Wednesday, July 14, 2021

Most Duels Dishonourable

"It became fashionable to delope (fire your round in the air) to show you were serious about your honor, but didn't really want to kill anyone. However accidents and miscommunications occurred, and there were several theories of manhood that held it was dishonorable."

Duels to the death or some equivalent are necessary for an honourable society. However, most duels were dishonourable. 

Caring about words is womanish. 

When someone insults you, they don't damage your honour. They damage your ego...unless you're secure, and then all they do is show they have poor judgment of character. (See also Buddhism.) Make fun of them for thinking you care about verbal nonsense. If you challenge them to a duel all it does is demonstrate they were probably right, moron.

If it's not false, it's not much of an insult. If someone calls you a coward because you let fear rule you, what's the point of shooting them? Okay they're dead but you're still a coward, and anyone who interacts with you for more than five minutes is going to notice. 

Shit, they might have done you a favour. You can learn something about yourself. 

The point of a duel is to prevent material harm. Particularly you should duel corrupt officials, because their ongoing tyranny is worse than death. In general, if someone is bullying you and you can't stop them using the legal system, then challenge them to a you can legally stop them. 

You can't let the State arrogate away all right to execute those who deserve to die, for reasons far too many to list. Though I suppose there's one major one: the State will always defend itself and will never defend you. If you let it strip you of your right to self-defence... well, you deserve the un-American America you end up with. Rotherham rape pandemic? Should have secured the right to duel, genius. Imagine the ADL puts you on their list so you challenge the ADL chair to a duel. Gonna put a stop to frivolous persecution right quick. A man who has to cry to daddy instead of standing up for himself isn't a man, even if this is legally enforced rather than biologically. 

Remember, Revenge is Sour. If you can kill someone, needing to kill someone occurs much less often. "If I try to take advantage of this person, they're going to challenge me to a duel...huh. I guess I'll be straightforward then?" 

Duels over words are cowardly. You're scared of language? Pathetic. Even if you win all it does is encourage folk to lie to you. You need folk to lie to you more, weakling?

If some idiot takes some other idiot's insults seriously, all that's happened is that you've been given an early-warning system. Politely excuse yourself and then ostracize them the same way you would hazardous material, like poop. "Defending" yourself from insults like this is actively harmful to your interests, because you deprive yourself of this useful, quick discriminator. That, and you look needy or desperate.

1 comment:

Dirtnapninja said...

One thing to keep in mind is that historically speaking, most duels were not to the death, but rather done according to a set of pre-agreed conditions. For instance, three passes with the lance, three passes with the axe, three passes with the sword, or a duel done ot the first blood. The purpose of the duel wasnt to win per se, but to prove your willingness to back words with actions.

If the duel was conducted according to the rules, then both sides would consider honour satisfied, and the necessary apologies would be issued.

The only duels that were always to the death were judicial duels.