Would there be less lies in the world if...

texas_ex2000

texas_ex2000

2,500+ Posts
gentlemen still had to defend their character on a field of honor (aka duels)?

Listening to A-Rod is hurting my head. Seriously...steroids, WMD, sex in the oval office, Enron, made up crap in the NY Times about Mack Brown and the program...would dudes do these kinds of things if they knew someone might and probably would call them out and put a bullet in their head.

Back in the day, only "gentelmen, " men from good families and education, had honor and could duel. As part of their education, they HAD to learn how to duel (fencing and pistols) because at some point he may have to use it.

Men's honor today means ****. Back in the day, with communications and technology so slow, people had to take men at their word for news and vital information. Men's reputations wasn't simply a matter of moral virtue, it was essential for daily business.

Most of the time challenges didn't materialize into duels. The parties would tip-toe around the disputed maligning words. "Oh, you miss understand...this is what I meant." etc.

Still though, there too many doucebags running around that wouldn't if their life depended on their honor.
 
There would be fewer lies if only there were fewer people. I don't see that condition in the cards, any time soon.
 
The original suggestion would take care of the over-population problem and the overabundance of lies. I think Texas would be the obvious place to put this new policy into effect. Maybe your state rep would be willing to carry the dueling legalization bill, texas ex2000.
 
i have to say, i disagree with all of you. honor still means a great deal to a great many people. lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating, etc. to get ahead are as old as mankind. "gentlemen" of the past were no different than the "gentlemen" of today if you are measuring them by class, i.e. education, social status (money).
lightning fast mass communication/sensational mdia is the difference in my opinion.
 
There is not much these days to deter behavior or morality. It can not be legislated but can be taught if there is a fear of what will happen if you don't behave appropriately. But what is there to fear these days? ARod will still cash his $500 million plus in earnings regardless. Even murder and rape is not punished very harshly on the majority of those found guilty.
 
So who would step up and duel A-Rod over this if we still had dueling? Steinbrenner? Hicks? Would either of them care to die over this? A-Rod would have to be favored in a duel. He's younger and juiced.

Who would duel Clinton over the Lewinsky deal? Hillary? Not hardly. In dueling times, she would hardly be allowed out of the kitchen. I guess that leaves Lewinsky's dad.

Is Mack ready to die if he goes against that reporter?

Both sides have to be willing to die for it because who wins is an uncertainty. There's really nothing gentlemanly about it. Its a brutish practice. I'm not willing to die simply because some ******* bumps me on the sidewalk. When I was 20, I might have fought him, but now I might not even say anything. Often, there's more honor in simply walking away.

I think a Singapore style police state would achieve those goals more easily. Steroids? Jail or death.
 
humans are political animals vying for resources for survival and security. I suppose other animals are the same, but humans do it through communication much better than any other creature.

I have no idea what beating someone in a jousting competition has to do with proving who was "right". Gandhi would have lost everytime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top