How did dueling disappear so quickly from western European culture? The Victorian era was not even that many generations back.
I think its absence says something about modern value of honor and conviction in life and general sign of our infantlization into cattle.
Other urls found in this thread:
Who exactly keeps you from dueling others. Go to a gym and spar someone if you want a duel, you faggot bitch.
the police state happened
That's sparring.
Naw, just kick their shit in outside a bar. They'll get the message
Law enforcement became a priority of many states and niggerish personal vendettas used as excuses to try and murder someone started to matter less and less.
Besides your vaunted duels got faggier. Everyone was aiming to just wound the other party instead of killing them.
Dueling is just a step above blood feuds. It's one of the most barbaric practices you can think of, and not having to deal with the bullshit of petty vendettas and their aftermaths in modern society far exceeds any notions of "honor".
So what you are saying is sleezebags shouldn't have to stand by the actions they take, gotcha.
>What is the rule of law.
mkay.
First time i see women dueling in France !
Dueling as it was practiced was civil law akin to an arbitration.
As far as I can see the only people who would be opposed to dueling are those who would rather not have detestable actions socially policed with real consequence. You could always just refuse a legitimate challenge and lose social face.
...
That is precisely it. We do not live in an honor culture anymore. Honor is no longer so important that we have to respond to an insult by a social equal with violence or by putting our life on the line.
>Dueling as it was practiced was civil law akin to an arbitration.
>Choose your own witnesses
>"""""""Arbitrary"""""""
I think the real problem is the number of sociopaths who would jump at the chance. I'm messed up myself and I'm practically drooling at the prospect.
I think the lose of honor has had a negative effect on social cohesion, and had the effect of alienating individuals. Without a shared concept of honor its harder to navigate interpersonal relationships and there is no social policing of "Fairness" making social exchange riskier.
Prevention of blood feuds keeps society staying together
You could decline, and despite the increased risk taking of people with ASPD and their limited future time orientation they still would see a cost to their behavior.
It’s loss not lose
Except you still can’t kill prisoners of war, and bring a cut throat business man will lose you many friends
Western civilization was built on blood feuds and honor. Italians built it on blood with Rome and the anglos maintained it. This lack of honor is less than 100 years old.
Instead of duelling we just kill each other by surprise over disrespect
grug smashie ur hed now im honor!
>Western civilization was built on blood feuds and honor
>Western civilization
>built on blood feuds
Do you realize how common this sort of inter-personal violence was in the past? The Arabs did it, the Slavs did it, the Japanese did it, etc.
You are literally upholding nigger-tier behavior as a mark of civilization. kys
You are literally holding up being a neonatal chattel slave to the nationstate as a mark of civilized behavior.
Come feast your eyes on actual footage of "one of the most barbaric practices."
I'm referring to duels in general, not just the European version practiced in the modern era.
But hey, know how pic related died?
Pice related should have died
>mulatto
I don't read Russian so I don't really care
>He's such a gay cunt he dosen't tell people to step outside
Harden up poofter
This
We are very unfree if compared to then, we can't even walk in the streets or build in our land
because most of the hardasses got killed in duels
like pressing goldfish crackers together repeatedly to find the "strongest" one
If you want to see “honor” culture in action, find the seediest ghetto block party you can find and cheer when two dudes start swinging fists.
Because that’s all dueling is: a bunch of tawdry trash fighting over “you stepped on my shoes nigguh!” tier petty bullshit.
Civilized men recognize the collaborative nature of organized society, and are under the impulse to cooperate with one another, rather than lash out like chimps at every perceived offense.
Even as far back as Shakespeare it was known that violence is like a disease, which you don’t cure by spreading it around, that you were shattering families just to sate the penis envy of old men
it's a dumb and barbaric way to deal with crimes and grievances. We don't need men (yes,these,would be the primary ones affected) dying left and right over petty feuds like "you slept with my wife!" Ok?just divorce the bitch and move on. It could be worse too, depending on how narcissistic/sociopathic ("that guy insulted me/looked at me the wrong way!") one party is.
