Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Bring back the traditional Duel

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
November 28, 2010, 02:36:51 PM
... I just ignore the person, which is another way of handling it. Alternatively you could make a complaint to their authority (boss, parent, etc) or a public authority (police, government, etc).

I didn't mean to imply you personally were faced with the problem, I just found it funny because I think a person being rude and refusing to stop is something very minor.

I think ignoring them or telling on them isn't going to engender respect, not personally, not socially.

As for rudeness being minor, rudeness is a sign that the social environment of mutual respect has been broken, that's why it was responded to so aggressively. Nowadays that would seem minor because we have no idea what a mutually respectful and implicitly trusting community would look like or how important it might be.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
November 28, 2010, 07:59:57 PM
... I just ignore the person, which is another way of handling it. Alternatively you could make a complaint to their authority (boss, parent, etc) or a public authority (police, government, etc).

I didn't mean to imply you personally were faced with the problem, I just found it funny because I think a person being rude and refusing to stop is something very minor.

I think ignoring them or telling on them isn't going to engender respect, not personally, not socially.

As for rudeness being minor, rudeness is a sign that the social environment of mutual respect has been broken, that's why it was responded to so aggressively. Nowadays that would seem minor because we have no idea what a mutually respectful and implicitly trusting community would look like or how important it might be.

Right, "telling on them"... that's not what I said. I'd like to get nasty here, but I think I'll agree to disagree instead, I'd like to leave it at this and let others draw their own conclusions; I think our conversation thus far speaks for itself.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
November 28, 2010, 10:10:32 PM
I'd rather have active aggression over passive aggression.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
November 29, 2010, 12:14:01 AM
What about guitar duels? The freestyle battle is an important thing in hiphop and some of the things said in this thread reminded me of that, so why doesn't metal have more guitar duels? Unfortunately it seems metal is the genre that utilizes airguitar playing and Guitar Hero vidyagayms. Perhaps that is the result of metalheads being to friendly to each other? Don't blame it all on commercialization, something allowed that commercialization.



Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
November 29, 2010, 11:57:22 AM
I'd rather have active aggression over passive aggression.

In fairness, I think I'm being passive aggressive here in a blatant sense of double entendre, so it isn't passive in the strictest sense.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
November 29, 2010, 01:21:18 PM
In fairness, that was a pretty passive aggressive comment I made.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
December 01, 2010, 06:36:34 AM
To sum up your post, thread-starter: Let's also bring back witch burning, or further: mandatory Christianity.

1) Dueling is a byproduct of property, as in men possessing women through an institution called marriage. I guarantee you dueling began from adultery, and guarantee the statistics historically are adultery-related.

Institutions are illusory. A man is attractive to most women if he possesses alpha-male characteristics, in other-words: survival traits.

Attraction is our leading instinct. Almost any woman can be attracted to another man and break off marriage. Sure, there are women of steel, those who have conquered the will through intellect through some form of Schopenhaureian philosophy, but they are exceedingly rare.

So, keep in mind that dueling originates from a conflict between biological instincts and a Christian institution.

If you pick the right woman, you will never duel.

2) What defines honor? Further, what defines correct honor? Due to subjectivity, you could break someone's 'honor' for eating their banana.

The only way to actually define correct honor would be to invent a thermometer that can measure being-in-itself, and then ask the universe what objectively is the correct existence.

But I'm guessing you can't do that...

3) Read the novel Effie Briest, or any-other adultery related novel in the last century of duels (the 19th century). Sure, modern society blows ass, but at-least a few of neanderthal policies like dueling are no-more: atheist-burning, smoking in buildings.. etc.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
December 01, 2010, 11:47:59 AM
If you pick the right woman, you will never duel.

Not quite, the selection works the other way around: If the woman picks the right man, he will never have to duel.

Why? Because if the man is attractive enough of personality and being, she won't have to sleep around to find a potential upgrade, she wouldn't risk losing such a great catch. There's no honor or "strength of will" for a woman to stick with a man she finds repulsive. A man that a decent woman finds repulsive may as well be a man that everyone finds repulsive.

