WHERE ARE WE HEADING FOR?

"Good honour started when man loved
who [sic] hated him and planned his harm"

Is there such a thing as bad honour?  

Dear Baldwin,
I don't understand what you mean. Please explain if you don't mind.

Honour is something that is intrinsically good.  To modify the word with the adjective "good" is superfluous, if not tautologous,.  It  claims that there are different types of honour and and  it is to imply that there is such a thing as bad honour.

Dear Baldwin,
You are right. Thank you very much.

The "for" in the title is a grammar gaffe.

No, it isn't. It's your turn now to admit it

Nothing to admit.  Google the expression "Where are we heading for?"  and see if you get any hits.  The "for" is already implied in the question,  It's a grammar gaffe in the same way that "Where are you at?"  is one.

I challenge you to post a quote from any recognized grammarian or authoritative book on grammar that shows that "for where are we heading" (which is the same thing as "where are we heading for" ) is good English.

You should have written "Where are we heading/headed to?"   or "What are we heading/headed toward?".

Cue the red herringed reply  and/or the shifting of the burden of proof and/or the ad hominem attack or crickets as J-Z's response to this challenge.

Look it up in Longman Dictionary, you will find that FOR is optional. Admit it, Baldwin.

What is it that I'm to look up in Longman?  

I believe

"Great honour started when man loved  
who hated him and planned his harm  "

should be

"Great honour started when man loved  
the ones/those who hated him and planned his harm".

since at the moment, given the syntax of your line,  "who"  seems to be an interrogative pronoun.  To be a relative pronoun, it needs to have a specified and stated antecedent referent.

 

"Then, foes were used to being supplied  
with equal swords, no hidden blades.  
It was disgrace [SIC disgraceful?] to fight a man  
who's not equipped with equal shields. "

When and where was this "then"?    And what's with the claim that in the past the accepted way of fighting was between a man armed with swords and one armed only with "equal" [??]shields

"But now, it is the greatest shame  
to clash with one on equal terms,  
without a plot to steal his arms  
ere you intend to start the fight. "

What evidence do you have to back up  this claim about what is now regarded as "shameful" in fighting  another person and in a combatant's preparation  for a fight.

I think  I am correct in assuming that here:  
 
"How can a person plan behind  
another one who quite ignores  
the dirt of his conspiracy  
to cause him wounds and great distress?  
 
within this rather muddled composition,  are you asking "how can someone plan surreptitiously not only to inflict wounds upon a rather naive and willfully ignorant person but to cause that person great distress?".  
 
If so,  I note that you don't go on to answer that question.  Why not?  
 
In fact, the rest of your submission has nothing to do with the question you raise in your first stanza.  

Dear Baldwin,
Let's write about one point after another.
1- Let us start with the most obvious point. According to LONGMAN DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH, HEAD FOR: to move towards; go to: "Where are you heading / heading for?"...lManchester"
I think it is very clear that we use, heading/ or heading for. Both are correct. What can you say about that?

I can say that Longman notes the following:

head2 ●●● S2 W2 verb    
1 GO TOWARDS (also be headed) [intransitive always + adverb/preposition] to go or travel towards *** a particular place***, especially in a deliberate way
head for/towards/back etc
 The ship was heading for Cuba.
 It’s about time we were heading home.

that is to say,  when one uses "for" with "head/ heading/headed",  the preposition needs an object.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/55781/what-is-the-difference-between-heading-to-and-heading-for

In any case,  I notice that nothing in your text answers the question you ask in your title even though this is something, given your title,  you indicate you are going to do and that, again given your title,  you've created the expectation for readers that you will do.

"Let's write about one point after another."

Did you mean to say "Let's write about one point at a time."?   Your sentence above means that you are going to discuss all at one time ALL the points I raised with you in a particular sequence.

When we use, WHERE, we ask about the place we are going to, or we are heading for, which is the place after the preposition FOR. We can't ask the question and give the answer, that is WHERE and give the place in the same title. Therefore, we ask:
Where are we heading for? The answer is:
We are moving towards A DISASTROUS END, or we are going to A TERRIBLE PLACE WHERE THERE IS NO MORALITY.
This is the place and the answer to the question or the title.
I don't want to discuss the second point of DO YOU MEAN TO SAY because it is your RED HERRING to confuse the subject.

"We can't ask the question and give the answer, that is WHERE and give the place in the same title."  
 
Nonsense.  One can ask "Are we headed for destruction?" or "Are we heading to a moral collapse?"  and therefore do exactly what you say can't be done.  
 