And you complain that men have always lived significantly shorter than women. It's shit like this, foolish pride and gangsterism a.k.a Toxic masculinity.
Trial by battle went out of fashion, and laws that seemed semi-rational took the place of personal feuds.
The petty bullshit that was often the subject of duels came to mean less in a society with much better things to worry about.
>be a serial killer and the best fencer in town
>challenge random weaklings
>get away with murder all the time
>Did you bite your thumb at me, sir?!
sorry, pic related just reminds me of a petty duel that happened in Romeo and Juliet.
>Adultery is no big deal lmao, just devorce the bitch
So this is your brain on victorian morality
it's a big deal but not enough to kill anyone over it is my point. Can you at least pretention reading comprehension and logic is not impossible for you?
Yes, marriage is more complicated(kids involved) divorcing doesn't adress such problems but neither does killing anyone (x100). I didn't want to get into that for simplicity and since well, look at where we are?
In a society where that was possible, there was little or no policing. That means if he pissed off someone with friends, he could get jumped by several dudes when off-guard. They could just claim self-defense.
> Whatever happened to dueling
Step on a black kid's shoes outside a club in south Chicago at 2am some Saturday night, and you'll see what happened to dueling.
White people used to dress up like faggots and walk out 10 paces. Brothers just whip out their Glock 9s.
You sound like eunuchs.
You sound like a nigger
its a retarded practice
>hurr durr you looked at me time to get fucked
it would not work in the modern age with
>duels
become extremely commonplace
>Duels and blood feuds are the same (or even similar)
>Duels and spontaneous violence are the same
Y'all are fundamentally missing the point about duelling. It was a codified and socially accepted way of dealing with transgressions - between individuals, not families or other groups. People also didn't just randomly call others to duel and the didn't do it without reason. In fact, they could almost always refuse duels, without any material cost. The reason they did fight duels is because social opinion demanded it, and people of a certain standing were expected to show bravery and martial prowess, especially when their personal honor was at stake. Sure, it was not a perfect way of dealing with things, but people who flat out claim it was silly and we are so much better than them back then just do not understand at all how society worked.
it's better that those two fight to the death than more people die in some war or gang war.
>It was a codified and socially accepted way of dealing with transgressions - between individuals, not families or other groups.
The later in history you go, the less accepted it was. Yes Celtic forest apes in the Iron Age were fine with endless cycles of vengeance slayings and honor-homicide, but by the revolutionary period of America, it was seen as disgraceful and low class. Because like it or not, duels deprive families of their fathers, brothers, or sons, so yes, it does affect the whole family, because they’re the ones who have to go on living with the pain of knowing that their family member squandered his life foolishly on a duel.
>People also didn't just randomly call others to duel and the didn't do it without reason.
There’s only one valid moral reason to initiate violence, and that is because you are defending yourself from someone who is being violent to you.
>The reason they did fight duels is because social opinion demanded it,
The opinions of niggers, maybe
>Sure, it was not a perfect way of dealing with things, but people who flat out claim it was silly and we are so much better than them back then just do not understand at all how society worked.
Yes, and people found a more perfect way to resolve their differences: through dialogue and arbitration. Society is built upon the premise that men cooperate with each other, meeting for peaceful commerce and exchange of ideas. If you have a problem with this, you should leave civilization and live among savages.
>In fact, they could almost always refuse duels, without any material cost.
>The reason they did fight duels is because social opinion demanded it, and people of a certain standing were expected to show bravery and martial prowess
>"It's not like you're forced to fight a duel if you "disrespect" someone - it's just that if you don't, you become a social pariah reviled for your cowardliness and lack of honour"
You don't know what arbitration means do you?
Wasn't it only an upper-class thing?
Also the concept of duelling is far from "fair". The guy who practised more is going to be better at it and could go out and start dishonouring people just because he knows he can kill the other guys if they dare to challenge him.
But it’s best if they put aside their petty differences and both become productive citizens
ITT: People who think that more than a small minority of duels resulted in death
fag
Haha that's a good pic.
