3 ms·

> at least any congressperson would have to be able to challenge any other, right? Duelling was a matter for gentlemen; men of honour. If you have no honour to

> at least any congressperson would have to be able to challenge any other, right? Duelling was a matter for gentlemen; men of honour. If you have no honour to defend, duelling is inappropriate. A "gentleman" in England, at least, was a man with land, but no aristocratic title. Aristocrats often duelled, so I guess it's "gentlemen, and men of higher rank" that were thought honourable enough to duel with. Most politicians deserve only to be horsewhipped.

calvinmorrison 4y ago
NO GODS NO MASTERS and certainly no silly british titles
mcv 4y ago
I find it odd that violence, and not words or wit, was seen as the proper way for gentlemen and aristocrats to settle disputes. It's seen as barbaric now, and I think it's better this way.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  It’s because they were barbaric, they just happen to have been rich in a time far back enough that we’ve forgotten some of the details.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  The book calls out that "lesser men" could be horsewhipped if they committed an offense that would be considered an insult if spoken by a gentleman (implying that lesser men are not capable of actually insulting a gentleman). This not-so-subtly hints at the levels of abuse that average people suffered at the hands of privileged classes.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    It went further than just implying it; they said (paraphrasing, I haven't re-read it) that a gentleman should never take offence at an insult from a pleb. I think there's something in that; if an insult causes you offence, you are implicitly granting that your abuser's opinion deserves consideration. A true gentleman would rise above it - a man of rank need not concern himself with the views of plebs. Plebs always insult gentlemen; if you horsewhipped them every time, you'd need a new horsewhip every week.
    - bee_rider 4y ago
      Conveniently this also means that gentlemen don’t have to fight anyone who labors for a living.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        Well, yeah. In most of historical warfare, noblemen fought noblemen, yeomen fought yeomen, and peasants fought peasants. When English yeoman archers fired on advancing French cavalry (noblemen) at Agincourt, it was considered awfully bad form. Swords were expensive things, you needed money to own one. And there were many laws restricting who was allowed to carry a sword and who wasn't.
- eadmund 4y ago
  Is it all that different today? Today, one hires a lawyer to file a suit in civil court against someone; the other part hires his own legal counsel and they argue before a judge; ultimately the court renders judgement and then the winner enforces that judgement with the threat of violence (by police or bailiffs). It’s all ultimately about violence. There’s something admirable about being honest about that violence rather than coy.
  - mcv 4y ago
    Everything you're saying is completely different from a duel. Generally, a conflict is resolved with words and arguments. Only when that doesn't work, it's taken before a judge, where it's still resolved with words and arguments, but with a neutral and binding arbiter deciding who's right. After that, the conflict is resolved. No violence necessary. Only when one party violates that already legally binding resolution, come a lot more steps before violence may come in, but at no point do the people involved in the conflict themselves have to resort to violence. There's nothing admirable about having to resort to violence. It's a sign of failure.

calvinmorrison 4y ago

NO GODS NO MASTERS and certainly no silly british titles

mcv 4y ago

I find it odd that violence, and not words or wit, was seen as the proper way for gentlemen and aristocrats to settle disputes. It's seen as barbaric now, and I think it's better this way.

bee_rider 4y ago
It’s because they were barbaric, they just happen to have been rich in a time far back enough that we’ve forgotten some of the details.
mywittyname 4y ago
The book calls out that "lesser men" could be horsewhipped if they committed an offense that would be considered an insult if spoken by a gentleman (implying that lesser men are not capable of actually insulting a gentleman). This not-so-subtly hints at the levels of abuse that average people suffered at the hands of privileged classes.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  It went further than just implying it; they said (paraphrasing, I haven't re-read it) that a gentleman should never take offence at an insult from a pleb. I think there's something in that; if an insult causes you offence, you are implicitly granting that your abuser's opinion deserves consideration. A true gentleman would rise above it - a man of rank need not concern himself with the views of plebs. Plebs always insult gentlemen; if you horsewhipped them every time, you'd need a new horsewhip every week.
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    Conveniently this also means that gentlemen don’t have to fight anyone who labors for a living.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      Well, yeah. In most of historical warfare, noblemen fought noblemen, yeomen fought yeomen, and peasants fought peasants. When English yeoman archers fired on advancing French cavalry (noblemen) at Agincourt, it was considered awfully bad form. Swords were expensive things, you needed money to own one. And there were many laws restricting who was allowed to carry a sword and who wasn't.
eadmund 4y ago
Is it all that different today? Today, one hires a lawyer to file a suit in civil court against someone; the other part hires his own legal counsel and they argue before a judge; ultimately the court renders judgement and then the winner enforces that judgement with the threat of violence (by police or bailiffs). It’s all ultimately about violence. There’s something admirable about being honest about that violence rather than coy.
- mcv 4y ago
  Everything you're saying is completely different from a duel. Generally, a conflict is resolved with words and arguments. Only when that doesn't work, it's taken before a judge, where it's still resolved with words and arguments, but with a neutral and binding arbiter deciding who's right. After that, the conflict is resolved. No violence necessary. Only when one party violates that already legally binding resolution, come a lot more steps before violence may come in, but at no point do the people involved in the conflict themselves have to resort to violence. There's nothing admirable about having to resort to violence. It's a sign of failure.