h a l f b a k e r yReformatted to fit your screen.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Those who disagree on an issue can resolve it physically and have the result recorded in scufflepedia, there to be referenced by the victor in any halfbaked idea. Of course the challenger gets choice of weapons.
Falsifiability
http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Falsifiability
A counterintuitive word for a great concept. I am glad someone pointed me to Popper. [MercuryNotMars, Mar 13 2007]
History of Duelling in the US
http://www.pbs.org/...eature/dueling.html
[imaginality, Mar 14 2007]
Duelling no longer necessary
http://www.worldrps...iew&id=12&Itemid=27
Fortunately, these days there is an equally noble, but less deadly form of conflict resolution available [imaginality, Mar 14 2007]
Code Of Honor
http://faculty.colu.../duAmericanCode.htm
Rules For The Government Of Principals And Seconds In Dueling [nuclear hobo, Mar 14 2007]
The Classic blunder
http://www.youtube....ch?v=TUee1WvtQZU&NR
Never get involved in a landwar in Asia. [MercuryNotMars, Mar 14 2007]
[link]
|
| |
Surely it would be fairer to fight in a virtual environment. I'm only little. |
|
| |
challenger gets choice of weapons... I think you kind of meant it as a joke idea but it would be pretty cool if you could make it match the fight in a physical form to the content of the idea. Obviously if they are talking about something they make some claim to know what they are talking about. I think serious challengers who want respect would give this idea legitimacy. |
|
| |
It might be useful to transform the arguement into a match with physical consequences based on the arguement. Have them take the arguement and set it into the physical format with test results verses their predictions based on their understanding of the concept. The challenger if he is a man who seeks respect for his idea he should want to make the match reflect his understanding. Given two concepts of Falsifiability and Statistical method they could work with arbitrators and agree to terms. The challenger might affirm one shape of the bell curve for the samples and the defender might affirm another shape. Statisticians should be able to draw a line inbetween them and samples should fall on either side of the line. with enough samples they can take turns drawing results and trade punches based on who was closest on each sample. If you are confident you can give your enemy two punches for every sample they get right so that they can rule out the idea that they were simply more physically fit. The first one to yield looses.
[+] |
|
| |
I always thought the person receiving the challenge got to pick the weapon. I could be wrong. In fact, it's far more likely that I am wrong than that I am right. Either way, I'll wrestle you for it. + |
|
| |
According to Wikipedia: "At the choice of
the offended party, the duel could be:...."
etc. The offended party is generally the
challenger. |
|
| |
I don't think I like your tone Bucho. You and me, at dawn, USB dongles. |
|
| |
Hey, you keep your dongle away from
Dawn. |
|
| |
[Max], that part you quote refers just to the choice of whether the duel would be to the death, or to first blood, or until someone whimpers in pain, or whatever. |
|
| |
Apparently in Europe, the challenger generally chose the weapons, but in England and Ireland, the challenged party got to do so. The linked history says that US duelling rules were originally based on the European style, but then shifted to follow the Irish 'code duello'. According to that, "Rule 16. The challenged has the right to choose his own weapon, unless the challenger gives this honor he is no swordsman; after which, however, he can decline any second species of weapon proposed by the challenged." |
|
| |
The offended party always has choice of weapons regardless of rules since he is the first to realize he is offended he could do a sneak attack. |
|
| |
It is probably out of this knowlege that the offendee allows this choice in exchange for the warning. (just a guess if the rules are based on reason). It however legitimizes the thing for them to agree. The offended can say that he didn't challenge him to a duel of knife in your back. |
|
| |
If you recall your Princess bride, the duels were as follows.
1 Enego could not attack a man who was tired. Neither could their right hand out of a sence of fairness and respect for the legitimacy of the duel
2 Giant pressed the advantage of surprise and his distance attack to dictate the terms of the duel restricted to bare hands
3 Vecinni pressed his position with a hostage to demand agreable terms in a battle of wits |
|
| |
Respect for legitimacy and agreed terms are what makes the winner's life/win honorable |
|
| |
Aha - it seems more complicated than I
first thought. This is a recurring theme in
my life to date. |
|
| |
//Surely it would be fairer to fight in a virtual environment.//
Don't be ridiculous, squeak.
//I'm only little//
Aha! I challenge you to a duel! |
|
| |