Weapons became far more accurate and lethal during the industrial revolution. By the mid 19th century, a duel with modern pistols was likely to be fatal for both parties, making it rather undesirably.
Restricting the weapons to earlier smooth bore pistols or swords could solve that problem, but once you admit that you're looking for a less lethal duel, the idea that you're still fighting at all becomes a bit absurd. If you're refusing to fight with the weapons of the day, a duel essentially becomes a dangerous LARP, and loses much of its appeal in terms of defending your honor.
Schopenhauer heavily criticised the duelling practice of his time, and I have yet to see someone find a good argument that opposes his views.
Essentially, his argument is as follows:
Through the presence of a duelling practice, insults and violence becomes a natural part of debating culture.
Since society has found a way to deal with insults, namely through an even greater insult or physical violence in the form of a duel, it is not a taboo any more, but something that seeps into debating culture, opening the door to utter barbarism as it ultimately puts the reasonable argument and the insult on the same level.
Ultimately, insulting someone does not shame the one who would sink so low to insult another but the one who is being insulted (who has been'dishonoured) and who is therefore required to answer through barbarism himself, namely an even greater insult or through violence in the form of the duel.
The consequence of this is that in an intellectual debate, someone could at any point insult the opponent in case he had no argument of reason to address his given points, forcing him to respond with insults himself or challenge him to duel or face the shame of dishonour and the societal consequences.
People of his time argued that the duel would "civilise" the discourse, as evildoers would have to face consequences for their words, but practically it only opened the door to people bullying each other; insulting those whom they expected would not fight back, ending a debate that could be harmful to their career through insults and challenging people to fight and way too many people losing their lives over silliness.
Schopenhauer advised to have people that would challenge others to fight stripped naked at the market square and be given a good public beating with bamboo rods "à la chinoise", and if the men of honour would rather kill themselves than face such undignified treatment then nothing of value would be lost.
on a tangential note watch "The Duellists" for some perspective
frogs in the water made the gays and thats why Judais,=m
>settling your differences without violence makes you an infant
You know there are still people who kill each other over honor, they're called gangsters.
ITT no one knows how religious pistol dueling was.
The entire reason why dueling with guns was legal for so long was that God was expected to pick the just man to live.
>b-but they have nice clothes and shook hands, so what they're doing isn't barbaric!
Wow, great argument, you sure showed him!
Based Schopenhauer
>I think its absence says something about modern value of honor and conviction in life and general sign of our infantlization into cattle.
>people killing each other cause triggered is honor value conviction
>so quickly
The church was trying to get rid of duels since forever, because duelling was a remnant of pagan and barbaric times. So were kings and governments who aimed to consolidate their monopoly on violence. There were many bans on duels in many countries in history even before the Victorian era.
>I think its absence says something about modern value of honor and conviction in life
More like the effort by the state to channel the power of people's convictions to do it's bidding, plus Christian and humanistic moralism.
>had one black great-grandfather
>mulatto
>a gym and spar someone if you want a duel, you faggot bitch
A fist fight is not the same as a duel involving swords. For one it involves much less skill and more brute force.
There is no way for a 70 year old man to beat a young man in a fist fight. But if you give both of them swords the old man can win with skill.
>Everyone was aiming to just wound the other party instead of killing them.
No they aimed to survive. Yes most duels did not resort in death because they did not push it to the end but it's hard to "aim to injure" when facing an armed man
>sociopaths
A meme word from a meme science.
>I'm messed up myself and I'm practically drooling at the prospect.
No you are just a manchild and you would pussy out when facing a potential death or serious injury
Soy entered the diet.
Wanna meet? Bring your own weapons.
I have mine ...
I'm white, educated, cultured, well-read. If you sleep with my wife, I will go FULL NIGGER on your ass. I will go DOUBLE NIGGER. SUPER SAIYANIGGER.
I'll go so nig on your ass, there'll be nothing left on which to nig out, because I will have ascended beyond the level of maximum overnig.