[SolarCross]

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.

That is a decent argument for a change. However you realise of course that from some perspectives you are the bad guy? Thus you are arguing that others should sneak attack you rather than give you the chance to change your ways or at least defend yourself in a stand up fight. What goes around, comes around, as they say.

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.

Actually I do think gang violence could be relatively tamed through the introduction of duelling. Not everyone is going to go in for dancing though, some people fight better than they dance, for them fighting will be preferred.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is a decent argument for a change. However you realise of course that from some perspectives you are the bad guy? Thus you are arguing that others should sneak attack you rather than give you the chance to change your ways or at least defend yourself in a stand up fight. What goes around, comes around, as they say.

I am not really worried about that.

Anyway, the point is that in all the situations where violence is the answer, it also makes sense to make it as “unfair” as possible, in order to guarantee the safety of everyone else.

Actually I do think gang violence could be relatively tamed through the introduction of duelling. Not everyone is going to go in for dancing though, some people fight better than they dance, for them fighting will be preferred.

This situation would be better served by dancing than through dueling.

You still have not come up with a situation that would require violence, and would be best served by dueling.

[SolarCross]

I am not really worried about that.

Anyway, the point is that in all the situations where violence is the answer, it also makes sense to make it as “unfair” as possible, in order to guarantee the safety of everyone else.

Actually the reason to make it unfair is to guarantee the safety of the assassin. It comes down to a difference in values: I value honour, courage and truthfulness thus I relatively value duels over assassinations whereas you are the opposite. There is not much point in arguing any further on this we are both set in our ways.

This situation would be better served by dancing than through dueling.

You still have not come up with a situation that would require violence, and would be best served by dueling.

I don't need to because you are not a pacifist. If you are into executions and assassinations then I hardly need to justify the relatively civilised violence of a duel.

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually the reason to make it unfair is to guarantee the safety of the assassin. It comes down to a difference in values: I value honour, courage and truthfulness thus I relatively value duels over assassinations whereas you are the opposite. There is not much point in arguing any further on this we are both set in our ways.

So if a hardened killer was stalking your loved ones to rape them and kill them, and you had the opportunity to shoot them in the back of the head while they were unaware, you would instead challenge them to a duel, despite the fact that they would have the advantage and would then kill and rape your loved ones after?

I don't need to because you are not a pacifist. If you are into executions and assassinations then I hardly need to justify the relatively civilised violence of a duel.

Your excuses for not coming up with an argument are irrelevant.

If you cannot describe a situation where dueling would be an effective solution, then dueling is, at best, unnecessary.

[SolarCross]

So if a hardened killer was stalking your loved ones to rape them and kill them, and you had the opportunity to shoot them in the back of the head while they were unaware, you would instead challenge them to a duel, despite the fact that they would have the advantage and would then kill and rape your loved ones after?

It depends on the situation obviously. Naturally I would do an assassination if the duelling wasn't a practical option in that situation. I would prefer a duel though if the circumstances permitted.

Your excuses for not coming up with an argument are irrelevant.

If you cannot describe a situation where dueling would be an effective solution, then dueling is, at best, unnecessary.

Non sequitur. I have already said that duelling works for any situation that assassination or execution could solve. If you want a concrete example then consider the muslims that assassinated the staff of Charlie Hebdo. If the offended muslims had challenged to a duel the offending cartoonists instead of assassinating them in a sneak attack wouldn't have been better?

[Pants-of-dog]

In depends on the situation obviously. Naturally I would do an assassination if the duelling wasn't a practical option in that situation. I would prefer a duel though if the circumstances permitted.

Non sequitur. I have already said that duelling works for any situation that assassination or execution could solve. If you want a concrete example then consider the muslims that assassinated the staff of Charlie Hebdo. If the offended muslims had challenged to a duel the offending cartoonists instead of assassinating them in a sneak attack wouldn't have been better?

That situation would have been best resolved by no violence at all. Try again.

[SolarCross]

That situation would have been best resolved by no violence at all. Try again.

In a perfect pacifist utopia yes of course but that isn't this world. In a perfect pacifist utopia presumably commies wouldn't leave mass graves full of innocent civilians everywhere they go. That isn't this world.

[Pants-of-dog]

In perfect pacifist utopia yes of course but that isn't this world. In a perfect pacifist utopia presumably commies wouldn't leave mass graves full of innocent civilians everywhere they go. That isn't this world.

If you cannot describe a situation where dueling would be an effective solution, then dueling is, at best, unnecessary.

[Godstud]

The very reason that dueling became illegal in pretty much every place in the world, was because of the rule of law, and the evolution of the court systems, where people could settle disputes without needless violence. It was also because of the advent of accurate firearms, where a duel could often end in both parties being dead, with no actual resolution.

Note: I am not a pacifist, but violence is rarely an answer where reason and logic would serve better than emotion and pride.

[SolarCross]

If you cannot describe a situation where dueling would be an effective solution, then dueling is, at best, unnecessary.

First off you have to explain how you could solve the dispute between Charlie Hebdo and some angry muslims without using any violence at all.

You said:

That situation would have been best resolved by no violence at all. Try again.

Are you going to intercept the assassins with dancing lessons?

[Godstud]

Are you going to intercept the assassins with dancing lessons?

It works.

[Pants-of-dog]

First off you have to explain how you could solve the dispute between Charlie Hebdo and some angry muslims without using any violence at all.

You said:

Are you going to intercept the assassins with dancing lessons?

I can imagine a scneario where law enforcement finds about their plans and arrests the attackers before they ever get to the offices of CH. That seems like it would have been the best solution.

