Ignore their prattling as you perform your duties. If they attempt to get in your way, remove them, as quickly and efficiently as possible, and continue to perform your duties.
This would appear to be you using such a challenge as a ‘rationalization’, a ‘loophole’. I do not think you intend it to be such, but you should understand that your statements can often seem to be the very thing you are arguing against.
No. There is a difference between according someone the honor of the challenge, and behaving in a dishonorable manner yourself. Those who conducted the purges hid their own identities. They claimed evidence, but did not present it to the authorities who are empowered by society to mete out justice. Vigilantism is not honorable. It is a usurpation of authority you have not been granted, and a declaration that your whim is more important than society’s laws. It is a mockery of honor.
They might laugh for a moment, but the final laugh will be after me, because I will have actual evidences of their dishonor, which I will be able to pull from my sleeve whenever I will want to and against any further their argument.
Speaking about issue of being challenged on duty - I wasn’t a security officer, I am a soldier, but even as a soldier you can have a similar situation: you’re a fleet and someone challenges you to 1v1. Should you leave the fleet and abandon your duty to fight them? Of course no! You must do your duty, but tell them to accept the duel at a different time. The same situation goes for a security officer: if a guy whom they want to detain for murder challenges them, they could simply reply, that they do accept the duel, but first it’s their duty to apprehend him and deliver him to authority. After that… it’s possible.
My duty is to uphold the principles I hold myself to. Betraying those convictions in the name of performing them would be counterproductive.
It’s not a rationalization because in this case it is about the legitimacy of the challenge, not the person’s honor. The status of the person issuing the challenge is not why you do not accept it. It is that the challenge, in this case, might not be a legitimate challenge. And by issuing an illegitimate challenge, thus they have acted dishonorably. You are not compelled to accept it not because it is a dishonorable person making it, but because the challenge itself illegitimate. If a person was issuing a legitimate challenge, then regardless of the status of that person you are obliged to honor it.
For example, if, in the performance of their duties, the police acted with unlawful insult or injury to the criminal? Then that criminal would have a right to issue a challenge (well, possibly. There might be other class requirements and so on, duels are a formal affair with lots of rules). But, upon the conclusion of that duel, they would still be honor-bound to turn themselves over to the other police officers. The challenge is to right a wrong to your honor, not to escape justice.
And if the arrest itself is the insult? If the criminal was innocent and wrongly detained? Well, the crux about police officers doing their duty is that they are arms of a higher authority. They are oathbound to carry out a duty assigned to them, and as long as they do their job dutifully then they have acted honorably. Thus, unless they have personally committed a wrong in the carrying out of their duties, then fault for their actions is not theirs. The fault, in this case, would be on the state that ordered the arrest (if it was done without cause or evidence), or the person who has accused the suspect of a crime (who has insulted the suspect and fooled the state). You don’t duel every police officer until you get away. You duel the state, or the accuser, in a trial by combat, fight their designated champion, and if you win that, then you get away. One duel, not eight.
That saves me from going in details of how they’re wrong. I really don’t plan on proving myself innocent and proving something I didn’t say or didn’t do just because any random idiot runs their mouth about me. With having actual and factual evidences against them I’ll simply attack them back without staining my own honor with slanders as they do with their.
So for you, the challenge and claims of honor are simply an excuse to bicker on these forums like an old gossip, arguing over whose sisters’ cousin’s aunt’s neighbor stole whose husband first? I do not believe that to be the case, and I would be greatly disappointed to learn it is so.
‘Seemed’ is a very important word. Other duties may well have precluded expression of this sentiment. For example: protecting those under one’s care, who would be the target of reprisals by a large, clearly organized group of political terrorists.
No, it’s chance for me to show him I actually have honor and chance for him to prove he has his own.
That excuse is only in case he is dishonorable, and that’s for him to decide with his choice. And I am not into bickering. I just show people their place if they prove themselves to be dishonorable.
I don’t respect people who can’t take responsibility for their words, barking at others from behind NeoCom screen, and I tend to remind them they’re useless loudmouths and filth. However, I do respect deeply people who can stand and fight for their words, even if I disagree with them.
As I’ve indicated, this reasoning seems self-serving and self-indulgent, to me. Why should you care if he thinks you are honorable? Do you need his approval?
Not his. I have probably wasn’t clear enough, but I’d like to cite Ms. Kernher reply for this:
“One’s dedication to honor and principle demands to be upheld at all times, not merely with those who also follow it.”
If your honor is attacked, if you have it, you have to defend it.
I’m sorry, Commander, but that’s patently not true. A soldier’s duty is to follow their orders in service to their nation. If ‘responding to every attack’ were required, then it would be a soldier’s duty to be taken in by every feint, every diversion. A small probing strike would always bring a response, and then that response could either be defeated in detail by the larger ambushing force, or it would be large enough that other avenues would be left undefended, and vulnerable to attack while the response force is looking for their enemy.
A soldier’s duty is to follow the chain of command. Officers have additional duties over and above this, but officers are also trained specifically so that they can determine which attacks they should have their soldiers respond to, and which ones they should re-fortify against and simply endure.
Commander, whatever your personal disagreements with either Elsebeth or Rhiannon in general might be, I’ll thank you to please stop offering baseless insults and slander against my people. If you cannot do this, I will await you in Pator at a time of your choosing.
First, Ms. Kim has regard for those who back their beliefs with steel, in person or ship to ship. She’ll actually respond to you more favorably if you fight her.
Second, she is legitimately pretty deadly, so, you know, good luck?
I am aware of both of these things, but thank you. I have already told her that I will back up my words with my body if need be. I’m even a little curious as to whether or not she’ll accord me the choice of our weapons. I do have a preference, after all.
Far be it from me to try to help Diana… but she should, under no circumstances, allow that. It’s basically like letting a fish dictate whether or not an underwater challenge can use breathing apparatus.
FOR SALE: Diana Kim’s Eyes - 60 Million ISK or best offer
(sale is by quitclaim deed; vendor makes no representations as to whether this property might be accompanied and/or in use by rival claimant, purchaser’s physical safety upon attempting to recover this property from said claimant, or the legal validity of a claim of ownership arising herefrom)
.
.
.
(I know you probably meant “avert” but couldn’t resist.)
