Martial arts sensei- lord of war?

[Shorinryu Sensei]

Is a used car salesman a "lord of war" because he sells something that has either the potential to be beneficial, or deadly, depending on how it's used?

How about that guy that sells the Ginsu knives on TV?

[White Warlock]

hehe

[lgm]

Is a used car salesman a "lord of war" because he sells something that has either the potential to be beneficial, or deadly, depending on how it's used?

Although almost everything that is used for fighting, maiming or killing people can be widely considered as possible "war weapon", from the WMBs to the nail of your finger, only those weapons whose original intent is strictly for fighting can be conventionally and lexically referrred to as "weapons" (both man-made weapons, like guns or natural weapons, like hands and feet, when used in unarmed combat). So, a car salesman, by this definition, cannot be considered a "lord of war", unless he deals in car bombs. He..he...he

How about that guy that sells the Ginsu knives on TV?

Ginsu knives are intended for kitchen use and when used on vegies and meat in the kitchen, they are not considered weapons, strictly speaking, but kitchen utensils/accessories. However, since they are knives and can cut, they can be used as weapons to hurt and kill people. In this context therefore, salemen who sell Ginsu knives as kitchen tools are not "lords of war" but "lords of the kitchen", while salesmen who sell Ginsu knives as weapons to for self-defense or killing are "lords of war". All depends on the nature of their trade.

[lgm]

The differences are actually quite significant:

I will not disagree with most of differences you delineated between a gunrunner and an MA sensei. But, the claim is not that MA sensei is exactly the same as a gunrunner. As you detailed, there are essential differences between them and that is undeniable or need not be refuted.

However, the claim is only that since the MA sensei deals in potential weapons of destruction like the gun runner, except the fact that his weapons are "natural" ones, not like the man-made weapons of the latter, he deserves to also be called a "lord of war". These two jobs may well be extremely diverse on all other points of comparison. They are purported to be similar only on this single point and nothing more.

BTW, being a lord of war is not ethically bad in itself, if one is to be classified as "good" lord of war. One can aptly deserve this title, if one sells weapons only on the promise of the buyer to use them only for the defense of self, loved ones and country, then he is a good gun dealer. Isn't this the only moral requirement that a lord of war has to demand from his prospective customers to be morally right? But, as to whether the customer or buyer will keep his word is not his own look out, except that he should not deal anymore with this customer or client if it can be proved that he used the weapons earlier sold, contrary to the promise he made in the initial transaction.

So, too, an MA sensei can be a good lord of war. He can teach anyone whom he believes will use his art for good and not evil, and after getting the latter's promise to do so, he will teach him the deadly skills. He also doesn't have control on how the student will use those skills, despite the latter' pledge. He can only refuse to have anymore association with him or continue teaching him if the latter seeks further training, and it is proven that he used his learned art for evil earlier.

So, if an MA sensei has to be classified as a lord of war by logical association, he should be a good lord of war, IMO.

[Patrick]

Hello,

We removed a post from this thread in error. It is below. I apologize for the confusion. Thanks.

However, the claim is only that since the MA sensei deals in potential weapons of destruction like the gun runner, except the fact that his weapons are "natural" ones, not like the man-made weapons of the latter, he deserves to also be called a "lord of war". These two jobs may well be extremely diverse on all other points of comparison. They are purported to be similar only on this single point and nothing more.

Ah, okay then. So in dismissing everything i wrote, agreeing with me but stating it is irrelevant to the discussion, you argue now that the issue is about the title of "Lords of War."

Well, my assertion is that it is a stupid title and describes absolutely nothing except what an individual poses on said title. It is relative in it's context to the assigner's perception of what a lord is, what war is, and what a person in such a position would constitute.

Therefore, in my context of such a title, there are no lords of war, only men of delusions.

[Eric_]

The most likely situation is that the firearms will be used to cause harm, and the fighting skills will not.

I disagree. Most fighting skills are intended to cause pain, harm or even death to the attacker, but the purpose for doing so may either be for self-defense against criminal elements (considered justified or good) or unprovoked aggression towards innocent people (considered unjustified or bad).

I did not mean that martial arts are not designed with the intent to cause harm, I was referring to the likelihood of one's knowledge of a martial art ever being actually used to cause harm. For any given individual buying illegal firearms, the chances of the weapon purchased being used unlawfully is extremely high. For any given student of the martial arts, the chances, statistically speaking, of the individual ever using their training in combat is very small.

[White Warlock]

Well, that's not necessarily true either. Most guns are sitting in stores, people's lockboxes, or in military sheds. Of those guns being used regularly, very few ever see the light of 'real' action. Of those, far fewer are used in crimes. The evils of guns has been overplayed by the politicians working for votes. It is the criminal-minded, having access to a gun and opportunity to wield it, that makes a gun a bad thing.

[White Warlock]

Earlier i made the supposition that there are no lords of war, only men of delusions. I would like to expound upon that:

Lords

The more commonly understood definition, and the one i believe being referred to here is that of, "a man of renowned power or authority."

