Lets Bring Back Dueling - Page 13 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14952758
Pants-of-dog wrote:How is it not dueling?

Gang members use dance as a way of dealing with the same slights that your wig wearing toffs used traditional duels to solve.

It plays the same social role in terms of protecting honour, avoiding thenspread of conflict, resolving dominance, etc.

The people involved are, like traditional duelists, not exactly foreign to lethal violence.

Is it a race thing?

Non-violent contests, including dance competitions, are fine. The argument for duelling is not an argument against non-violent competitions.

You literally have to race bait in every thread. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:So, why do you refuse to engage in the modern equivalent of dueling if you support the traditional version?

Dance is not the modern equivalent of duelling.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I never said I was against dueling.

If you want to feel insulted at something, and then get beat up about it, feel free. I even mentioned that I would enjoy watching it.

I just said it was stupid, prone to abuse, does not actually resolve the underlying issue, and is classist.

You are not against "stupid, prone to abuse, does not actually resolve the underlying issue and is classist"? Makes sense given you are describing communism! :lol:
#14952842
SolarCross wrote:Non-violent contests, including dance competitions, are fine. The argument for duelling is not an argument against non-violent competitions.

You literally have to race bait in every thread. :lol:


You keep dodging the question.

Why do you avoid the modern version of dueling if you aupoort the traditional one?

Dance is not the modern equivalent of duelling.


How so?

I just described how it is exactly like dueling and you ignored that and my question.

You are not against "stupid, prone to abuse, does not actually resolve the underlying issue and is classist"?


Like I said, if you want to get beat up, go ahead.
#14952845
Pants-of-dog wrote:You keep dodging the question.

Why do you avoid the modern version of dueling if you aupoort the traditional one?

I am not dodging the question. The question is based on a false premise that dance is modern dueling.

Pants-of-dog wrote:How so?

I just described how it is exactly like dueling and you ignored that and my question.

Dance is a social ritual for finding mates, at best you can consider it mock fighting. Dance has been around since pre-historic times in that sense dance is not modern, although there are modern styles of course.

Duelling for the purpose of this discussion is explicitly fighting, albeit of an orderly type, for the purpose of doing an enemy physicial harm because you hate them.

Non-violent contests are not modern, such things have also existed since forever. These bronx kids substituting duelling for non-violent contests they are not doing "modern duelling" they have substituted fighting (not even duelling because their fighting is not the same thing as dueling because duelling is a specific kind of fighting, fighting to a code of conduct) for non-violent contests.

You are simply babbling nonsense at this point, even more than usual.
#14952855
SolarCross wrote:I am not dodging the question. The question is based on a false premise that dance is modern dueling.


I already explained how it is the modern equivalent, and even provided evidence for this claim.

You just keep ignoring it.

Dance is a social ritual for finding mates, at best you can consider it mock fighting. Dance has been around since pre-historic times in that sense dance is not modern, although there are modern styles of course.

Duelling for the purpose of this discussion is explicitly fighting, albeit of an orderly type, for the purpose of doing an enemy physicial harm because you hate them.

Non-violent contests are not modern, such things have also existed since forever. These bronx kids substituting duelling for non-violent contests they are not doing "modern duelling" they have substituted fighting (not even duelling because their fighting is not the same thing as dueling because duelling is a specific kind of fighting, fighting to a code of conduct) for non-violent contests.

You are simply babbling nonsense at this point, even more than usual.


Then please address my points explaining how it is the modern version of dueling.

You ignore what I write and then write things that I have already addressed.

Do you just want someone to physically hurt you?
#14952861
SolarCross wrote:@Pants-of-dog

Like I said you are babbling nonsense.


How is it not dueling?

Gang members use dance as a way of dealing with the same slights that your wig wearing toffs used traditional duels to solve.

It plays the same social role in terms of protecting honour, avoiding the spread of conflict, resolving dominance, etc.

The people involved are, like traditional duelists, not exactly foreign to lethal violence.

Is it a violence thing? Do you want someone to hurt you, or kill you?
#14952866
Pants-of-dog wrote:How is it not dueling?

Gang members use dance as a way of dealing with the same slights that your wig wearing toffs used traditional duels to solve.

It plays the same social role in terms of protecting honour, avoiding the spread of conflict, resolving dominance, etc.

The people involved are, like traditional duelists, not exactly foreign to lethal violence.

Is it a violence thing? Do you want someone to hurt you, or kill you?

