I've come to the conclusion dueling should be legal. I found this quote: "By ritualizing violence in a punctilious grammar of honor, as it were, duels were supposed to prevent potential chaos. That scourge of public and familial order, the blood feud, could be avoided under the problematic idea that a man's sullied reputation would thereby be restored."
In other words, a little bit of violence prevents a lot. The war is Iraq, for example, is a blood feud. The neocons, who are cowards and chickenhawks, are mostly Jews involved in a blood feud with the Muslim world. Why should that be my problem?
I'd call out every neocon alive: William Kristol, John Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Doug Feith. All would run away, being cowards, and lose the miniscule honor they have.
Wild Bill Hickok, who only fought one duel, used to post a sign in a town, telling certain people to get out of town, or be killed. They all left.
We need such signs today.
4 comments:
I can behind this. It would greatly neuter the Leftists and I can walk around with a sword.
Duels require honor, since you must answer for the challenge. This is why we no longer have them: leftist hate being held to any type of standards of behavior whatsoever.
Trial by combat was rightly abandoned as a method of settling disputes, because personal prowess would decide the outcome, not truth of the matter.
"...because personal prowess would decide the outcome, not truth of the matter."
True. Being legally right or morally just does not always equate with better skill and physical prowess.
What if the person who is right is also not up to par with their sword or gun shooting skills, and the other guy who is wrong just happens to spend every weekend at the shooting range and is much more well-practiced in hand gun operation? What could possibly go wrong?
Does might make right?
Post a Comment