You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
8
devotech2 on scored.co
1 year ago8 points(+0/-0/+8Score on mirror)2 children
They are different. A warrior is someone who largely fights independently and has their own code of ethics and honor. Archetypal warriors: Beowulf, Aragorn, Hercules, et al.
Soldiers are people who fight in an organized army and are bound by an overarching goal and a written code of honor/ethics that's binding to all of them.
I don't know how the fuck it relates to the military though. They're literally soldiers, not warriors. The closest thing to a warrior in the military would be operators but they fall outside of the purview of the rank and file military entirely.
This, though one can be both. Just not very common anymore. A warrior is an ethos as much as anything else.
My axiom has always been the following: Most warriors are not soldiers, and most soldiers are not warriors.
This was not always true, obviously. In the history of our folk: the best armies and leaders of men were both. But the modern world hates the warrior. And pays embarrassing sanctimonious lip service to the soldier (who deserves nothing for being a tool of ZOG). "thank you for your service" faggots are usually talking to some pog cocksucker who did nothing but drive a humvee around Ft Bragg for a couple years... yet has "veteran" emblazoned across every single fucking thing he wears, uses, and owns.
The most common form of stolen valor is not civilians pretending to be military, it's rear echelon mother fuckers pretending to be decorated grunts.
Neither of the definitions have anything to do with honour, or fighting independantly, or having a code, or ethics, or organisation, or goals. Beowolf and Hercules were both soldiers and warriors.
You are correct that they mean slightly different things. But it's semantics. In context they mean exactly the same thing. Any soldier that has seen action is a warrior, by definition. The vast vast vast majority of contemporary warriors, going back for generations, are soliders.
Soldiers are people who fight in an organized army and are bound by an overarching goal and a written code of honor/ethics that's binding to all of them.
I don't know how the fuck it relates to the military though. They're literally soldiers, not warriors. The closest thing to a warrior in the military would be operators but they fall outside of the purview of the rank and file military entirely.
My axiom has always been the following: Most warriors are not soldiers, and most soldiers are not warriors.
This was not always true, obviously. In the history of our folk: the best armies and leaders of men were both. But the modern world hates the warrior. And pays embarrassing sanctimonious lip service to the soldier (who deserves nothing for being a tool of ZOG). "thank you for your service" faggots are usually talking to some pog cocksucker who did nothing but drive a humvee around Ft Bragg for a couple years... yet has "veteran" emblazoned across every single fucking thing he wears, uses, and owns.
The most common form of stolen valor is not civilians pretending to be military, it's rear echelon mother fuckers pretending to be decorated grunts.
You are correct that they mean slightly different things. But it's semantics. In context they mean exactly the same thing. Any soldier that has seen action is a warrior, by definition. The vast vast vast majority of contemporary warriors, going back for generations, are soliders.