Gentleman

[Dr. Shane]

What traits should a gentleman display?

[Guest]

Shane...I really had trouble keeping it to 5

Shane..SHANE!!.... SHANE!!!

Anyone see that movie???

[Planey]

Generally "warrior" and "gentleman" are mutually exclusive.

Ans as for "good stewart" why does a gentleman need to be a Scotsman?

Graeme

[Nan]

Where is his sense of humor ? Very close to top of the list for me.

[Nicodema]

I chose those traits associated with the actual virtues historically ascribed to the cultural notion of "gentleman" when this term was in vogue. A "gentleman" of that day -- as I understand -- was intended to be something of a non-warrior social "class" providing a commonplace extension or version of many of the "courtly" virtues of old -- typically courteous, charming, tolerant, loyal and brave.

The best word would have been "gallant" as it encompasses many of these traits in one, but strangely this most befitting adjective was absent from the poll selections.

Just my 2 cents. My poll selections are NOT intended to reflect what traits I personally would prize most highly in a man, but rather those which I thought the term "gentleman" was originally employed to describe.

[Dr. Shane]

Gentlemen have been thought of as being warriors going back to the days of knights. However that has not always been included in the various guides to be gentlemen that have been published over the years.

It has been said that a gentleman will never borrow money from a woman and rarely from a man and a gentleman will never strike a woman unless she strikes him first.

It is pretty much agreed that the greatest American gentleman was General Robert E. Lee and the last American President to fit the description of a gentleman was Dwight Eisenhower.

I have never seen anything published that mentioned humor as being a trait of a gentleman so I didn't think to put it on the list.

[Dr. Shane]

Historically education has played a large part of being a gentleman. When the Titanic sunk all but one child was saved from first and second class. Many children died in third class. That was not because the rich went first. Nor were the third class locked below deck like the recent movie showed. The reason the children of the first and second class survived is becuase the men of the first and second class sought out the children to assure their safety. The men of the third class did not do that. In fact, it was reported that men of the first class actually went below deck to get third class children. That is because they were refined gentlemen. It would have been disgraceful for them to be saved if even one child went doen with the ship.

Thus we learn that we must teach our sons not only how to be gentlemen but the importance of being a gentleman. For some of us that means learning what a gentleman is.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Nothing in the past few years has forced steam from my ears as much as the reports of my sons about sessions at school in which administrators and teachers and so-called facilitators have attempted to teach the kids about "conflict resolution." Have we really come to a point at which we actually believe that the natural state of humanity is peace and that peace is maintained by conciliation? That there is some negotiable middle ground between good and evil? Perhaops we - the collective "we" - have (witness the recent machinations at the United Nations), but no compleat gentleman can accept such premises.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

- Brad Miner; Compleat Gentleman; Spence Publishing 2004

[Nicodema]

News flash to Mr. Miner: conflict resolution is simply the effort to teach kids to resolve their differences through discussion rather than violence. It has nothing to do with "negotiable middle ground between good and evil" -- it has to do with Johnny finding some other way to sort out his differences with Stevie besides giving Stevie a black eye.

I don't know anything about Mr. Miner or his book, but he's totally off base here. He apparently has no clue what conflict resolution training is about. Kids need to develop the ability to manage their anger and to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence, or a sufficiently safe and orderly environment cannot be maintained at school for them to learn anything.

[Bravus]

Uhuh - so all conflicts should be resolved by force rather than talking?

/me shrugs, then takes off his kid glove and slaps Shane across the face with it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

(in case the smiley doesn't do it, this is a *joke*!)

[Amelia]

*/ me gets out the twin pearl handled dueling pistols

Ok, 20 paces, turn on my mark and fire. First blood resolves the conflict.

[Bravus]

Nononono - cream pies @ three paces!

[Amelia]

Pie eating race?

[cricket]

You guys are wacky!

There is a small amount of sense in what Mr. Miner has written. It is unreasonable to think that every confrontation my children have can be resolved with calm, spoken words.

Although my children are generally peaceable children, there are times when physical fighting is absolutely necessary. When another child or young adult abuses them physically, it is appropriate for them to take physical action in defense of themselves.

We've all heard of the stories where a bully at school is stopped only by another child who finally sticks up for his/her own physical rights. Simply walking away in these situations has been proven to be ineffective.

[Bravus]

Agreed: which shows the futility of one-dimensional thinking and single solutions. Mr Miner seems to be suggesting that conciliation is *never* a solution, and that's nonsense. It's also nonsense to suggest that conciliation is *always* the solution. What we should be teaching our kids (and ourselves) is to think, understand, listen and distinguish: then act rightly. What we shouldn't be teaching them is simplistic, one-size-fits-all solutions, in *any* brandname.

[Gail]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

/me shrugs, then takes off his kid glove and slaps Shane across the face with it

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Ah... that's how the gentleman does it! LOL

[Dr. Shane]

Did you know Charles Dickens died in a dual? It was with Andrew Jackson (I think). It was with some guy that later became President. Anyways, Dickens had killed 26 men prior to that in duals and wounded Jackson (if it was him). Historically, western societies have considered a dual a gentlemanly way of resolving disputes.

Robert E. Lee, perhaps the best known "gentleman" in American history strongly objected to duals and they were eventually made illegal. Interesting Zell Miller wanted to challenge John Kerry to a dual. Now if they just had paint-ball guns, that would be fun to see. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Miner doesn't come off as saying all conflict should be resolved by force but rather a gentleman will be ready and willing to use force when faced with evil. A gentleman will not compromise with evil just to avoid a confrontation.

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Did you know Charles Dickens died in a dual?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I hate to be picky... but:

people die in duels, not in duals.

and

being a good steward is preferable to being a Scotsman.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I hate to be picky

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Than don't. I wouldn't want you to become a hate-monger.

[Dr. Shane]

If it wasn't for Bill Gates I wouldn't have made it through college. When are we going to get a spellchecker at C/A? Hmmmm, probbally when one of us coughs up a good donation <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[cricket]

Unfortunately, there isn't a spellchecker on the market that I know of that will correct your use of the words dual/duel, steward/stewart and then/than. Only with proper study of the English language will you learn this.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Miner doesn't come off as saying all conflict should be resolved by force but rather a gentleman will be ready and willing to use force when faced with evil. A gentleman will not compromise with evil just to avoid a confrontation.

---

Maybe a little more context could have been useful here for that quote. Not having any really did make it seem he was equating non-violent confict resolution with "compromising with evil"!

However -- and I will stand by this -- a hairless talkin' monkey unable to distinguish between "compromise with evil" and disagreement with another equally ignorant hairless talking monkey has no business squaring off with pistols over it. End of story.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Did you know Charles Dickens died in a dual? It was with Andrew Jackson (I think).

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually it was Charles Dickinson. They traded insults by mail until Dickinson had insults printed in the newspaper. At the duel, Dickinson got off a shot first and seriously wounded Jackson but had to stay the line until Jackson got his shot off. As per the rules of the day Jackson should have put his shot into the air as first blood had already been drawn. But instead he slowly aimed and killed Dickinson. Jackson was derided for being a cold blooded killer. His wound festered and never healed properly and caused him trouble the remainder of his life.

[Amelia]

I just have to add that you see this alot in todays society with gangs. A gangbanger will go to the n'th degree, to kill someone who called him a name. A road rager goes after the driver who, often unknowingly and innocently, did something to him. Today, It's become hazzardous to your health to insult or name call.