The problem with this concept is that a merchant, unless he has a monopoly, cannot present power or authority over his clientele. In the case of gun running, it is a competitive market. If the deal offered is not to the liking of the buyer, then the buyer finds another dealer. Only in a few instances is 'monopoly' in existence. Yet, even if such was the case, entrepreneuring gun runners are not in it for the power or authority, they are in it for the profit. Also, anyone willing to buy such illegal purchases would be just as willing to use said illegal purchases on anyone 'attempting' to impose power or authority over them. A merchant of one, or even ten, is no match for an army of a thousand. Indeed, the larger the sale, the greater the ratio.*

Gun runners are merely high risk merchants, not definers of protocol or morals. Were they to present themselves as 'lords,' they would be under a delusion, a false perception of the reality in which they are in. A sort of cover-up to their fears. This has a bite. Delusions can interfere with the clarity required in business transactions and any reasonable client would recognize this and 'play to it,' in order to obtain a better deal.

* It is only 'governments,' functioning as gun runners under a monopolistic scene, that have the ability to 'lord' over others. Invariably, however, this ends up biting the governments in the butt (recent history presents plenty of examples).

War

War, under any circumstance, is not a good thing. There could be good intentions, good motives, but not good outcomes. They may even be a necessity, under a given criteria, but this does not default to being good. In wars, children die, women die, families die. In wars, sons are sent out to take lives, and lose their own life. If you look at things from an overall picture, you can see a gain, or a loss... but not a good.

Wars cause injury, death, disfigurement, disablement, hardship, an escalation in criminal activity, starvation, poverty, wealth into the hands of unscrupulous merchants; destruction of landscape, nature, ecosystems, landmarks, monuments, relics, etc.

War is destruction, chambered through a fine barrel, thrust with excessive force, extreme precision, into the heart of innocence. It is not a good thing that one enters into destruction and death, regardless of the circumstances by which one is brought to such a state.

Death in War

Combatants are not the only ones that die in a war. Therefore honor, as presented by governments and family, is not a sweeping title. A child who dies because of a stray bullet is not a hero, she is 'collateral damage.' A casualty of war...

Yet, were we to dismiss 'collateral damage,' how is becoming a hero a good thing, when to do so means to lose one's life? You are not there to enjoy your death. You are one of a million or so persons who died for a cause, however noble it may seem.

Defending your way of life, when in the process you die, is not productive. If, however you die with the intent to defend a way of life for your family and friends, this can be construed as productive and noble if actions committed had made a positively swaying impact on the outcome. On the other hand, noble is but a word and does not give credence to the totality of the picture being presented.

This total picture is that of war, not of individuals. War does not differentiate between the noble soldier, the meek soldier, or the child. It does not give medals to the land, the trees, the poisoned waters. Wars indiscriminately kill people, animals, plants, cultures, beliefs, and dreams.

Self Defense

If I were to take someone's life because he threatened to take mine, it is not a good thing. Yes, i should be happy that i survived, but should i as well celebrate the taking of a life? Being forced to take a life is always bad, even if taking a life constitutes that your life can continue.

When presented with a situation where one must choose between dieing or killing, this is not a choice of good vs bad, but of bad vs worse. If you do not act, you die. If you act, another dies. The choice is clear, yet the better choice is still not a good one.

Martial Arts

This is the study of war, not the profiting off of it. A merchant examines the quickest means to obtain the largest profit. A gun-runner, who is a merchant, examines the quickest means to obtain the largest profit under the 'event' known as war. A martial artist, is not a merchant, but an artisan. He spends an inordinate amount of time perfecting his art, his study into the arts of war.

That is not to say a martial artist cannot function as a merchant, but it is not the core goal. Indeed, even if he were to function as a merchant, he ultimately offers a service... not a product. His service is in the action of instruction, of teaching.

Teachers

The underlying goal of a teacher is to teach. To present information and/or skills that will further develop a person or persons. It is through this process, a lengthy one mind you, that a teacher is able to 'directly' influence a person. In this, as well, a teacher is able to examine his students and determine which are 'worthy' of obtaining the information and/or skills that the teacher holds.

A teacher, not a martial artist nor a gun-runner, can function as a lord. A lord of knowledge, not of war. He can lord over his knowledge and not share it, or decide upon whom he grants this knowledge, for the knowledge he holds is unique. However, once he grants this knowledge, he has lost some or all of his lording capabilities.

[Eric_]

Well, that's not necessarily true either. Most guns are sitting in stores, people's lockboxes, or in military sheds. Of those guns being used regularly, very few ever see the light of 'real' action. Of those, far fewer are used in crimes. The evils of guns has been overplayed by the politicians working for votes. It is the criminal-minded, having access to a gun and opportunity to wield it, that makes a gun a bad thing.

As for guns bought legally, yes. These are not the firearms in discussion.

[White Warlock]

ahh, i misread your post Eric