Dueling as a defense of or proof of Honor

[cthulu2016]

Thinking about Rand Paul's desire to kill Rachel Maddow for noting his rampant plagerism... is the idea that if Rachel Maddow was a good enough shot she could slander whoever she wanted and, as a bonus, murder them too?

The proposition that a person's honor is in direct proportion to their marksmanship with a pistol is one of the more repellent things we humans have come up with.

And this gets to the broader problem of thinking that might makes right, and also the equation of emotional intensity and legitimacy.

Every time any person, anywhere, for any purpose has done the, "Do you want to step outside" thing they are saying that big, dangerous people are right.

Whenever right is asserted through violence we are saying that if there is somebody out there who is even stronger or more violent then their position is superior to ours.

There is always somebody, somewhere who can beat you up. (Except for the top guy, who probably isn't reading this because he is beating somebody up)

Thus you beating someone up is bullying. Always. You are only beating them up because you are able to beat them up. If you were not able to beat them up then you couldn't be beating them up. QED.

And beating up someone you can beat up is like beating a woman or a child or a kitten... does it really matter whether the being you can beat up is in some protected category?


They are automatically in the category, "Beings you can beat up," which includes kittens, children, most women, smaller men, bigger men who are not proficient fighters, etc..


It is seen as cool, by some, when a neighborhood beats up a child molester, but not when a neighborhood beats up a minority passer-by. But c'mon... a neighborhood can beat up anybody and the category of mob violence should never be something to get too excited about.

Though it does make the heart race to see mob violence in support of ones own values. We are human beings, and human beings like that stuff.

But really... if Max Schmeling had thrashed Joe Louis like a rented mule would that have meant Nazis were right? Would it have argued for ongoing racial discrimination in the USA?

So how can the alternative be something to take pride in?

Trial by combat/ordeal involves the notion that God choses who wins fights. And it is childish, in the extreme. Almost all fights are won by good fighters, not by the most morally admirable person.

Beating somebody up can never (in the real world) be taken as proof of anything other than an ability to beat someone up.

You know how we won WWII? Was it our superior national character? Of course not! We may well have had superior character, but playing that game suggests that Poland and France and were really lousy places... hell, they had even lower national character than nazis!

[DanM]

1. Good analysis, bro!

[bemildred]

2. Yep. nt

[CK_John]

3. I wonder if Hamilton would agree.

[cthulu2016]

4. Sadly, he lived in a culture with certain corrupt values such that

he would appear to be of low character if he declined to be murdered by an excellent marksman.

And in the context of that culture he made a decision about how other people would perceive him.

But I think it is safe to say that Hamilton himself never felt that if Burr shot him it would be God's judgment that Burr was more honorable or moral than Hamilton.

[ieoeja]

5. Given that Hamilton tried to steal my family's land, I say good on Burr!

Most American farmers before The Revolutionary War had this silly idea that they owned their farms. In truth, the colonies were owned by people (Lord Baltimore in the case of Maryland) or corporations (the Massachussetts Bay Colony Company). When the British Government decided to leave soldiers in America following the French-and-Indian War, they also decided the colonies had to pay for their jailers.

New York decided to charge the farmers rent. The farmers were very much surprised to discover they did not own the farms where their families had been living for generations. After much unpleasantness New York finally decided to charge them a property tax instead. The farmers were as okay with that as much as anybody is ever okay with a tax.

Following the war ownership by these British entities was deemed void. For the most part the states recognized the ownership rights as understood by their citizens.

Hamilton was a banker. He was also a crook. But that was redundant. So he started filing claims on other people's properties including my family's. During the post-War of 1812 Depression, our family finally sold out and moved to Kentucky. Where my Great-Great-Great-Great Grandfather got elected Assessor. And promptly stole some land.

In his defense he stole the land from people who originally stole the land from the Boone party who stole the lands from the Indians (sort of). And the next Assessor ended up stealing the land from my family. Which is when we moved to Indiana where the Federal Government perfomed the initial Assessments and this whole land stealing crap didn't go on.