No one would want to duel such an outstanding person anyway, he would probably kick your ass.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
December 01, 2010, 01:07:35 PM

3) Read the novel Effie Briest, or any-other adultery related novel in the last century of duels (the 19th century). Sure, modern society blows ass, but at-least a few of neanderthal policies like dueling are no-more: atheist-burning, smoking in buildings.. etc.

I have most of my small knowledge of duels because of 19th century literature, and most of the duels that took place in these books were not adultery related.  Though, I believe Pushkin died in a duel because of something related to adultery.  When I read these books, neanderthal is the last-thing on my mind. I believe honor can be defined, though it has been distorted over the years, and it was something that held a society together.  I lot of things are not definable, does that mean it loses its validness?

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
December 01, 2010, 10:04:10 PM
If you pick the right woman, you will never duel.

Not quite, the selection works the other way around: If the woman picks the right man, he will never have to duel.

Why? Because if the man is attractive enough of personality and being, she won't have to sleep around to find a potential upgrade, she wouldn't risk losing such a great catch. There's no honor or "strength of will" for a woman to stick with a man she finds repulsive. A man that a decent woman finds repulsive may as well be a man that everyone finds repulsive.

No one would want to duel such an outstanding person anyway, he would probably kick your ass.

I agree with your point, and I agree with mine. Nothing else to say. The elite deserve the elite. If you are an elite couple, you won't run into a duel. I find marriage horse-shit, though, but expanding would be going off-topic.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
December 06, 2010, 12:16:42 PM
To sum up your post, thread-starter: Let's also bring back witch burning, or further: mandatory Christianity.

1) Dueling is a byproduct of property, as in men possessing women through an institution called marriage. I guarantee you dueling began from adultery, and guarantee the statistics historically are adultery-related.

Institutions are illusory. A man is attractive to most women if he possesses alpha-male characteristics, in other-words: survival traits.

Attraction is our leading instinct. Almost any woman can be attracted to another man and break off marriage. Sure, there are women of steel, those who have conquered the will through intellect through some form of Schopenhaureian philosophy, but they are exceedingly rare.

So, keep in mind that dueling originates from a conflict between biological instincts and a Christian institution.

If you pick the right woman, you will never duel.

2) What defines honor? Further, what defines correct honor? Due to subjectivity, you could break someone's 'honor' for eating their banana.

The only way to actually define correct honor would be to invent a thermometer that can measure being-in-itself, and then ask the universe what objectively is the correct existence.

But I'm guessing you can't do that...

3) Read the novel Effie Briest, or any-other adultery related novel in the last century of duels (the 19th century). Sure, modern society blows ass, but at-least a few of neanderthal policies like dueling are no-more: atheist-burning, smoking in buildings.. etc.

Dueling is Christ's fault too?

Go play baseball or something, faggot.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
December 06, 2010, 04:25:33 PM
Another bad aspect of today is not being able to kill attackers. Let's say a guy punches you for nothing (that happens) and you happen to have a knife, so you insert it repeatedly into his stomach until he dies. A camera happens to catch it all. You're arrested. That's not right!

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
December 06, 2010, 04:34:08 PM
Another bad aspect of today is not being able to kill attackers. Let's say a guy punches you for nothing (that happens) and you happen to have a knife, so you insert it repeatedly into his stomach until he dies. A camera happens to catch it all. You're arrested. That's not right!

As you should be for being a mindless idiot.

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
December 06, 2010, 05:59:50 PM
Yes, welcome the possibility of unwarranted strikes in your face, with open arms. WWJD?

Re: Bring back the traditional Duel
December 06, 2010, 08:13:02 PM
The purpose of the duel is not to replace civil, reasoned discussion. It is to encourage civil, reasoned discussion.

I'd prefer to work things out with words when possible, but what if the other party is not willing? What to do when he's being rude and refuses to stop - especially if his behavior is motivated by a bad mood, drunkenness or something else that inhibits civility?

The whole idea of the duel is that it creates a social atmosphere that discourages irrational behavior. One caveat - the concept couldn't be employed in a society where there wasn't already an understood standard of behavior. Most of ours don't have that.

The only problem with dueling is, not always will the man with better values or stronger conviction therein win, but he who possesses the best survival techniques required for dueling. Still, if civil, reasoned discussion is not an option, a man of values and conviction must wager his life versus opposing values in hopes he will survive the duel to pass preferable values along.