/liberty/ - Liberty

No. Young men get in to fights all the time and mostly it's voluntary dominance dispute. You see them standing off, one guy pushes the other which is an initiation of a challenge, and gave the other male time to either accept or decline the challenge. He could have walked away, but he chose the accept the challenge. In other words, he consented with body language. Then midfight, before the other boy had time to react, the other party suddenly escalated it into a lethal confrontation, and that was the moment where he broke the NAP. Did he survive btw?

>>69326

I can get behind this. If you accept a challenge to a fistfight, you don't suddenly brand a knife.

>>69326

>>69342

Pushing violates the non-aggression principle though. It's not just a 'challenge'; it violated his rights.

>>69348

That's irrelevant in this case. From the conduct of the man in the dark shirt, it was clear that he wanted to fight for his honor. That entails a forfeiture of his right to self-defense insofar as he cannot exceed what's allowed in the kind of duel he entered, provided the other party didn't do so either. If he had been shoved and then immediately retaliated without making a show of it, I'd say he was justified in all he did except in running after the guy with a knife, as one cut is enough to retaliate against a few (badly thrown) punches.

>>69349

You're reading into it too much. He was just some dickhead that wanted to start a fight.

>>69342

he did not sign any agreement not to use knife

>>69375

how can a contract be tacit?

>>69379

You go in a restaurant. You tell the waitress to get you a steak. You eat it, then refuse to pay because none of you mentioned such a thing as a price. What's wrong here? The answer is that there was an understanding between you, explicitly communicated or not, that the restaurant only wants to serve paying customers food. This mutual understanding underlies a tacit contract.

yes

talk shit get hit :^)

>>69380

but there are prices written in menus

but ok i get it

It was unacceptable as soon as the kid started fleeing. If you don't have control of the situation and you use a weapon to gain control, that's fine. You don't know how far the other party is willing to take it. If the aggressor then disengages, turns tail, and flees, you are back on even footing. Any further pursuit, excepting maybe cases where you wish to detain the guy, is now aggression on your part.

I wanted to break a argument over violence in general. What happened in the thread OP is not excusable in my opinion unless it was know that the guy doing the aggression could kill with his bare hands, but that's probably not the case.

What normal people ignore in heated gunfights and other actual combat situations is that the participators are under adrenaline. I argue people getting into a fight get gradually less restrictions on what they can do the more intense it is. A fistfight is not much, but if a person starts a gunfight, he should know that the person being attacked is not being held back by the NAP until the fight has since long passed. If you try to flee, for all the enemy knows, you could be trying to put in range before trying to shoot again.

Again, not arguing for the video in the OP, just wanted to throw this out there.

>>69349

> it was clear that he wanted to fight for his honor. That entails a forfeiture of his right to self-defense

In prison, you could be killed for backing out of a challenge to fight. Maybe it is the same with the culture of the people in this webm?

>>69392

In that case, things are indeed different.