In favor of dueling ... or ... the death of civility

[plural]

I have
been often thinking
of the
putrid state
of social interactions
among members of
our society

and
I propose
the following
solution

I think we should
create a process
by which we can
use mortal combat

[a duel if you will]

to resolve differences.

Perhaps you will
argue that this is
a step back for
civilization
but hear me out.

I am proposing
the use of
bladed weapons
through a ritualistic
process by which
one can address grievances
on a limited basis by severity.

[perhaps]
[using hand to hand]
[for less severe grievances]

why?

I feel the strongest
force behind the
lack of social etiquette
is
simple laziness

laziness stems from
a lack of motivating
consequences.

In our society
we have set the
value for civility
so low as to
remove all consequences
for acts of incivility.

[with the]
[exception of]
[so called civility]
[laws which primarily]
[persecute the less]
[fortunate]

if we look to
history
when such resolutions
we both permitted and
frequent

how much more carefully
were words chosen
and
insults when
hurled with much
more dramatic calculation.

personally
I think
the decrease in
civility has also lead
to a decrease in the
quality and substance
of incivility.

perhaps I am
just an aesthete
but I mourn the
loss of the
charming intellectual
insult
having been replaced
with the crude jerky finger
and banal epithets.

I know
I would be much more
careful to properly
acknowledge and
show each person
basic respect and
accord to each
human dignity
if I knew my actions
could end up
with physical consequences

As a child
I had a concept
in my head
a rule if you will

I would only
allow those into
my inner circle
those whom
had received at
the hands of fate
physical retribution
for their unwise actions

for all others I felt
were simply untrustworthy

I found that a child
who had not gotten

[excuse the vernacular]

their ass whipped
for being a
snot nose punk

[because]
[we all have]
[at one time or another]
[been a snot nosed punk]

tended to have
dramatically less respect
for persons and property
than those who had

I know for myself
the day I took my first
real beating
was the day
I understood the
meaning of consequences

truly understood

going without dinner
is not a consequence of
much weight
sure it may suck
but
does it really deter you?

no

spending twenty minutes
stuffing toilet paper up
my still bleeding nose
and holding ice to my
swollen face

for the first time
in my life
I truly regretted
spouting my mouth off
and
resolved to be
more careful with
my words.

now
I want to pause to
clarify something

I do not support
bullying nor do I
think random or vindictive
beatings are productive.

[at least not in the scope]
[of this discussion]
[as all things are]
[inherently productive]
[the question is more]
[what do they produce?]

in this
particular case
I had asked for...
was deserving of...
and desperately needed...
the beating I took

as such
it was a
valuable learning
lesson for me.

of course
I was a
particularly dense
child and had to
learn that particular
lesson several times
but
it does not
lessen the impact
of the first teaching

any way
I have digressed

I think we need
to institute
some form of
extremely personal
consequences for
actions which
are thoughtless
lazy and rude.

how many times
have you wished you
could punch some jerk
in the face

regardless if it would
resolve the issue or
not
just simply because
it would feel good.

how would you
act if you knew
that someone else
could simply do that?

would you be more careful if your words could directly cause you pain?

my theory is
that you would
but
you
tell me.

Comments

[kingnixon.livejournal.com]

this smacks of our previous conversation on morals - if people are being civil merely to avoid getting punched in the face, that's not civility, it's fear. and while it may be nice to have people less rude, i don't like propriety based on fear of retribution as the system of daily manners. the thing about back when duels were in place in society (as i understand it, at least), people weren't honorable because they feared the duels, they dueled because they valued their honor. also, i might add, france - and other countries soon after - banned duels to the death because too many importantish people were dying. this is where the idea of "first blood" comes from, in combat.

ah your tiger style is strong

[plural.livejournal.com]

as I have grown
to expect and enjoy
you make several excellent points

While I acknowledge your point
perhaps mortal combat
would be extreme and would
serve only to instill fear.

I feel strongly that
a person should be aware of
and afraid of
the negative consequences of
their actions

I will address
a comment you made which
I wholeheartedly agree with

people weren't honorable because they feared the duels, they dueled because they valued their honor

my question to you is,

why did they value their honor?

was it because they were of stronger moral fiber?

I doubt it

I agree that duels
did not inspire honor in
the venomous, but it did
require a certain appearance
of honor among even the most
wicked.

what their society
did was force people
to think about honor
and provide consequences
for those who committed
the most egregious violations
of honorable conduct.

I think that perhaps
duels to first blood
would definitely inspire
people to think about
the impact of their actions

In Washington state,
where I live, there is
a law on the books which
provides a legal defense
for the crime of simple battery
of "fighting words"

simple battery is a simple
and specifically single act
of violence upon another person.

basically the fathers of
this particular state
understood that some things
justify a punch in the face
but not a broken neck

personally I think
that some grievances are
in need of more severe
remedies

I have a strong belief
in law and order
and the remedies contained
however I also believe
that some things are beyond
the capacity of our legal system
to provide justice for.

If someone sexually assaulted my child
I would see them dead by my own hand
and no other would satisfy me

Some grievances are too severe
as to allow for anything but
direct personal equalization.

I do have a problem
with even my own stance
here, as there rises the
substantial issue of guilt.

I know I am not truly
capable of maintaining a
presumption of innocence
in such a situation.

so how do I rectify that discrepancy?

as of yet I haven't answered that
question myself, if I do
I will let you know.

I know that many of
my anti-social behaviors
come from an early understanding
that in our society consequences
do not exist.

As a young child
I was arrested
but not convicted for
malicious mischief

Myself and a friend
took it upon ourselves
perhaps in the interest
of learning to partially
disassemble a number of
parked vehicles in a
parking garage.
and reassemble them in
differing visual configurations

We were detained by security
and our duffel bag of
tools confiscated

[we never got them back]
[despite the charges getting dropped]

We were guilty as sin
but our parents had
enough resources that
a restitution agreement
could be made without
an admittance of guilt

[it helped]
[that my accomplice]
[was the son of a prominent]
[local judge]

From this point forward
I have learned repeatedly
that as long as I
dance the correct tune
and hire an expensive lawyer
I can pretty much do
whatever I wish
without regard for the law.

while it is ingrained in
my personality, and has been
greatly beneficial in preventing
me from spending enduring periods
of time in correctional facilities
I do not
consider it a positive attribute.

I mourn my own lack
of conscience
but can not bring
myself to take seriously
the supposed consequences.

I have been forced
to create and follow
my own awkwardly haphazard
code of conduct

I have a list
stashed in the back
of my mind

lines I choose
not to cross

however tempting
I have managed to remain
mostly faithful to my
own tenets

but it sure would
be easier to
have a healthy
fear of law
to tone down my
more creative moments

another rusty rambling nickel