in this corner.....

[Cliff Hargrave]

................

[jwinch2]

Unfortunately true. I am not advocated cruel or inhumane treatment of people but sometimes if you want to get the people living in the filth, you have to get a little dirty. Just my probably not so humble opinion.

[David Craik]

True, I guess this is one of them things that makes us the 'good guys'. Frustrating though.

[Luebbers]

Unfortunately true. I am not advocated cruel or inhumane treatment of people but sometimes if you want to get the people living in the filth, you have to get a little dirty. Just my probably not so humble opinion.

I would say FORTUNATELY that's true. Those are the differences that separate us from our enemies.

[TonyU]

I would say FORTUNATELY that's true. Those are the differences that separate us from our enemies.
And makes us targets.

[jwinch2]

I was speaking in the respect that some of the limitations that are currently imposed would have in my opinion, prevented us from winning earlier wars. Does that mean we should not strive to do the right thing and behave in a decent manner whenever possible? Of course, not. Does that mean we should allow the enemy to exploit situations where our hands are tied to their gain? Not only no but hell no...

[Brian Dugger]

Funny cartoon, sad and true.

[Ramirez]

I have to agree with David and Michael on this one. As much as we would like to behave as ruthlessly as the enemy , we can't do that and then remain true to the ideals of Western civilization, Judeo-Christian morality, ....i.e. everything that seperates us from them.

[starkjudo]

Someone said one time that civility is overrated - people are more polite when they can still bash your head in with a club for being rude. I may not entirely agree, but I do relate.

[Luebbers]

Someone said one time that civility is overrated - people are more polite when they can still bash your head in with a club for being rude. I may not entirely agree, but I do relate.

That must be why our street gang and prison population (or any other "might makes right" society) are so well behaved and polite.

[starkjudo]

That must be why our street gang and prison population (or any other "might makes right" society) are so well behaved and polite.

No, it's because they know most of society doesn't carry around guns.

[R. Johnson]

Someone said one time that civility is overrated - people are more polite when they can still bash your head in with a club for being rude. I may not entirely agree, but I do relate.

This is exactly the reason that I am an advocate for the legalization of dueling...

"Dueling should be legalized not only to free up the legal system of unnecessary court cases but to also strengthen the moral integrity of society. Let's face it, we would all be nicer and more polite to those around us if we knew that they could challenge us to a duel.

A duel is not a brawl. It is a controlled battle between gentlemen of honor. As such, a certain level of dignity was expected of all participants

In a typical duel, each party acted through a second. The seconds' duty, above all, was to try to reconcile the parties without violence. An offended party sent a challenge through his second. If the recipient apologized, the matter usually ended. If he elected to fight, the recipient chose the weapons and the time and place of the encounter. Up until combat began, apologies could be given and the duel stopped. After combat began, it could be stopped at any point after honor had been satisfied.

Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.

Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.

N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.

Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.

Rule 4. When the lie direct is the first offense, the aggressor must either beg pardon in express terms; exchange two shots previous to apology; or three shots followed up by explanation; or fire on till a severe hit be received by one party or the other.

Rule 5. As a blow is strictly prohibited under any circumstances among gentlemen, no verbal apology can be received for such an insult. The alternatives, therefore -- the offender handing a cane to the injured party, to be used on his own back, at the same time begging pardon; firing on until one or both are disabled; or exchanging three shots, and then asking pardon without proffer of the cane.

If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed; or until, after receiving a wound, and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon.

N.B. A disarm is considered the same as a disable. The disarmer may (strictly) break his adversary's sword; but if it be the challenger who is disarmed, it is considered as ungenerous to do so.

In the case the challenged be disarmed and refuses to ask pardon or atone, he must not be killed, as formerly; but the challenger may lay his own sword on the aggressor's shoulder, then break the aggressor's sword and say, "I spare your life!" The challenged can never revive the quarrel -- the challenger may.

Rule 6. If A gives B the lie, and B retorts by a blow (being the two greatest offenses), no reconciliation can take place till after two discharges each, or a severe hit; after which B may beg A's pardon humbly for the blow and then A may explain simply for the lie; because a blow is never allowable, and the offense of the lie, therefore, merges in it. (See preceding rules.)

N.B. Challenges for undivulged causes may be reconciled on the ground, after one shot. An explanation or the slightest hit should be sufficient in such cases, because no personal offense transpired.

Rule 7. But no apology can be received, in any case, after the parties have actually taken ground, without exchange of fires.

Rule 8. In the above case, no challenger is obliged to divulge his cause of challenge (if private) unless required by the challenged so to do before their meeting.

Rule 9. All imputations of cheating at play, races, etc., to be considered equivalent to a blow; but may be reconciled after one shot, on admitting their falsehood and begging pardon publicly.

Rule 10. Any insult to a lady under a gentleman's care or protection to be considered as, by one degree, a greater offense than if given to the gentleman personally, and to be regulated accordingly.

