Hacker News Reader

If someone was challenged to a duel they'd be honour bound to accept, even if they knew they were entirely innocent of whatever provoked the challenge in the first place.

Someone being taken to court when innocent is inconvenient, but it can be resolved. If you're innocent but not very good with a sword that innocence isn't going to prevent potentially mortal wounds, yet refusing the challenge leaves a stain on your character.

View on HN

We have this exact problem now - only 'not very good with a sword', is substituted with 'not having a lot of money'.

Which is kind of funny, because back when being good with a sword mattered, "not very good with a sword" generally meant "not having a lot of money" as well.

Honour bound to accept? Sounds like a bogus concept to me.

How about the honor of not engaging in violence?

Imagine your startup is unwelcome at VC events because you're considered a coward after declining a duel. Or if you're an employee, you're passed up for promotions on the same basis.

You can think it bogus all you want, but that is small comfort if there are concrete socially-enforced ramifications for declining a duel.

Do you know of an actual instance of this happening?

If it is bogus, we should be trying to eliminate socially-enforced ramifications that allow VCs to promote violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com