Of Sheep amd Warriors

[TomOfSweden]

I think I understand what the author is trying to say here, but it’s all just a little too condescending and parochial for me. I think too, who ever has written this has tried too hard to simplify a very complex issue—human behavior.

I certainly don’t appreciate the word “sheep” in reference to the majority of people who aren’t “...always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle...” (One of many rather odd analogies use in this article)

I agree. The original text is extremely simplistic. I don't like the dichotomy. The description of the Warrior rings a bit too much of neocon jingoism for my taste. It sounds like it idolises belligerent machos rather than conflict solvers. Conflicts are solved by people putting pride aside, daring to think in new ways. Not by flag waving macho men beating down darkies with towels on their heads on September flights. I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves when attacked. But my definition of a hero is a lot wider than the simplistic divisions stated above.

All criminal research shows that the biggest factor for violent crime by far is poverty. Solve poverty and violent crime is solved. How many prayers are told in school is pretty much irrelevant. As far as repeat offenders goes, a big factor is the severity of punishments. The longer and harsher punishments, (except death) the more likely the criminals are to repeat their crime. USA is big on punishing hard. It's a system that "breeds" repeat offenders.

If this discussion is about how to divide humanity into generalised groupings I think I'd rather go with Nietzsche's dichotomy. According to him it's quite possible to be an over-man and a submissive. Being brave enough to see your own weaknesses and follow your own needs, when they go against what's regarded as normal is to me a Warrior.

My "Warriors" are people who don't go looking for labels to put on them selves, and don't go looking for quests in order to gain glory. They follow their own heads and make sure they even when they're being greedy, they also help others around them. A Warrior is always a Warrior, even when nobody is looking.

My "Sheep" are people who accept commonly held truths and uncritically follow common dogmas. I'll save you all from any narrower definitions. I've stepped on enough toes here, but the Warrior mentioned in the original text doesn't sound to me like an Over-man. Just a small person that needs to bloat a tiny ego.

...and the text got confusing when it mixed in wolves. Which are the wolves? Aren't the Warriors also Wolves, if seen from another angle? Wolves seem to be just anything we don't like? That to me rings strongly of fascist propaganda texts.

There's a bunch of passages from the old popes from when they where blessing the crusaders, which talk a lot about when violence is justified. It might be good to read up on.

If we return to Hemloc's original definition I'm a Warrior when called for, and a Sheep when I need to be. And I very much do consider myself a Master.

[Rhabbi]

If we return to Hemloc's original definition I'm a Warrior when called for, and a Sheep when I need to be. And I very much do consider myself a Master.

Very well said Tom.

Looking back I can see why this post originally got to me. I have heard this type of talk from people here in the US who believe that the UN is going to try to take over the world, and I guess my BS meter just pegged at anger.

I never classified myself as a warrior, and probably never will. I will fight when I have to, but infinitely prefer to walk away from a conflict. I am not foolish enough to believe that violence does not solve things. As Robert Heinlein once said:

Anyone who clings to the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral - doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forgot this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and there freedoms.

There are sheep out there who would argue this point, but I know better. Any intelligent man should be able to see the imprint of violence on history and world events.

This does not make me a sheep or a wolf. Like Tom, I am what is needed when it is needed, but am always a man and a Dom.

[Uncle_Ed]

I am most interested to read this thread. Definitions of what we humans may, or may not be, are always intriguing and should always lead to debate. I have my own thoughts on what and who I am and I regard the observations of others with a slight grin most of the time. If I see someone with whom I disagree-so be it. If I see, however, one who attacks the well-being of my friends then that's a different matter. I will attack. I will defend. Can I be pigeon-holed for that? Most certainly. Is the person who does that correct? *shrugs* who the hell knows-I most certainly will try to keep an open mind-(See my on-line prayer)
It has always been on constant wonder to me that there is so little flaming in here...where there are intelligent, literate and above all, passionate folk-there will be conflict. I have stood up to be counted when I felt it necessary and be damned to the consequences. We have the right to express ourselves and sometimes that is done badly-no, inadequately. Remember, friends, communication is about ensuring your point is understood. When you don't care-Ah! Therein lies the problem.