Rule 11. Offenses originating or accruing from the support of ladies' reputations, to be considered as less unjustifiable than any others of the same class, and as admitting of slighter apologies by the aggressor: this to be determined by the circumstances of the case, but always favorable to the lady.

Rule 12. In simple, unpremeditated recontres with the smallsword, or couteau de chasse, the rule is -- first draw, first sheath, unless blood is drawn; then both sheath, and proceed to investigation.

Rule 13. No dumb shooting or firing in the air is admissible in any case. The challenger ought not to have challenged without receiving offense; and the challenged ought, if he gave offense, to have made an apology before he came on the ground; therefore, children's play must be dishonorable on one side or the other, and is accordingly prohibited.

Rule 14. Seconds to be of equal rank in society with the principals they attend, inasmuch as a second may either choose or chance to become a principal, and equality is indispensible.

Rule 15. Challenges are never to be delivered at night, unless the party to be challenged intend leaving the place of offense before morning; for it is desirable to avoid all hot-headed proceedings.

Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives his honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged.

Rule 17. The challenged chooses his ground; the challenger chooses his distance; the seconds fix the time and terms of firing.

Rule 18. The seconds load in presence of each other, unless they give their mutual honors they have charged smooth and single, which should be held sufficient.

Rule 19. Firing may be regulated -- first by signal; secondly, by word of command; or thirdly, at pleasure -- as may be agreeable to the parties. In the latter case, the parties may fire at their reasonable leisure, but second presents and rests are strictly prohibited.

Rule 20. In all cases a miss-fire is equivalent to a shot, and a snap or non-**** is to be considered as a miss-fire.

Rule 21. Seconds are bound to attempt a reconciliation before the meeting takes place, or after sufficient firing or hits, as specified.

Rule 22. Any wound sufficient to agitate the nerves and necessarily make the hand shake, must end the business for that day.

Rule 23. If the cause of the meeting be of such a nature that no apology or explanation can or will be received, the challenged takes his ground, and calls on the challenger to proceed as he chooses; in such cases, firing at pleasure is the usual practice, but may be varied by agreement.

Rule 24. In slight cases, the second hands his principal but one pistol; but in gross cases, two, holding another case ready charged in reserve.

Rule 25. Where seconds disagree, and resolve to exchange shots themselves, it must be at the same time and at right angles with their principals, thus:

If with swords, side by side, with five paces interval.

N.B. All matters and doubts not herein mentioned will be explained and cleared up by application to the committee, who meet alternately at Clonmel and Galway, at the quarter sessions, for that purpose."

[David Craik]

Someone said one time that civility is overrated - people are more polite when they can still bash your head in with a club for being rude. I may not entirely agree, but I do relate.

My sig? :D


That must be why our street gang and prison population (or any other "might makes right" society) are so well behaved and polite.

The difference being, of course, that you probably don't have a lot of knock-kneed Urkel-sized new fish flipping off or yelling epithets at the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood because they don't think anything will happen. Like you see people doing from the relative safety of their cars all the time.

[starkjudo]

My sig? :D


Your sig is probably where my mind was wandering when I wrote that :). Howard and Conan had a lot of great things to say. :)

[Aikidog]

What Al Qaeda? There is no Al Qaeda. They haven't been around for years.

[Brian Dugger]

What Al Qaeda? There is no Al Qaeda. They haven't been around for years.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Luebbers]

My sig? :D



The difference being, of course, that you probably don't have a lot of knock-kneed Urkel-sized new fish flipping off or yelling epithets at the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood because they don't think anything will happen. Like you see people doing from the relative safety of their cars all the time.

But maybe they should. Just because a guy can beat my *** for disagreeing with him, doesn't make him right.

Its the same with the dueling situation. Lets say I get in an argument with some guy who's talking bad about my mama. Let's also say that I know this guy is the best dude around with a sword (or pistol, or whatever). I can demand an apology all I want, but he can basically act with impunity because he knows I don't really stand a chance if the matter escalates to violence.

To me, that is the flaw behind the whole philosophy. People aren't more polite in a society where the threat of violence is imminent. The weak are more polite to the strong.

[David Craik]

I can see your point, Michael. I still think the converse is true also - that many use the safety net of legal action, anonymity, distance, or the assumption that nothing will happen because of societal mores as carte blanche to be rude jackasses. Hence anonymous internet trolls and road rage. But, I realize these things are an unavoidable side effect of having a reasonably well-ordered society.

It wasn't my position that might makes right, though admittedly my example was poor so it probably sounded like that.

Think we might be getting a wee bit off the subject though. :)

[dao]

The main arguement in my opinion in favor or dueling is there would be a lot less people caught in cross fire. Not sure if it is a good idea or not though.


Oh, and Cliff I like the cartoon - well like is maybe not the right word, I think the cartoon is accurate - well no - how about the cartoon illustrates the situation well... :cool: :cool2: .