"a fair fight"

>>31871571
>fair fights
>read this just as the song says "fair fights don't exist"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zPF_aroodw

I guess this is now the thread theme

>>31871571
>Is a fair fight a Whites only concept?
Pretty much.

>Will we ever have a fair fight again?
After the Day of the Rope.

File: 1472515145674.jpg (148KB, 512x960px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 512x960px

>>31871625
The single motherhood epidemic probably had something to do with it too. Fair fights is the embodiment of a lot of European masculine virtues than can only be learned from a strong father.

>>31871571
Is a fair fight a Whites only concept?
Who invented the concept of two armies standing in line face to face before attacking eachother ?
White people.
The arabs don't fight this way. The chinese didn't fight this way. The africans surely didn't, neither the native south american.
There, you have your answer.

Which is why these fucking dindus and enablers bitching about unfair or undiscriminated use of violence against uncivilized populations should stfu. If the roles were inverted, there wouldn't be a single white people on earth today.

Their only strength is our kindness. And god knows we've been way too kind.

>>31871571
>fair fight
It's bullshit. If I have a chance to stamp the other guy out without getting injured, I'd sure as hell take it. The only reason to have a "fair" fight is to prove a point (which is kinda retarded anyway).

Anyway, go back to /pol/ and ask them.

File: han solo.jpg (109KB, 1920x820px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1920x820px

The only """fair""" fight is the one you lose.

>>31871571

The concept of a "fair fight" exists only in controlled, highly regulated confrontations like duels or sports. These events have established sets of rules because the process of winning is more important than the result. In warfare or real fistfights, you do whatever you can to win, because only the result matters.

Even though the Hague and (the first three) Geneva Conventions had already been established before the onset of WWI and WWII, both of those conflicts saw gross violations on both sides. When someone is trying to kill you, kicking them in the nuts and gouging their eyes out doesn't seem so evil anymore.

What your dad described to you is essentially the modern equivalent of a duel. Unfortunately, modern sensibilities that condemn violence in all forms have made such displays illegal and socially unacceptable--which pushes violence into extra-legal territory where rules no longer protect the participants.

>>31871571
Fair Fights exist only in sporting and honor based senses. In war it's only a thing by accident.

>Who invented the concept of two armies standing in line face to face before attacking each other ?
That has nothing to do with fairness and solely to do with maximizing offensive(black powder era) and defensive (shield wall) ability. And it was done by just about every military throughout history.

>>31871917
Don't be silly, anon, every fight I win was fair and every fight I lose was stacked against me.

>>31871885
White people didn't invent that kind of fighting out of a sense of honor, they did it because that was the only way, pre-radio, you could command that many people.

>>31871571

It's kind of legally frowned on. Fighting nowadays is kind of all or nothing. Are they presenting an immediate threat to someone's life? If yes, only reasonable response is immediate deadly force. No? Then you got no business fighting them.

>>31872048

>every fight I win was fair and every fight I lose was stacked against me

This tbqhwyf.

/thread

File: 1477708333001m.jpg (79KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x672px

Bump

File: 316834.jpg (28KB, 494x342px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 494x342px

>>31871625
>After the Day of the Rope

>>31871571
I haven't fought since I was a kid, but they were always fair fights. Except once, a dudes little brother tried to join in. But I still won and there was a large group of people watching, so it just made me look bad ass.

Sounds like you're talking about hoodlums, random assault, or crime. There's a difference between that and dueling.

I know in some State/cities they actually have laws that allow men to fight each other as long are both willing participants. I saw a video and cops are just standing there in the background watching as two guys fight because it's legal.

File: hz9Ibvw.png (399KB, 632x567px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 632x567px

Bumping for discussion about Honor and Truth

>>31872377

I kind of have to agree with this. Niggers have this mentality of dueling, but they don't even do it fairly so what's the fucking point?

>>31872316
Wow... makes you wonder how Ghenghis Kahn and Arabs used to control their armies

>>31878378
Ghengis Khan didn't control the Mongols so much as he pointed them in a vague direction and left them to it.

>>31871916
The only reason to have a "fair" fight is to prove a point (which is kinda retarded anyway).

This. We don't fight to prove points. If we had to fight to prove a point, our points would probably suck. We fight only if left no other choice - it's not meant to be fair.

>>31878378
Makes me wonder how those two empires are doin-oh wait.

>>31871571

No such thing as a fair fight in real life.

Wtf you expect? Everyone should just cater to everyone else's weaknesses so it's "fair"?

Take advantage of whatever opportunity you have to win, or else dont be a whiny bitch when your mouth writes checks your ass can't cash.

>>31873331
This.
And QFE

>Sounds like you're talking about hoodlums, random assault, or crime. There's a difference between that and dueling.

>>31871571
Japanese invented honour and held on too it long after the west abandoned it

>>31878378
Mongol and Arab infantry fought in ranks. Just like infantry everywhere else that wasn't set to permanent bush war.

Cavalry work differently, especially cavalry archers due to their mobility and comparative lack of numbers.