In the bronx it may be a fighting substitute. In other places video games might play a similar role. In ancient times contests in running or climbing trees might also function as a fighting substitute. It remains however that for some aggravations fighting substitutes are insufficient precisely because they are not violent. For those aggravations a violent solution may be merited, which can be done legally or extra-legally, by a code of conduct or wild, if it is going to happen anyway it is better to be done by an open and fair duel than through sneaky assassination or ambush. I fully accept non-violent contests are a fun way to work out differences but it is unrealistic to think they can solve all disputes particularly when you consider all the people in prison for violent acts of vengeance and if you were honest you don't even believe that yourself because you don't expect to carry out your revolution by dancing or winning a finger painting competition, you expect to do so by killing vast numbers of people, most of whom will not even have a chance to defend themselves.
#14953036
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, whar aggravates you so much that you need to be violent?

This debate isn't about me. I should also say that the key argument besides the utilitarian arguement presented by the libertarian in the OP for duelling doesn't depend on motivations for duelling at all. If people duelled for the thrill as a dangerous sport or as an alternative to suicide or for fame and fortune like a gladiator then the argument works just the same because the argument is based on respecting people's choices, it is about consent not about motives.

Given your endless preaching against homophobia you should appreaciate that homosexuality was not legalised on the basis that it was good but on the basis of respecting people's liberty to makes their own mistakes where it harms no unwilling third party. Indeed it is the same liberty principle that is grinding against the prohibition of certain drugs like cannabis. From the liberty standpoint it does not matter why someone wants to put their willy inside a consenting anus or why they want to take drugs, it doesn't even matter that those might be poor choices in a moral or health sense, what matters is that people should be free to make their own choices where it does not adversely affect an unwilling other. So it will also go for duelling.

The prevailing principle of law during what I will call the Age of Christendom was that human law should align with holy writ. Thus because holy writ denounces homosexuallity so then homosexuality is persecuted. However as Christianity gives up some influence in the face of what we might call Rationalism or Secularism then another principle of law that of free will (which is also a Christian principle), this the principle of consent becomes increasingly influential because if you are a secularist you still need some kind of moral lodestone to help sort right from wrong but you obviously can't use holy writ directly. Thus the liberty principle and the utilitarian principle gets leaned on and so homosexuality eventually becomes legal again.

You can't leverage a progressive theory of history against duelling as you tried to do by falsely asserting that dancing was modern duelling. Why? Because the broad trend in law is to be informed more by the liberty principle not less. Potentially working against the liberty principle would be the utilitarian principle. However the utilitarian principle could go either way because as we see in the OP there are utilitarian arguments in favour of duelling.

On a related note to do with the false progressive theories of history consider that in Victorian Britain trading in, possessing and consuming opium derivatives was completely legal. Then in the 20th century it was heavily persecuted. Now in the 21st century there is a growing perception that drug consumption while not a healthy thing to do should not be legally persecuted. Which way is progress then? Free > Unfree > Free again?

Mediterranean pagans of ancient times were pretty tolerant of homosexuality, then later under the influence of Christianity it became prosecuted, then later again in the 20th century it became legalised again. Free > Unfree > Free again...

If legal duelling is a thing of the past never to return then so is legal homosexuality and legal drug taking! :D
#14953065
Pants-of-dog wrote:Gang members use dance as a way of dealing with the same slights that your wig wearing toffs used traditional duels to solve.


Wtf? :lol: What kind of west side story gangs are you encountering? I think I'm on @SolarCross's side now :lol:
#14953071
SolarCross wrote:This debate isn't about me. I should also say that the key argument besides the utilitarian arguement presented by the libertarian in the OP for duelling doesn't depend on motivations for duelling at all. If people duelled for the thrill as a dangerous sport or as an alternative to suicide or for fame and fortune like a gladiator then the argument works just the same because the argument is based on respecting people's choices, it is about consent not about motives.

Given your endless preaching against homophobia you should appreaciate that homosexuality was not legalised on the basis that it was good but on the basis of respecting people's liberty to makes their own mistakes where it harms no unwilling third party. Indeed it is the same liberty principle that is grinding against the prohibition of certain drugs like cannabis. From the liberty standpoint it does not matter why someone wants to put their willy inside a consenting anus or why they want to take drugs, it doesn't even matter that those might be poor choices in a moral or health sense, what matters is that people should be free to make their own choices where it does not adversely affect an unwilling other. So it will also go for duelling.

