• ITGuyLevi@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    It could just be me, but I see no shame at all in declining a duel. Or are we going to go back to when the challenged get to choose the weapon and location? Naked, with whips, to the death would likely make most people trained with a firearm question it. I’m not sure how popular whips are, but I wouldnt consider myself completely inept with them and could probably tag their twig and berries pretty early on in the fight.

    • MrKiosc@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      45 minutes ago

      Refusing to participate in a ritual that is commonly practiced will always make society recoil. As the system gets normalized and the idea of dueling loses its absurdity, refusing to participate in them after commiting to an idea would inevitably send the message that you don’t truly believe in your words, at least not enough to “bet everything on it”. And not having enough resources/experience to stand your ground would literally cost you your life.

      Besides, we already have dueling in the court of law.

      -I believe your organization has wronged me, I demand retribution

      -I disagree and to double down by inviting you to sue me

      Now do you put your capital and livelyhood at risk to stand your ground or back off?

      • You can not represent yourself (You don’t have experience)
      • Your opponent has a whole legal team and doesn’t have to sacrifice production to fight you (You lack the resources to fight back)
    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      There’s for to be some weapon that’s impossible to aim, takes no skill, and kills instantly. Something to make it a 50/50 chance with no lingering injury for the winner.