From: Michelle Anderson (michelle@barrymenasherealtors.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 11:06:03 MDT
In the not-too-distant past, a situation like the one being discussed in
The Law and What Might Have Been and Important Notice threads would have
demanded a duel. The loser would never get to come back and peace would
be restored. What of the loser's possible contributions? Life offers
us a lot of blind corners, and choices must be made. Every choice
contains a loss of possibility.
As a side note, see
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue
2003-07-26&id=3341
"If you are looking for some fun, and have a research grant to spend,
try this. Visit an American university, bump into random students in the
corridor and loudly call each one 'asshole'. Then measure their
reactions."
<snip>
"From the earliest days of the American Republic, honour played a vital
role in the political process. The famous duel between Aaron Burr and
Alexander Hamilton is only the most notable example. There were many
others. Even Abraham Lincoln once accepted a challenge to a duel, though
it was never actually fought."
<snip>
What do you all think of the concept of being honor-bound (as defined in
the article)? What is an alternative to a showdown? And is the
alternative as decisive and useful, or just less boorish? Is this
possibly the crux of our divide?
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 11:04:30 MDT