pureinheart Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 I have heard this all of my life and really would like the opinions of others of what this means to them... In war there are "rules of engagement"... In love????
Darth Vader Posted August 20, 2010 Posted August 20, 2010 I have heard this all of my life and really would like the opinions of others of what this means to them... In war there are "rules of engagement"... In love???? In a REAL war, there are NO RULES! It's destroy or be destroyed! The term "rules of engagement" is nothing but politics for a bunch of fat old geasers sitting around a table scratching their butts, because they didn't use Preparation H!:lmao: Love, what's that?
Author pureinheart Posted August 20, 2010 Author Posted August 20, 2010 In a REAL war, there are NO RULES! It's destroy or be destroyed! The term "rules of engagement" is nothing but politics for a bunch of fat old geasers sitting around a table scratching their butts, because they didn't use Preparation H!:lmao: Love, what's that? That is classic Darth:lmao::lmao:. On the love part, not sure....
bentnotbroken Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 In a REAL war, there are NO RULES! It's destroy or be destroyed! The term "rules of engagement" is nothing but politics for a bunch of fat old geasers sitting around a table scratching their butts, because they didn't use Preparation H!:lmao: Love, what's that? DV, :lmao:
LucreziaBorgia Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 I see it as a way to make excuses for poor choices. Let's take putting a bullet in someone's head, for example - that is murder, but if it is on the battlefield, it can be excused as 'an act of war' instead of murder. Kill a bunch of children when you chuck a bomb or grenade? Mass murder, or in a time of war it is 'collateral damage'. How many times do you see someone getting themselves in a romantic situation that is destined to hurt more people than help, and excusing it by saying... but it is 'love', as if being in 'love' somehow makes it ok to do.
jennie-jennie Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 When it comes to romantic love, I for one am not going to be altruistic. Most likely not in a war situation where my life or that of those I loved was threatened either.
Fight4Me Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 Love is a Battlefield Drat, now I have that song stuck in my head.
Darth Vader Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 That is classic Darth:lmao::lmao:. On the love part, not sure.... DV, :lmao: I'm glad I could accommodate your humor Ladies!:lmao: But, It's TRUE, all true!
BB07 Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 I don't think anything is fair in love or war.........seriously. Maybe I have warped thinking lately for some reason.
cavedweller Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 A quote from me: Life is but a poker game...
carhill Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 TBH, I've used that line to justify actions I could find no cogent cognitive reasoning to explain. Just sayin
MorningCoffee Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 I have heard this all of my life and really would like the opinions of others of what this means to them... In war there are "rules of engagement"... In love???? As those involved will go to great extremes in either love or war, to me the saying reflects how observers are less likely to condemn otherwise bizarre actions taken 'in extremis'. [bonus points for a little Latin lingo there ]
wheelwright Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 I think the saying just means that 'love' and 'war' make unpleasant behaviour more understandable. The hurt caused is still bad, awful, evil. But circumstances are extenuating, while they do not justify. Some time ago, a poster quoted research that found that people 'in love' have a lessened sense of morality. And people instinctively know that those in love are apt to act quite uncharacteristically, to move mountains, or to run off and get married against societal protocol. And it's never fair if your family gets bombed, from either form of insanity. But part of the harshness of life is that people get hurt because of the perceptions of a greater good by others. I wouldn't say it was at all fair that people get hurt, but as a race we understand this happens, and that sometimes it happens for this 'greater good', which may well be different to our own perception of what is good. The extent of this difference of opinion will dictate the level of our outrage. This means little for a family bereft through war, or a society busy condemning a socially inappropriate marriage. Funny thing is, in A love, and in war, there are sides. And someone usually gets hurt.
TOWinNYC Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 Well, you don't win a war by worrying about the "enemy" - so IF we're equating war with love, the same concept should hold true. If you want to win, worrying about the "enemy" will only weaken your position. As a matter of fact - when engaged in war - does anybody really worry about the enemy? Of course, there are always casualties but that's to be expected….. My .02.
White Flower Posted August 21, 2010 Posted August 21, 2010 In a REAL war, there are NO RULES! It's destroy or be destroyed! That's cause the Vietnames taught us about ambush warfare. Nice thread PIH, I'm liking all the input.
wheelwright Posted August 22, 2010 Posted August 22, 2010 Well, you don't win a war by worrying about the "enemy" - so IF we're equating war with love, the same concept should hold true. If you want to win, worrying about the "enemy" will only weaken your position. As a matter of fact - when engaged in war - does anybody really worry about the enemy? Of course, there are always casualties but that's to be expected….. My .02. I suppose bolded is the point - love/war make you not worry about any enemy in your project. But I'm getting confused, because who are the enemies of love? The enemies of war are easy to spot. They are the peace lovers. Perhaps this is another clue to understanding the saying - lovers disrupt, just as war does.
