Duelling: Was it autism?

Not an argument

Honor isn't pride.

>Was duelling the most autistic and retarded thing in history

Fuck no. Imagine if you could settle disputes today with legally shooting a guy who you disagree with. That chad who stole your waifu?

Betas would go extinct.

Guns are the great equalizer. Fighting with a gun is not the same as fighting a chad with fists.

I don't see downsides

>The Beta wouldn't fumble and shake as Chadwick III confidently deposits a shot into his screeching head

you're pathetic

>imagine if we could circumvent all laws to solve petty disputes with lethal force

Meanwhile the Chad has too great a moral disposition to kill another man over such a petty scenario that he would hesitate where the superior Gamma male would coldly squeeze the trigger.

>Samuel Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

>"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should "in terms" renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave."

I thought people back then weren't cool with people voluntarily giving up their life because that would violate the "unalieanbleness" of their natural right of life

How could you reconcile that belief with dueling?

Honor societies are goddamn weird. "Honor" is incredibly fragile if you do not maintain it, and losing it costs you all your social standing. If someone accuses you at cheating at cards, you have to duel them. Doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, or if you can disprove them, they sullied your name, and if you do not respond with force, you are dishonorable. And even if you were cheating and everyone knows it, it doesn't make you dishonorable, unless someone calls you out. Then its a problem.

Its similar to the Asiatic version of "Face", but with more violence rather than evasiveness.

If you want a modern version of that, take a look at gangtas and the concept of "respect". It is a modified version of the concept of "honor" that the southern gentry at the time obsessed over it, as they viewed themselves as aristocrats in the same vein as European "Gentlemen". You disrespect a brother, they gotta fight you, or they're a bitch from taking shit from some nobody nigga or some white boy (and its amplified for the fact that for many of them, their name and "honor" is all they got in the world, and losing that is also losing their only form of security (since if you fuck wit' a nigga whose got a lotta respect from others, they'll all come after you, but if you fuck wit' some bitch ass fag, then that makes you balla and every other brother is gonna back you up on that)

>without drawing it out
That's not how duels worked...

Please stop this bullshit.

>Chadwick III

ladies men are usually cowards though

amazon.com/All-Gods-Children-American-Tradition/dp/0307280330

People have fought over much pettier shit than that.

First of all, most duels were not fatal. Second, agreeing to a duel is not necessarily fear, fraud or mistake. Those things COULD influence the decision to enter into a duel, certainly, but someone could also agree to a duel for any number of reasons. Maybe they feel wronged and want to revenge themselves. Maybe they're doing it to protect someone else. Maybe two people just hate each other that fucking much and everyone else is so sick of their shit that they agree to let them have it out if they'll stop annoying everyone else.

This is fairly accurate.

It should be considered though, that in a more violent past the concept of honour had its place. e.g. in a society of "honourable" men, you know that you can rely on them to stand by your side in battle. It only becomes a problem within the context of a modern society where division of labour has shifted protection to professionals and people can live their lives more efficiently, not having to practice fencing so that they can defend themselves against assailants or invading hordes. The "gangsters" you mention live in a similarly archaic society however, as they cannot rely on the police for protection, either because they themselves would be subject to investigation if they did or because the code on the street prohibits it. In that regard it makes perfect sense for them to demand a certain kind of fighting prowess of people to estimate their societal worth (judging from their own society of course rather than mainstream society).

>Working in your yard tending the plants when some guy storming your way with an angry face.
>"You! Dupont!! Remember last year when you delivered me a message that made me so mad!? Well, I still hold that grudge and I must have my satisfaction! This time we'll be dueling in rapiers!!"

>Decide to take your wife to local plaza when some guy appears out of nowhere interrupting whatever you had going.
>"Hey! Dupont!! Remember 6 years ago when you delivered that repugnant message? I had to relive that moment for a brief seconds and it made me so mad that I must demand my satisfaction! This time we'll be dueling with sabers!!"

>Visiting an opera house when some guy appears in your aisle and demands that you leave.
>"Hey you! Dupont!! Just the other night as I was going through my mail, I started to get these glimpses of the past and I was reminded of you 8 years ago! I was so mad that I just had to come here and get my satisfaction! This time we'll be dueling with rifles!!"

>One day decide to take walk your son to one of the local colleges for boys when some angry man starts coming your way with a fuming face.
>"Hey! Dupont!! I was walking my way to my house when I saw this messenger boy running around delivering letters when I was reminded of you 12 years ago! Intolerable! I demand satisfaction! This time we'll be dueling on horseback!!"

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dueling_scar

I challenge you to a duel

swords or pistols, your choice, fiend.

