- 13 Oct 2018 17:06
#14953282
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.
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.
The solution to 1984 is 1973!
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.
The solution to 1984 is 1973!