3 ms·

Dueling implies that someone who is _better at one thing_ (hurting others) is inherently Right. It also means that someone who is sufficiently good at such thi

by gknoy 8y ago

Dueling implies that someone who is _better at one thing_ (hurting others) is inherently Right. It also means that someone who is sufficiently good at such things can act as a bully. Dueling introduces personal risk for libelous claims, but it _also_ introduces the same risk for those who are making true claims. People already fear the people that hurt them; giving them a legally supported way of hurting them even more (as a legal "defense") would make people even less likely to report others' bad behavior. Would you challenge someone to a duel, knowing that you're likely to die, even though that person wronged you? Few would take that risk.

jstewartmobile 8y ago
> Dueling implies that someone who is _better at one thing_ (hurting others) is inherently Right I don't think it does. Revisit the story of Jeffrey Hudson, and how winning a duel changed his life. What it does imply is some personal risk in making unsubstantiated claims against people. Try looking at the glass as half-full. Under the present system, true claims are suppressed well enough by the pay-to-play nature of mass media. Re-introducing some aspect of personal risk--one that couldn't be mitigated by mere cash--would, hopefully, let the air out of entire industries of manufactured controversy, which fuel everything from needless wars to societal decay. As for the challenge, there are worse things than death.
- watwut 8y ago
  From all I know about past press, it was full of manufactured controversies. It also fuelled wars. The notion of journalistic objectivity was not even popular.
  - jstewartmobile 8y ago
    Never sold it as a panacea. School us on the booming gossip and accusations industry in colonial America.
gowld 8y ago
#1 The challenge, demand satisfaction. If they apologize, no need for further action #3 Have your seconds meet face to face, negotiate a peace or negotiate a time and place. This is commonplace, ‘specially ‘tween recruits. Most disputes die and no one shoots. #8 Your last chance to negotiate. Send in your seconds, see if they can set the record straight.

by gknoy 8y ago

jstewartmobile 8y ago

> Dueling implies that someone who is _better at one thing_ (hurting others) is inherently Right I don't think it does. Revisit the story of Jeffrey Hudson, and how winning a duel changed his life. What it does imply is some personal risk in making unsubstantiated claims against people. Try looking at the glass as half-full. Under the present system, true claims are suppressed well enough by the pay-to-play nature of mass media. Re-introducing some aspect of personal risk--one that couldn't be mitigated by mere cash--would, hopefully, let the air out of entire industries of manufactured controversy, which fuel everything from needless wars to societal decay. As for the challenge, there are worse things than death.

watwut 8y ago
From all I know about past press, it was full of manufactured controversies. It also fuelled wars. The notion of journalistic objectivity was not even popular.
- jstewartmobile 8y ago
  Never sold it as a panacea. School us on the booming gossip and accusations industry in colonial America.

gowld 8y ago

#1 The challenge, demand satisfaction. If they apologize, no need for further action #3 Have your seconds meet face to face, negotiate a peace or negotiate a time and place. This is commonplace, ‘specially ‘tween recruits. Most disputes die and no one shoots. #8 Your last chance to negotiate. Send in your seconds, see if they can set the record straight.