No violence necessary.

Care to try again?

[SolarCross]

I can imagine a scneario where law enforcement finds about their plans and arrests the attackers before they ever get to the offices of CH. That seems like it would have been the best solution.

No violence necessary.

Care to try again?

Do you really think an arrest of serious people with no fear of death armed with automatic weapons has the even remotest chance of being not-violent? Realistically you are just swapping out an assassination for an armed skirmish between two gangs of warriors. Hilarious. Also this doesn't even solve the issue, there are plenty of other angry muslims to fill the places of those who fall in a police action and the cartoonists will continue with the cartoons safe in the knowledge that security services will die in battle for them. Any muslims that survive will have to be kept in custody at tax payer's expense for decades.

There are no bad guys here, it's a clash of civilisations, both sides think they are right, by both side's value systems both sides see their own selves as the righteous ones, the good guys, and the other as the bad guys. It is a great showpiece for moral relativists.

So if duelling were legal in France, the muslims would have a legal means to bring their grievance to Charlie Hebdo for answer. If Charlie Hebdo offered resistance rather than rapprochement then presumably being physical weaklings they will choose for champions to represent them (perhaps this would still be the French security services). However the benefits are that Charlie Hebdo get fair warning of what is intended and thus the opportunity to non-violently make amends and the muslims get the opportunity to settle for their honour without sneak attacks or prison terms. Third party innocent bystanders are put at less risk and tax payers have to pay for fewer prison cells.

Compared with the out-of-control gun skirmish that you call non-violent a duel is actually the more peaceful option.

[Hong Wu]

Went fencing yesterday, I really need more stabbing people in my life.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you really think an arrest of serious people with no fear of death armed with automatic weapons has the even remotest chance of being not-violent? Realistically you are just swapping out an assassination for an armed skirmish between two gangs of warriors. Hilarious. Also this doesn't even solve the issue, there are plenty of other angry muslims to fill the places of those who fall in a police action and the cartoonists will continue with the cartoons safe in the knowledge that security services will die in battle for them. Any muslims that survive will have to be kept in custody at tax payer's expense for decades.

There are no bad guys here, it's a clash of civilisations, both sides think they are right, by both side's value systems both sides see their own selves as the righteous ones, the good guys, and the other as the bad guys. It is a great showpiece for moral relativists.

So if duelling were legal in France, the muslims would have a legal means to bring their grievance to Charlie Hebdo for answer. If Charlie Hebdo offered resistance rather than rapprochement then presumably being physical weaklings they will choose for champions to represent them (perhaps this would still be the French security services). However the benefits are that Charlie Hebdo get fair warning of what is intended and thus the opportunity to non-violently make amends and the muslims get the opportunity to settle for their honour without sneak attacks or prison terms. Third party innocent bystanders are put at less risk and tax payers have to pay for fewer prison cells.

Compared with an the out-of-control gun skirmish that you call non-violent a duel is actually the more peaceful option.

If you think the terrorists who attacked CH would be all “sure I will duel with you instead of attacking unarmed citizens in a sneak attack”, then you are being even more unrealistic than me.

My point, however, still stands: a non-violent arrest of the perpetrators before any bloodshed occurs would be the best solution.

[SolarCross]

If you think the terrorists who attacked CH would be all “sure I will duel with you instead of attacking unarmed citizens in a sneak attack”, then you are being even more unrealistic than me.

That depends on their value system, whether they value honour or not and whether they value courage. I don't know that muslims are particularly noted for a lack of honour or courage, possibly just the opposite.

My point, however, still stands: a non-violent arrest of the perpetrators before any bloodshed occurs would be the best solution.

No your point is unrealistic. Moreover for whom is it a best solution? Not the muslims clearly. Not 3rd party bystanders because an arrest can't be guaranteed to go off flawlessly or even happen at all. Not taxpayers because they must pay for prisons or widow money for the wounded and killed security personal. Not even for the security personnel is it a good solution because they face greater risks in an arrest than they would in a duel which potentially they could opt out of and because catching unknown assailants aiming to attack unknown targets is like finding a needle in a haystack. Even for Charlie Hebdo it is not a good solution because they have to rely entirely on security services and dumb luck to avoid the fate that did befall them. In contrast a duel offers them the chance to save themselves through some concession or apology before any fighting happens at all. That is a choice they might like to make, a choice you would deny them. It is a "best solution" for no one but yourself, very selfish.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, a non-violent solution is best for everyone in this case. No one gets hurt or killed.

If the only disadvantage to my solution is paying taxes to support men in jail for the rest of their lives, then this is still a a better solution than a duel.

Dueling, of course, also burdens the taxpaers with extra costs.

[Hong Wu]

There's nothing quite like stabbing a person with a great big smile on your face

[SolarCross]

No, a non-violent solution is best for everyone in this case. No one gets hurt or killed.

If the only disadvantage to my solution is paying taxes to support men in jail for the rest of their lives, then this is still a a better solution than a duel.

Dueling, of course, also burdens the taxpaers with extra costs.

Clearly the muslims here don't value their lives above their honour so a non-violent solution is not best for them. You don't have a non-violent solution anyway.

What extra costs?

[Pants-of-dog]

Clearly the muslims here don't value their lives above their honour so a non-violent solution is not best for them.

Yes, your beliefs are very similar to the Muslim terrorists who attacked CH, but that is not the point.

You don't have a non-violent solution anyway.

What extra costs?

Yes, I do have a non-violent solution. It is called an arrest.

@Oxymandias mentioned these costs in a previous post in this thread. Did you read it?