The prevailing principle of law during what I will call the Age of Christendom was that human law should align with holy writ. Thus because holy writ denounces homosexuallity so then homosexuality is persecuted. However as Christianity gives up some influence in the face of what we might call Rationalism or Secularism then another principle of law that of free will (which is also a Christian principle), this the principle of consent becomes increasingly influential because if you are a secularist you still need some kind of moral lodestone to help sort right from wrong but you obviously can't use holy writ directly. Thus the liberty principle and the utilitarian principle gets leaned on and so homosexuality eventually becomes legal again.

You can't leverage a progressive theory of history against duelling as you tried to do by falsely asserting that dancing was modern duelling. Why? Because the broad trend in law is to be informed more by the liberty principle not less. Potentially working against the liberty principle would be the utilitarian principle. However the utilitarian principle could go either way because as we see in the OP there are utilitarian arguments in favour of duelling.

On a related note to do with the false progressive theories of history consider that in Victorian Britain trading in, possessing and consuming opium derivatives was completely legal. Then in the 20th century it was heavily persecuted. Now in the 21st century there is a growing perception that drug consumption while not a healthy thing to do should not be legally persecuted. Which way is progress then? Free > Unfree > Free again?

Mediterranean pagans of ancient times were pretty tolerant of homosexuality, then later under the influence of Christianity it became prosecuted, then later again in the 20th century it became legalised again. Free > Unfree > Free again...

If legal duelling is a thing of the past never to return then so is legal homosexuality and legal drug taking!


I already said I have no problem with people duelling if they want, so this is all a strawman.

Now, what aggaravates you or anyone else so badly that you need violence to solve it?

——————————-

Red_Army wrote:Wtf? :lol: What kind of west side story gangs are you encountering? I think I'm on @SolarCross's side now :lol:


That is how breakdancing developed in the Bronx.
#14953231
Pants-of-dog wrote:I already said I have no problem with people duelling if they want, so this is all a strawman.

Ok since you are not against the proposition in the OP and you are distancing yourself from silly progressive theories of history then we can leave it at that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, what aggaravates you or anyone else so badly that you need violence to solve it?

What is the purpose of this question? I ask because you have put "or anyone else" in it which changes it from a personal question looking for a specific grievance to a general question looking for hypothetical potential grievances that anyone might have. I don't care to answer the personal question and I don't have to for this debate because this debate is not about me but as for the general question which could be rephrased for clarity as:

What could aggravate a person to the point where they would require a violent solution?

Clearly a glance at the historical record and current events suggests there are as many different aggravations as there are stars in the sky. Why did those muslims shoot up Charlie Hebdo? Why do antifa attack people? What motivates all those mass shootings in the US? Why do commies always go on murder sprees whenever they can? What wound up Anders Brevik?

There are as many reasons for violence as there are stars in the sky, I'm not going to list them all. If you really want to know the answer make the list yourself, you don't need me to do your work for you. If you could would you duel Pinochet?
#14953253
SolarCross wrote:Ok since you are not against the proposition in the OP and you are distancing yourself from silly progressive theories of history then we can leave it at that.


Which theories of history are you talking about?

What is the purpose of this question? I ask because you have put "or anyone else" in it which changes it from a personal question looking for a specific grievance to a general question looking for hypothetical potential grievances that anyone might have. I don't care to answer the personal question and I don't have to for this debate because this debate is not about me but as for the general question which could be rephrased for clarity as:


The purpose of this question is to see what purpose dueling would serve.

What could aggravate a person to the point where they would require a violent solution?

Clearly a glance at the historical record and current events suggests there are as many different aggravations as there are stars in the sky. Why did those muslims shoot up Charlie Hebdo? Why do antifa attack people? What motivates all those mass shootings in the US? Why do commies always go on murder sprees whenever they can? What wound up Anders Brevik?

There are as many reasons for violence as there are stars in the sky, I'm not going to list them all. If you really want to know the answer make the list yourself, you don't need me to do your work for you. If you could would you duel Pinochet?


No, I would not duel with Pinochet. I would arrest him, place him on trial, find him guilty and put him in front of a firing squad.

None of these situations would be solved by a duel. They would be solved by other means.

Can you describe a situation where dueling would be the best solution?
#14953257
Pants-of-dog wrote:Which theories of history are you talking about?

The Whig progressive theory of history and the marxist derivative of it.

The Progressive Theory of History

Pants-of-dog wrote:The purpose of this question is to see what purpose dueling would serve.

