should be able to fight someone to settle a dispute without getting locked up? after all it is human nature (or must we remove that one as well)
2007-12-04 07:29:53 · 13 answers · asked by pikey 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
no trina you just lost your way
you've never kill'd to eat or even seen
slaughtered food?
looked for shelter?
pulled a vegatable out the ground?
and i did not mean a little dispute/road rage. i meant proper offence.
2007-12-04 08:44:30 · update #1
once upon a time, gentlemanly duels were the proper thing to do. now your only legal recourse is legal recourse! lawyers and money be your only allowable weapons!
i agree, you should be able to fight, but you should arrange it to be fair and not in public, and not leave any loose strings, and so forth.
2007-12-04 07:45:01 · answer #1 · answered by Joseph G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is it illegal if both parties consent? Next time you are in this situation why not see if the person you are at odds with is willing to accept your fist a cuffs approach and then rent out a hall and promote it as a fight? Dispute settled and you may end up making some dough in the process. Or may be someone could do all this leg work for you, I may have just thought up an ingenious new business, gotta go.
2007-12-04 15:38:41 · answer #2 · answered by Johnny O 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've never seen such concentration of good answers for a single question (that includes you 'grayure' but please stop saying " I'm a philosophical councillor").
I think if someone has done something to you that you find unforgivable, your first course of action should be to fight them by taking legal action against them. If this is not possible (or you lost) and if it will prevent you from wanting to kill them then with the consent of the other party, it's acceptable to fight them (in a controlled environment).
However a difference in opinion should never be settled using physical combat.
As for the other things you mentioned like people not having pulled a veg out of the ground, etc. I think we should all do these occasionally.
2007-12-04 19:10:40 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. T 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't. I think the answer may be to end up in a situation which turns out to be life threatening to both parties in such a way that they can only get out through co-operation. It would be wrong to engineer that though.
Alternatively, both people could be locked in a room together without any food or drink for a day or two and required to be completely silent with each other.
2007-12-04 15:45:52 · answer #4 · answered by grayure 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's human nature to want to fight someone that you are having a dispute with? I must not be human then. :)
Edit:
It might be human nature to fight for survival. That is very different from what you asked.
And, I have done some of things you say I have never done.
What, by the way, is a proper offense, in your estimation?
2007-12-04 16:10:34 · answer #5 · answered by Trina™ 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you mean physically fighting? No - human nature or not. But I guess that is why we have a Department of War instead of a Department of Peace.
It certainly isn't my human nature to settle anything by fighting or doing anything negative.
2007-12-04 15:39:30 · answer #6 · answered by Vera C 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
But aside from "I am a better fighter than you/No you aren't" what disputes are settled by fighting?
Just curious.
2007-12-04 15:37:20 · answer #7 · answered by slinkywizzard 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well what does it prove except one of you is either stronger or skilled at fighting. It doesn't resolve the dispute. It is just a sign of inarticulacy.
2007-12-04 15:39:13 · answer #8 · answered by resignedtolife 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To prove your skill is unnessasary. To win at a fight doesn't mean you were right and he was wrong. Often times it doesn't even make the other person change their mind or solve tensions.
2007-12-04 15:53:11 · answer #9 · answered by lufiabuu 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok but only in a ring with the queensbury rules, to preserve decorum.
2007-12-04 15:38:31 · answer #10 · answered by Dee L 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