, since Burdette only denied specifically targeting him.

Burdette had just discovered that his involvement in the dome collapse and the plot to kill Harrington (both of which caused multiple deaths- including those of children in the dome and the Head of the Church in the assisantion attempt) and that came in a broadcast meeting of the Protector and the Steadholders.
He had a fairly limited choice of action at that point. Get lead off under arrest for a trial (possibly more than one) under Grayson Law, or invoke the Trial by Combat provision and seek the nominal approval of God (under Grayson Law) if he won.
Lets see: Names have been named, consperiacy documented and the digging hasn't even begun to see all of who elce was invlovled or (it gets better) what else Burdette, his family and his co-consperitors had been up to. By invoking the Trial by Combat and announcing his responsibility he is looking to (probably) put all of those civil/crimianl problems behind him- if he wins. On the other hand, he, a great champion competitor with the sword, is facing what he belives is a perhaps tallented neophyte with the sword who is both exhausted and injured. Those conditions of his opponent have NO LEGAL BEARING on his ability to challange her though they are certainly going to be questioned later as -mostly in private- if he wins and his actions are therefor "approved" by God.

They cynical look at this is that he saw a massivly better chance for survival (no trial in criminal and treason charges-all that messy secular stuff) and the only way left to him-after the disclosures in the hall- of damaging the Protector. He wins and he is vindicated. He looses? How can he lose, he's the master swordsman.

The present discussion is very much like all those people after Honor's duel with Pavel Young...things like, she shot him several times before killing him, yet not including that he had 1) shot early, 2, shot her in the back, 3 and only had an empty gun because he emptied it mostly at her back. You know, the guy who hired a professional duelest to hurt her by challanging and then killing her lover.

Brigade XO wrote:Burdette had just discovered that his involvement in the dome collapse and the plot to kill Harrington (both of which caused multiple deaths- including those of children in the dome and the Head of the Church in the assisantion attempt) and that came in a broadcast meeting of the Protector and the Steadholders.
He had a fairly limited choice of action at that point. Get lead off under arrest for a trial (possibly more than one) under Grayson Law, or invoke the Trial by Combat provision and seek the nominal approval of God (under Grayson Law) if he won.
Lets see: Names have been named, consperiacy documented and the digging hasn't even begun to see all of who elce was invlovled or (it gets better) what else Burdette, his family and his co-consperitors had been up to. By invoking the Trial by Combat and announcing his responsibility he is looking to (probably) put all of those civil/crimianl problems behind him- if he wins. On the other hand, he, a great champion competitor with the sword, is facing what he belives is a perhaps tallented neophyte with the sword who is both exhausted and injured. Those conditions of his opponent have NO LEGAL BEARING on his ability to challange her though they are certainly going to be questioned later as -mostly in private- if he wins and his actions are therefor "approved" by God.

They cynical look at this is that he saw a massivly better chance for survival (no trial in criminal and treason charges-all that messy secular stuff) and the only way left to him-after the disclosures in the hall- of damaging the Protector. He wins and he is vindicated. He looses? How can he lose, he's the master swordsman.

The present discussion is very much like all those people after Honor's duel with Pavel Young...things like, she shot him several times before killing him, yet not including that he had 1) shot early, 2, shot her in the back, 3 and only had an empty gun because he emptied it mostly at her back. You know, the guy who hired a professional duelest to hurt her by challanging and then killing her lover.

Burdette's choice to fight was the best option he had. His approach to the fight showed his lack of understanding. That point was made bt many and I agree. Enough said there.

Young was a worthless fool that hated Honor enough to die to kill her. His only chance at killing her was to cheat and to cheat in a duel was to die. He should have remained true to his cowardly nature and declined the challenge move to the Solarian League and worked to achieve killing Honor from afar. Instead he chose his most immediate opportunity to kill Honor by accepting the challenge and the option of cheating to kill her. He chose to die in the hope, forlorn as it was, to take her with him. What a fool.