"Where are we heading for? The answer is:  
We are moving towards A DISASTROUS END, or we are going to A TERRIBLE PLACE WHERE THERE IS NO MORALITY."  
 
Even if a disastrous end is a place and not an event, let alone one where there is no morality,  what you write above is an answer to the question "**What** are we heading **toward**" not to "where are we heading for?'",  
 
More importantly,  there's nothing in your text that gives a reader this particular answer to the question you think your title raises clearly.  
.

"Are we headed for destruction?" Of course, in A YES/NO QUESTION, we can use DESTRUCTION, but we can't use it with an INFORMATION  QUESTION. How can we ask for example: WHERE ARE WE HEADING FOR DESTRUCTION? This is nonsense. How can you give such an example. Use WHERE and give the answer of WHERE in the same question if you can. We ask with WHERE to have the answer separately.
You give the answer separately. This is what the poem is leading you to think of. Please, Baldwin, be logical. Great poets are reading your writings.
WHAT will give the the OBJECT of a preposition, which is an objective noun. I want to ask with WHERE to have the answer as a horrible place.

First off,  correct your dittography in your "WHAT will give the the OBJECT of a preposition,".  
 
And as to your   "I want to ask with WHERE to have the answer as a horrible place."    
   
Here's a way to do so in one sentence.  
    
Where are we headed if not to a place of horror?    
     
And who are the "great poets" you speak of?  Names names, please.    
     
"How can we ask for example: [sic] WHERE ARE WE HEADING FOR DESTRUCTION? This is nonsense. How can you give such an example."    
     
Please show me that I did indeed give "such an example."   
     
And please demonstrate that "Are we headed for destruction?" is **not** an INFORMATION  QUESTION.  Is not the questioner asking it seeking information about what lies ahead and whether or not he/she should be worried about whether he/she will be facing dangers to life and limb?

Please answer this question: is "Are we heading for destruction?" an information question?

It certainly can be depending on why the question is being asked?

Now answer my question about whether you think that your text answers the question your title presents readers with and what the relationship is between the subject of the first stanza and the subject of the stanzas that follow it.

I have discovered, Baldwin, that you have no idea about EnglI grammar. If you don't prove the opposite, l have lost all confidence in your knowledge of grammar.

"I have discovered, Baldwin, that you have no idea about EnglI grammar."

And I have discovered that you do not know how to write comprehensible sentences in English.

What is Engll grammar?

Whether or not  I have knowledge of grammar does not invalidate my claims that your text does not provide an answer to the question you ask in your title, let alone the particular one you say it is asking, i.e., that " We are moving towards A DISASTROUS END, or we are going to A TERRIBLE PLACE WHERE THERE IS NO MORALITY."  and that the subject of the first stanza is something wholly other than, and bears no relation to, the subject of the remaining stanzas.  
 
Perhaps, instead of focusing on what, according to you, I do not know,  you'll finally get around to demonstrating (not asserting) how and why my claims are wrong.

Dear Baldwin,
For me, you are famous for looking for such goofs, as if it is your specialty. Believe me l didn't edit it because l knew you would write about it. I left it to prove my thought. Why don't you answer the more serious accusation. Indeed, l mean it. I believe you are ignorant of the essential English grammar.

And here I thought the more serious accusation was that your submission was an incoherent mess that did not come anywhere near speaking to, let alone answering,  the question of  where we are headed for.

Here's an attempt to state poetically what you said was the answer to the question posed in the title of your submission but did not come anywhere near stating in the text of it .  
 
I wonder if,    
in light of the rapidity  
in which we see  
the attitude of Lamech  
towards those who might attempt  
to injure him  
encompassing the world  
within a burgeoning hostility  
that voids morality,  
 man’s destiny is doom  
and inescapable calamity.  
   
I doubt that love of enemy,  
no matter how much honour  
is obtained by it,  
will ever be sufficient, fit  
to quell  or, more importantly, reverse  
the darkening curse  
that’s now upon humanity  
and all the earth  
due to increasing  
unsurceasing enmity.  
   
I note that it has all of the elements that you claim a writing must have to be a poem,  i.e., good rhythm,  rhyme, and a deep subject.  So it will be hypocritical of you to say that this piece is not a poem. (even if it has minor flaws of spelling and/or punctuation).

As always, a msterpiece. Hugs and peace, }O{

Thank you very much, O, for your very pleasing comment.

What are your criteria for judging something a "msterpiece"  [sic] and what is it about J-Z's submission that compels you to assert that it is one?    
    
And why should anyone -- even J-Z -- take your evaluation of this piece seriously, let alone think, given how this submission does not answer or speak to the question its title raises or is well worded, that you actually know what a "masterpiece" looks like.