Culture Bring Back Dueling

D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Battlegrinder said:
But why should I say yes and maybe be able to make fun of him when he backs down but also maybe get shot, vs say no and always get to call him a thin skined psychopath and also definitely not get shot? One of those moves sounds way less risky.
Click to expand...
If your honor is offended, you want the duel. Or at least you want to force him into backing down.

Half of dueling culture is showing you have actual mettle behind your bluster-the other guy chickens out and you look stronger for it.
 
Battlegrinder

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
Lord Invictus said:
If your honor is offended, you want the duel. Or at least you want to force him into backing down.

Half of dueling culture is showing you have actual mettle behind your bluster-the other guy chickens out and you look stronger for it.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I don't feel offended by lispy Vox guy, I think lispy Vox guy is a loser who's good for the occasional laugh and I can mine a fair bit of content out of him, but at the of day he's just some loser that I view myself as being superior to, why should I take offense to what he says or care I offend him?
 
R

robertliguori

Active member
Dueling culture isn't about the two parties so much as it is about the society around them. As long as most people think that other people should be able to call people stupid dishonorable motherfuckers to their faces, you won't get the kind of social enforcement you need for this to work.

The point is that Lord Fancybottom also does not particularly care about what Squire Fauntleroy said or didn't say, but he cares deeply about what society will think, and how society will treat him if he does not act to protect his honor. And as long as you've got enough people to make a subculture to refuse duels categorically and respect other people who do the same, you won't get the knock-on effects your after.

Plus, as was pointed it, it's not like the actual dueling cultures were great places historically. I recommend Honor and Violence in the Old South for more info.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
That’s why it’s part of a broader social shift. Few people will duel simply to avenge hurt feelings(though some will), but most people will take verbal abuse without retaliation because not dying is a much stronger impulse than the feeling of catharsis achieved through violence or revenge.

There needs to be a culture of social pressure and ostracizing for cowards and shit talkers who can’t back up their mouths with more than empty words.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
FriedCFour said:
If two consenting adults can have sex why not also allow two consenting adults to fight to the death?
Click to expand...
I concur. Duels are also the culmination of individualism. People after all are free to smoke, eat junk food, or drive recklessly.

Why not let them agree to contests in which they will die?
 
Shipmaster Sane

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
Battlegrinder said:
Ok, but I don't feel offended by lispy Vox guy, I think lispy Vox guy is a loser who's good for the occasional laugh and I can mine a fair bit of content out of him, but at the of day he's just some loser that I view myself as being superior to, why should I take offense to what he says or care I offend him?
Click to expand...
The answer should be obvious, because refusing to fight someone suggests to the mob that you're afraid to fight them, thus diminishing your status, particularly if it's based on being more masculine than your opponent.

That said, the only person who would ever accept a duel would be an idiot, or someone who thought they would win, which really doesn't do a lot to rid the world of cowards and weasels, as it didn't when dueling was common.

Basically, the problem with the proposal is that whatever social ill this is supposed to push back against, I guarantee you existed when dueling was legal.
 
R

robertliguori

Active member
Yeah, we see that there lot of actual duels over shit-talking when dueling was accepted. If you're positing the ability to create enough social change to make dueling acceptable, you should instead apply that magic application to make shit-talking unacceptable, even when not backed up by threat of randomized violence.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
The point is to disincentivize shit talking. Or at least make people far more cautious to do so.

To get rid of shit talking all together, you’d need something far more unrealistic than bringing back honor culture, you need to change human nature itself.
 
Shipmaster Sane

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
Lord Invictus said:
The point is to disincentivize shit talking. Or at least make people far more cautious to do so.

To get rid of shit talking all together, you’d need something far more unrealistic than bringing back honor culture, you need to change human nature itself.
Click to expand...
Heres the problem. Because you're not forced to duel, cowards and weasels still get to say whatever they want. People thinking they're cowards and weasels is not a lose condition for them.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Shipmaster Sane said:
Heres the problem. Because you're not forced to duel, cowards and weasels still get to say whatever they want. People thinking they're cowards and weasels is not a lose condition for them.
Click to expand...
That’s why the return of dueling would necessarily involve the return of public shaming and pressure, as well as the ostracism and contempt for cowardice. Which is a lot harder to do.
 
L

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Lord Invictus said:
That’s why the return of dueling would necessarily involve the return of public shaming and pressure, as well as the ostracism and contempt for cowardice. Which is a lot harder to do.
Click to expand...
If the public shamed cowards then haven't you achieved what dueli g is supposed to already?
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
No-you can still shit talk people, but there is no "evidence" per se to show your a coward. Dueling forces men(and for the sake of modernity) women to back up their words or face shame and public contempt.

Bob calls Steve a cuck and a fool. Without the institution of dueling-Steve can either hold his nose and turn the other cheek, he can respond with jabs of his own, or he might be able to sue for slander. With dueling he can force Bob to back up his words with something far more concrete-his life and or health.
 
L

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Lord Invictus said:
No-you can still shit talk people, but there is no "evidence" per se to show your a coward. Dueling forces men(and for the sake of modernity) women to back up their words or face shame and public contempt.

Bob calls Steve a cuck and a fool. Without the institution of dueling-Steve can either hold his nose and turn the other cheek, he can respond with jabs of his own, or he might be able to sue for slander. With dueling he can force Bob to back up his words with something far more concrete-his life and or health.
Click to expand...
Then just let folks hit each other. A stiff overhand right will end 99% of mouthing. No need to involve weapons and lethality.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Lanmandragon said:
Then just let folks hit each other. A stiff overhand right will end 99% of mouthing. No need to involve weapons and lethality.
Click to expand...
Then you sue for assault. I want a specific form of legalized interpersonal violence for the resolution of disputes, not back alley brawls.

Or rather the latter is what I'm advocating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
I personally support this idea but the idea. That the combatants physical ability won't effect this is dead wrong. Especially wth a melle duel but even with pistols. Stuff like reaction time and hand eye coordination will still give "unfair" advantages. Basically I'm saying there's no real way to make it "fair".
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
What you could do is use intentionally inaccurate pistols-like old flintlocks from say thirty paces. It becomes much a less a game of skill and more a game of nerve under such circumstances. You shoot-and miss. The other guy gets his shot as well, if he misses you each get one more bullet.

Until one person either backs down or someone is on the ground.
 
Shipmaster Sane

Shipmaster Sane

You have been weighed
Lord Invictus said:
What you could do is use intentionally inaccurate pistols-like old flintlocks from say thirty paces. It becomes much a less a game of skill and more a game of nerve under such circumstances. You shoot-and miss. The other guy gets his shot as well, if he misses you each get one more bullet.

Until one person either backs down or someone is on the ground.
Click to expand...
Any man with sufficient training can hit a man sized target with a flintlock at thirty paces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top