4 ms·
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 ar
by 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 agoEverything 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.