It is the same purpose as any kind of violence except it has the added benefit of being comparatively fair and orderly. It is not the violence which makes a duel it is the code of conduct. You don't seem to have grasped that yet.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, I would not duel with Pinochet. I would arrest him, place him on trial, find him guilty and put him in front of a firing squad.


What if you didn't have the option of arresting him for a show trial because you didn't have any goons that could get at him or his goons were too numerous or whatever? If you would shoot him anyway you don't object to the use of violence to solve your problems. You only object to duels because they are comparatively fair and require courage. You are fine with violence as you have just admitted with your firing squad.
#14953259
SolarCross wrote:The Whig progressive theory of history and the marxist derivative of it.

The Progressive Theory of History


Oh, I see. You are ascribing positions to me that I have never actually espoused. This is not the first time you have done this and will probably not be the last time.

It is the same purpose as any kind of violence except it has the added benefit of being comparatively fair and orderly. It is not the violence which makes a duel it is the code of conduct. You don't seem to have grasped that yet.


Okay, then what would aggravate someone so that they would want to duel?

What if you didn't have the option of arresting him for a show trial because you didn't have any goons that could get at him or his goons were too numerous or whatever? If you would shoot him anyway you don't object to the use of violence to solve your problems. You only object to duels because they are comparatively fair and require courage. You are fine with violence as you have just admitted with your firing squad.


You are doing that thing where you are ascribing positions to me that I have never actually espoused instead of addressing the argument.

If you cannot come up with a situation that would be be best solved by dueling, then we can agree that dueling is not necessary.
#14953265
Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, I see. You are ascribing positions to me that I have never actually espoused. This is not the first time you have done this and will probably not be the last time.

No, I am suggesting that a belief in a progressive theory of history is implied in your assumptions. You aren't exactly an orthodox marxist if you don't believe in a progressive theory of history. It's a standard part of marxist dogma.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay, then what would aggravate someone so that they would want to duel?

I already covered that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are doing that thing where you are ascribing positions to me that I have never actually espoused instead of addressing the argument.

The fact is you don't object to duels because they involve violence. You are fine with executions and assassinations. Therefore if you could take a break from lying you would graciously admit that the only thing you could object to in duelling would be that it is to a code of conduct, that it is relatively fair and requires courage since you are completely comfortable with shooting people.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you cannot come up with a situation that would be be best solved by dueling, then we can agree that dueling is not necessary.

What about executions? :lol:
Last edited by SolarCross on 13 Oct 2018 16:43, edited 2 times in total.
#14953269
SolarCross wrote:No, I am suggesting that a belief in a progressive theory of history is implied in your assumptions. You aren't exactly an orthodox marxist if you don't believe in a progressive theory of history. It's a standard part of marxist dogma.

I already covered that.

The fact is you don't object to duels because they involve violence. You are fine with executions and assassinations.

What about executions? :lol:


If you cannot come up with a situation that would be be best solved by dueling, then we can agree that dueling is not necessary.
#14953271
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you cannot come up with a situation that would be be best solved by dueling, then we can agree that dueling is not necessary.


A situation you could solve with an execution or an assassination could also be solved with a duel. A duel is better than either executions and assassinations because they are fairer and require courage. Incidently they can greatly prevent 3rd party injuries especially compared with assassinations. Which is worse for the innocent bystander a drive-by shooting or a organised and managed duel?
#14953278
SolarCross wrote:A situation you could solve with an execution or an assassination could also be solved with a duel. A duel is better than either executions and assassinations because they are fairer and require courage.


No. If I thought I needed to kill someone in order to save lives, I would not want the target to have a chance. That would give the bad guy (i.e, the person who I want to kill) the opportunity of killing me and then going on to kill and hurt others.

In that scenario, I would want to kill the bad guy in such a way that maximises my chances of success and minimises his chances.

Fairness is not a priority when I am trying to stop a (for example) rapist/serial killer from raping and killing someone.

Incidently they can greatly prevent 3rd party injuries especially compared with assassinations. Which is worse for the innocent bystander a drive-by shooting or a organised and managed duel?


Feel free to go to gang territory and tell then that they should duel instead. You would actually satbd a better chance if you tried to get them to solve these things through breakdancing.
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15

BTW, billionaires are not interested in more money[…]

This is an extremely shallow interpretation of wh[…]

Should Consistent Leftists Be Pro-Gun?

@AFAIK , @Pants-of-dog once made the argument[…]

Orwell was definitely talking about the Commie di[…]