01-09-2023, 05:46 PM
Abridged:
"A duel is conducted properly when it is on mutually agreeable terms of the participants. A duel is conducted improperly when it is supposed that one party has 'dibs' on declaring the terms of the duel. The latter is only a delayed confrontation, while the former is a true duel. The latter assumes that an offended (or challenged) person automatically has some kind of high ground, while the former does not.
...
Delayed confrontations are not eugenically ideal for the same reason that immediate confrontations are not eugenically ideal: they randomly test for a given martial skill. A true duel tests for martial ability in general, since each party is able to decide the terms of the duel, and hence to negotiate for a type of duel that plays to his martial strengths.
...
It may often be the case, in a true duel, that the negotiating parties are unable to agree on a duel, since one party is good at X and therefore wants to compete in X, while the other party is good at Y and therefore wants to compete in Y. This leads to a mutual respect between the adversaries which may make the duel unnecessary.
...
A culture of ... 'delayed confrontation' duels is often excessively agreeable as a consequence, since men become afraid of causing such an unfair challenge to be levied against them. This stifles any kind of criticism or original thought, causing the culture to become stupid and weak. It leads men to become 'sensitive'.
...
However, it is legitimate to defer the decision to an impartial third party, if the adversaries agree. This is the most extreme way of challenging an opponent, as it signals that you are willing to fight no matter what, so long as he agrees.
...
if individuals should be allowed to pay, order, or influence others to challenge duels for them (rather than act as mutually agreed champions to duels that have already been challenged). This is advisable if the regime has a virtuous aristocracy, since it allows aristocrats to generate a limitless number of challenges, thus giving them limitless power to defeat or dishonor their enemies. It rewards those who possess wealth and social connections."
"A duel is conducted properly when it is on mutually agreeable terms of the participants. A duel is conducted improperly when it is supposed that one party has 'dibs' on declaring the terms of the duel. The latter is only a delayed confrontation, while the former is a true duel. The latter assumes that an offended (or challenged) person automatically has some kind of high ground, while the former does not.
...
Delayed confrontations are not eugenically ideal for the same reason that immediate confrontations are not eugenically ideal: they randomly test for a given martial skill. A true duel tests for martial ability in general, since each party is able to decide the terms of the duel, and hence to negotiate for a type of duel that plays to his martial strengths.
...
It may often be the case, in a true duel, that the negotiating parties are unable to agree on a duel, since one party is good at X and therefore wants to compete in X, while the other party is good at Y and therefore wants to compete in Y. This leads to a mutual respect between the adversaries which may make the duel unnecessary.
...
A culture of ... 'delayed confrontation' duels is often excessively agreeable as a consequence, since men become afraid of causing such an unfair challenge to be levied against them. This stifles any kind of criticism or original thought, causing the culture to become stupid and weak. It leads men to become 'sensitive'.
...
However, it is legitimate to defer the decision to an impartial third party, if the adversaries agree. This is the most extreme way of challenging an opponent, as it signals that you are willing to fight no matter what, so long as he agrees.
...
if individuals should be allowed to pay, order, or influence others to challenge duels for them (rather than act as mutually agreed champions to duels that have already been challenged). This is advisable if the regime has a virtuous aristocracy, since it allows aristocrats to generate a limitless number of challenges, thus giving them limitless power to defeat or dishonor their enemies. It rewards those who possess wealth and social connections."