Nineteenth century German collegiate dueling was even worse. It basically consisted of two people facing each other and cutting each other with a sword. The more injured person won, because they were able to show that they were brave enough to be injured.

This is why dueling scars were high fashion in German for a while. They showed you were well off and educated enough to have been in a college dueling club, and that you were willing to let someone cut the shit out of your face for no reason.

>On 10 March 1791, he enlisted in the Bourbon Regiment, where his reputation as an expert fencer was confirmed. According to Vidocq, within six months, he challenged fifteen people to a duel and killed two.

Haha wtf?
Dude's 16 and he just says he killed two people over trivial shit within six months like it's normal

It exists to this day in Burschenschaften

>no Internet
>no TV
>no videogames
These lads just needed something to pass the time.

just like my chinese cartoons

Richard the Lionheart was leading men in battle at 16. People used to be hardcore, but now the state won't let them.

t. edgelord

>Dupont was able to overcome Fournier in a pistol duel, forcing him to promise never to bother him again.
Lel

nice

There's even a movie about these guys
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Duellists

Happened years ago when reddit invaded and called everything SO AUTISTIC xD

Seriously fuck off OP.

Top kek

>Duelling
>autism
wat

>"Honor" is incredibly fragile
No, its fragility is quite credible.
Lrn2credibility fgt pls

You act like this would be a bad thing

Agreed
If that isn't love, I don't know what is.

The concept of Face is literally Intercultural Communication 101.

Dueling was important for society as it weeded out the chads, important for the gene pool and population control.

What do two male animals do when there is something on the line (be it a mate, recourses, or territory)? They duel. Dueling between males is a NATURAL thing. Why did we make it illegal?

>appealing to nature fallacy
Isn't the idea that humans are apart from animals because we're self aware and have consciousness? Not even about dueling, just in general you sound fucking stupid.

>humans
>apart from animals
I really hope you're not an atheist.

Meme all you want, humans are objectively different from animals strictly because of the fact that we're self-aware.

>humans are objectively different from animals strictly because of the fact that we're self-aware.
Define self-aware.

b-b-but muh dolphins! muh monkeys!

Don't people usually call it 'autism' when you obsess over petty, borderline-invisible details?

Search Results
self-a·ware
ˌselfəˈwer/
adjective
adjective: self-aware

having conscious knowledge of one's own character and feelings.

Actually, throughout history inadequate, insecure little boys have desperately attempted to prove their manhood with their "rods." This is merely one example of the depths of inadequacy of most guys. If they can ignore pain and damage to their body, or act if they don't care if their body is damaged, this somehow shows they're intelligent. Of course, they rarely try to prove they're intelligent. Usually they're desperately trying to prove they're not retarded or that "their rod" is bigger than some other guy's rod and they can "shoot off a bigger load." Yeah, inadequate guys, definitely.

Betas tend to be good with guns, just look at school shootings

and you would prove that an animal does not possess conscious knowledge of it's own character and feelings how exactly?

There's nothing, no evidence proving that they do. Would they not eventually be able to communicate this fact, if they were of enough intelligence to do so?

>Would they not eventually be able to communicate this fact, if they were of enough intelligence to do so?
Why would they be able to?
Their conception of the world and manner of interacting with it is entirely different than ours.
There's no reason you would recognize when such a communication event occurs in the first place.

When an animal waggles it's ears at you, do you drop everything and try to figure out what it's trying to express to you, or do you just dismiss it as an animal waggling it's ears?

>Meanwhile the Chad has too great a moral disposition
most "chads" I've known tend to be very arrogant and lack empathy, most "chad" types would fucking love to be able to legally kill people over simple arguments, these are the same kind of people that used to duel over petty shit two centuries ago

actually it was pretty normal for the time

Let's be thankful Hamilton didn't die any later, that fucking scoundrel.

I’d rather have two pissed off niggas agree to a duel, then shoot up the neighborhood in a drive-by.

Even gorillas/apes have been able to communicate a minor amount of sentience to a degree, but haven't really gone past that. I don't nelieve that animals can even think or be self aware in the same manner that we do.

>Why did we make it illegal?
Because the guys who engaged in duels tended to be men of noble birth. This is important because the faces of war and society were changing by the time dueling went into decline.

Musket line warfare made personal combat skill less important, and society had changed so that most soldiers were poor conscripts rather than professional soldiers, yet the leadership and organization that an officer class could afford was still supremely important. War was no longer seen as a noble pursuit, so the nobility went on to pursue non-military careers (and were being pushed by the wayside by the new capitalist class, but I digress).

So, essentially, they had less officers and more conscripted men. Officers became very valuable. An army doesn't want such a scarce resource making itself even more scarce over honor duels.