Misscellanio

Question about fighting for the right reason

Recommended Posts

Does it make sense to physically fight someone you don't know, who hit someone you barely know, but still for a wrong reason, when it could all be solved without violence also without possible repercussions due to fighting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it can most certainly be solved without violence, I'd resort to that, generally. If it can't be, and you know your cause is truly just, then go ahead and give 'em the 'ol one-two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AaronMk said:

No.

 

Dueling pistols should be used instead.

Hamilton-burr-duel.jpg

 

#RestoreTheHonor

18 hours ago, Lord Seraph said:

You want old fashion?

duel-swords.jpg

True traditionalists don't use pistols or swords, they use good 'ol trusty rock!

 

I swear the affair's gone downhill ever since paper was introduced.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Revanche said:

True traditionalists don't use pistols or swords, they use good 'ol trusty rock!

 

I swear the affair's gone downhill ever since paper was introduced.

 

No no no.

TRUE original way of fighting is by fist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lord Seraph said:

No no no.

TRUE original way of fighting is by fist!

Well, if we really want to do this, why not go all out and use our paws and tails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lord Seraph said:

No no no.

TRUE original way of fighting is by fist!

True traditionalist headbutt each other until the other one gets knocked out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/08/2016 at 1:12 AM, Misscellanio said:

Does it make sense to physically fight someone you don't know, who hit someone you barely know, but still for a wrong reason, when it could all be solved without violence also without possible repercussions due to fighting?

In this world there are sadly some people who do not respond to reason, or who see the use of reason as being a sign of weakness.

This may be due to a disorder such as a psychopathic condition, due to having been raised in a poor environment where violence was common, or any number of other reasons (Such as impairment due to drugs and\or alcohol).

In these cases violence may be the most efficient and effective solution. It may shock the other person into conforming to social norms in a situation where they would simply not pay heed to non-violent means.

There are also a number of cultures where physical prowess is respected. For example, due to the historical veneration of warriors or hunters. In these cases throwing a punch at somebody and knocking them to the ground would actually be the culturally acceptable solution, and would cause the other part to consider you as an equal. Or at least to accept that you have value within their culture. Which would be an effective way of dealing with a conflict.

There are a number of precedents for this in Western culture, the classic "bar brawl" situation, for example. In which the act of throwing a punch is not so much an act of violence as it is a means of issuing a social challenge. It serves stead for dialog in environments where literacy levels may be low, but where a tough physical exterior is required due to the rigorous environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SquipyCheetah said:

Fights can be won without violence but I personally think physical fights get your point across much better than words.

In an ideal world, yes.

In the real world it is often the case that you get two choices, fight or retreat, and retreat is the only way to stop a fight without violence.

That's not quite the same thing as winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SquipyCheetah said:

Fights can be won without violence but I personally think physical fights get your point across much better than words.

Do you fight alot?

Where I'm from, if you fight someone you better be ready to constantly be on the lookout for a group of people coming finding you or coming to your house to beat you up or finding you and pulling the trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Misscellanio said:

Do you fight alot?

Where I'm from, if you fight someone you better be ready to constantly be on the lookout for a group of people coming finding you or coming to your house to beat you up or finding you and pulling the trigger

That sounds more like a gang thing. Younger people with bigger egoes.

There are plenty of bars where more mature people punch each other out one day, and then share a couple of rounds the next with no hard feelings. It's pretty common among groups like bikers or truckers, or people in heavy industry where being physically tough carries social status. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, just so long as you can take a punch like a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If violence can be avoided, then I would not do it.

However, I will not idly sit and let someone be pushed around or attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That probably depends. If you can step in, divert attention, and calm the situation down verbally then you should instead of fighting. You don't typically know the full story when you first walk up either, so the more you can get them to disclose the better you know where you stand. There are people out there who will respond by threatening you, going after you, etc. though. Even when you try to solve things peacefully, you may find yourself in a position where your options are deliver a few blows of your own or make a break for it and call for help. Naturally, if they're already full-scale assaulting someone and it's life or death, you don't have room left for the niceties, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2016 at 10:12 AM, Misscellanio said:

Does it make sense to physically fight someone you don't know, who hit someone you barely know, but still for a wrong reason, when it could all be solved without violence also without possible repercussions due to fighting?

If something can be solved without violence, then do it that way. Sometimes, however, violence is necessary, or it is too risky to take the chance of non-violence not working. In the case above, you would fight to stop the violence, instead of letting it go on. Sounds paradoxical, but sometimes things have to flare up before they can stop altogether. But if the guy threw a punch and has already stopped, there is no need to fight or get revenge, just call the police and escape. Even if he gets away, that's better than getting some kind of revenge in my opinion.

If there's no need to fight, and I mean for a really important need like preserving your or another's health, then it is better, more moral, and more honourable to run away. A lot of people don't get that and risk themselves over insults. Someone who insults you is not worth your time anymore. Proving yourself to an idiot is idiotic behaviour. It takes more courage to be called a coward and preserve peace than to become enraged and fight needlessly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now