Fieldsofgold Posted August 22, 2010 Posted August 22, 2010 I see it as a way to make excuses for poor choices. Let's take putting a bullet in someone's head, for example - that is murder, but if it is on the battlefield, it can be excused as 'an act of war' instead of murder. Kill a bunch of children when you chuck a bomb or grenade? Mass murder, or in a time of war it is 'collateral damage'. How many times do you see someone getting themselves in a romantic situation that is destined to hurt more people than help, and excusing it by saying... but it is 'love', as if being in 'love' somehow makes it ok to do. Good post!
TOWinNYC Posted August 22, 2010 Posted August 22, 2010 I suppose bolded is the point - love/war make you not worry about any enemy in your project. But I'm getting confused, because who are the enemies of love? The enemies of war are easy to spot. They are the peace lovers. Perhaps this is another clue to understanding the saying - lovers disrupt, just as war does. Who are the enemies of love? Well, I would assume that would be anybody who is against your relationship. It could be a friend who's jealous or parents who disapprove (casualties could be the loss of the friendship or getting cut out of the will). But since this WAS posted on the OM/OW forum, I will go as far as to say there are probably those who see the BS as the "enemy" (see LilyBart's response).
TOWinNYC Posted August 22, 2010 Posted August 22, 2010 Love is an emotion. War is an act. What they both have in common is they can both end when one side looses interest or walks away. Love can also be an act - people like to point out often that "actions speak louder than words". And war can also be an emotion - that's how you get people to rally and "fight for a good cause". I also think what both have in common is when one side gives up and "waves the white flag".
White Flower Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Love is an emotion. War is an act. What they both have in common is they can both end when one side looses interest or walks away. Love can also be an act - people like to point out often that "actions speak louder than words". And war can also be an emotion - that's how you get people to rally and "fight for a good cause". I also think what both have in common is when one side gives up and "waves the white flag". I was going to post similarly in reaction to WarHorse but you beat me to it. I don't know WarHorse very well, but if he/she's on the side of married love over affair love I would find the statement confusing that love is an emotion. Usually the M camp states that love is an action. Also, war is an action backed by emotion. That is the reason for all the brain-washing (tis true) that goes on in the military. Of course, we have principles and beliefs but brain-washing does take place.
Author pureinheart Posted August 23, 2010 Author Posted August 23, 2010 I found this definition: There are no rules or restrictions in these two endeavours. They are both things that bring the best and the worst out of people. They are both battles of the heart, and battles of the soul. "All is Fair", they cannot be controlled, they cannot be contained. And the origin: It traces its origin back to John Lyly's 'Euphues' (1578). The quote was "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war. " John Lyly was a Renaissance English poet and playwright. It's still a perplexing statement to me though. It seems as if the perimeters are endless. We live in a world with nothing but rules, regulations, boundries etc. I have always felt "ruled and reg'd" to death. The replies are excellent, with more than enough food for thought:D
OWoman Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 If "all was fair" in war, there would be no need for the Geneva Convention (which gets selectively ignored by certain countries anyway, so I guess those countries do believe "all is fair" in war... ) But whether or not it's fair, it happens - the exercise of power determines morality. It might not be a popular view, but I am one who believes that "all is fair" in "love" - or sex, or whatever particular aspect of the impetus to mate (whether fleetingly or long-term, whether emotionally or physically, etc) you choose to focus on. It's a biological imperative, programmed deep within our genes, and I believe that its drive overrides any of the civilised niceties we gloss on top as social constraints. Sure, it's selfish. (So is everything, if you believe the thesis behind "the virtue of selfishness") Sure, some people might not like that. I'm not out to win any popularity contests, or to ingratiate myself to people who don't matter a fig to me. What matters to me is to lead as full and authentic a life as I can, within the constraints and opportunities of my context.
IfWishesWereHorses Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 In all fairness, the enemy usually is aware that war has been declared. In a "secret" love, intent on destroying a family, the damage is being done covertly, in most instances, which is pretty cowardly, if you ask me.
jennie-jennie Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 In all fairness, the enemy usually is aware that war has been declared. In a "secret" love, intent on destroying a family, the damage is being done covertly, in most instances, which is pretty cowardly, if you ask me. The WS having the affair I would say is not intent on destroying the family. That is exactly why it is an affair, and not a regular relationship.
IfWishesWereHorses Posted August 23, 2010 Posted August 23, 2010 Sometimes I like to think about what my "weapon of mass destruction" might be (to the BS) and what would cause the most amount of damage (Hiroshima level). After all, all's fair in love & war - right? Sorry, I was responding to this. And are you suggesting that affairs don't destroy families?
Recommended Posts