is my code of honor too strict or aggresive?

Sorry I don't completely understand all of your points so if I misunderstand anything go ahead and tell me.



Those kinds of mindsets lead to suicidal behavior, and if successful leads to a successful suicide. In this way I see a contradiction to the code of being opposed to suicide.



[This is where I was mostly confused in understanding what you were trying to convey]

Different people have different concepts of "danger" and "self defense", for example (the controversial) Florida's stand your ground law, which legalizes assault and premeditated murder on basis of different skin colored people entering another skin colored neighborhood. In example, a man, witnessing a boy of different skin color walking around in his neighborhood (said boy was going to his uncle(I believe it was his uncle) house carrying a bag of candy, soda pop, and talking to his girlfriend on his cellphone). Calls police to notify authorities who tells him to sit back and they'll handle, in what I can only guess "feeling like a cowboy" he ignores the officer, grabs his gun, and chases after the boy. While confronting the boy, who tried to ignore him, the confrontation became physical. In "self defense" the man shot the boy, which lead to the boys death then and there. A law called "stand your ground" in Florida and a few other states found his actions completely legal (ironically did not work for a lady of the same skin color as the boy when she shot at the ground of her husbands feet when he started to become violent, from what I understand.) To a handful of "these people" in support of this law, entering a 3 meter radius of their body and appearing dangerous to them, constitutes self defense. To me, the law and the people in support of it mistake's assault for self defense... So what basis would you be using the judge "self defense" and what makes it anymore valid?

Even with a system with laws, it is not always 100% in it's trialing of perpetrators, people can be falsely accused of crime they did not commit and serve years for it, their are a few cases of people who were put to death for crimes they did not commit (speaking in terms of US law). Admittingly it is proof of the systems faults, but it is a rather well refined system, a system that tries it's best to be impartial and judge based off of evidence. Most of the faults lie in it's human factors. So the idea of a system completely detached and left to personal judgement (to me) is a step back into allowing feeling to dictate righteousness.



So only the establishment of marriage matters, as long as it's properly ended (in court I assume), anyone can sleep/marry with whoever they want how ever many times? This seems like a rule for marriage's sake, as opposed to upholding the integrity of a promise/commitment. Cheating being wrong I can understand but the killing the perpetrator had me thinking that it was the latter, a concept that seemed similar to (what I understand of) the "Bushido" code of commitment.



Were human, no matter what personal feelings and emotions always rules a factor in our judgement. Putting "faith" in another, who you may not know, that they would seek to save everyone is an emotional judgement. It also doesn't address perceptions of "the right answer". To add on to my example, the person they kill, they believed was a killer and concluded that they deserve death, to later find the person was innocent. Through the "justification of murdering a (believed) murder" they've killed an innocent person. Does that person now deserve death, despite their action being made in what is considered a just reason, there by making them innocent?

I'm not trying to hammer you about lying (realized I was), lying is extremely situational, their are always a huge number of factors in any given choice and occasionally, to create the least amount of friction, lying can be a good choice, as bad as I feel for saying this... (The example going on in my head, 2 countries, hostile to each other, trying to make peace, but one guy goes and attack people from the other country, so both governments lie stating the man is from another country so that the peace talks don't break down.)



Stockholm syndrome, I'm aware of it. But my point is about passing judgement without indefinite proof, the difference between "enough proof" between multiple individuals, and ending a life that can redeem itself. Rape is an emotional subject for me, and given the chance, in an emotional outburst I would probably agree with you that they should die. But looking at it logically, as cruel as this may be for a victim, the rapist life can still have value, they can still attempt to atone for what they've done to the victim. (Killing all rapist also means killing the ones tried with stachatory rape.)



(Example) So you and a friend of yours, for as long as you can remember, are always next to each other, helping each other and such. But one day something really bad happens and both of you are needed to act. Having no idea that your friend would, he chooses a different answer than you, one you believe hurts a lot of people. Does that mean he is no longer a friend, as well, does that mean your justified in killing him? Choices are not that easily defined, as well, the way people come to conclusions is not always the same. This is where we probably differ but I believe an enemy can also be a friend.



Rules are established by people through (in most cases) fair systems. Through dialogue and reason we try to establish the best solution, and while it may not always please everyone, we try to find a solution that protects the most. That is governments purpose (US at least, since I have no idea from where your speaking from). It is by the people for the people. Granted governments can become corrupt, no human is above corruption after all, and no system of government perfectly protects against it... That's why the US is going through so much crap. I cannot condone abandoning it for convenience so easily. Then again I don't know what rules your society follows. I also acknowledge there are times in which I think that some laws are unnecessary, counter productive, or just plain destructive, but I can't allow myself to act independently of them, for what I believe may be justice, another may find otherwise, and vise verse.



True, just because you make it doesn't mean you can keep it, but not trying to is the problem I was bringing up. Not that I am insinuating you don't.



You are completely entitled to them, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you can't have them, it simply seemed like you wanted an opinion, and my opinion was, the ones I gave. My opinion collide in some places with yours, so I was just trying to word it to the best of my ability. My opinion is only opinion after all and I am not trying to force you to change, I was just interested in a bit of dialogue and pondering. I came to a couple of personal conclusions while typing these replies out. I'll understand if you can't agree with my opinions. I had fun. XD