SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Slagle who wrote (65296)6/21/2005 5:48:38 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (2) of 74559
 
<The gist of the argument was that in places where the threat of the duel had been removed that men were much more querelous and inconsiderate of one another. The very existence of the institution of dueling kept gentlemanly standards and manners high. The argument has some merit. >

In Japan, there is a very high level of good manners and politeness in general. I don't think they enforce that with threats of duels, or other violence. It's more likely that they have a social expectation and those falling outside the expectation are less-accepted or not accepted.

Civilized people dislike dealing with barbarians. So the barbarians end up on their own.

It's odd that you and Shades see a solution in shooting and violence: <They don't fear a bullet, a slap in the face or even being spit on like in the old days. If you can't beat them you might as well join them.> That's so quaintly American. Violence is as American as apple pie.

"Speak politely or I'll shoot you, punch you, slap your or spit in your face!!" That seems an odd way to bring up children, or to interact with other adults. Joining them because they continue seems equally odd. Each to their own.

The argument for duels has some merit, but not a lot.

Mqurice
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext