Making it legal to fight to the death...hmm I'm sure there would lots of cases where people got caught up in the crossfire.
Poll: Should dueling be legal?
- Thread starter gabe12301
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think duels would be a fine way to settle disputes knowing the facts that we are all capable of violence. It's better than a shootout where innocent, non-involved people can be killed.
I don't see any reason to ban Duel Monsters, no.
Seriously though, I don't think it's right for people to kill each other over petty disputes (it's a case where "honor" is a synonym for "stupid"). Non-lethal contests (like Duel Monsters), however, are perfectly fine.
Seriously though, I don't think it's right for people to kill each other over petty disputes (it's a case where "honor" is a synonym for "stupid"). Non-lethal contests (like Duel Monsters), however, are perfectly fine.
It seems to me that even considering making duels legal is ass backwards. Everyone who voted "yes" has some problems.
Oh, and people saying stuff like "it would weed out stupid people" and "it would help overpopulation".
Jesus fucking christ, hope you never get any political power.
Oh, and people saying stuff like "it would weed out stupid people" and "it would help overpopulation".
Jesus fucking christ, hope you never get any political power.
Indeed. "Codes of Honor" of the past were just social pressure systems to try and make up for the fact that there were generally no police departments until the 19th Century...around the time when we stopped having dueling as a matter of fact.Odegauger said:
Dueling is not conducive to law, order, and civilized society. The ideologies that undergirded a society that supported dueling also supported systems wherein vast numbers of people didn't even have basic rights.
This is a bunch of weird romantic nostalgia for a time that really sucked for most people. A brutal, nasty, dirty, time.
I'd give it a yes. If gang violence can be solved without innocents getting hurt and can be solved without the cops having to get injured and having all our ambulances, cops, etc. able to use their time otherwise, I don't see it causing as many problems as it fixes. Why not?
Hell yes. I mean, there would probably be a sizeable amount of paperwork in order for it to work in the modern day, but it would make the world so much more badass.
Also, people would be far more laid back, since being an uptight douche could easily result in a fight to the death.
Also, people would be far more laid back, since being an uptight douche could easily result in a fight to the death.
Quoted for truth. This chart is actually what came to mind when I first read the title of the thread.Drakmeire said:
A modification of the classic Duel is still used in Germany. It's called the "Mensur" and it's a traditional form of academic fencing which is used by some student corporations. It's a successor of the honor duel but with the increasing regulations of duels it's more of ritual these days.
A modern version of a duel wouldn't work, because the duel (early modern era) was always an elitist form of pride of rank. This means as well that only those were able to demand satisfaction, who were allowed to wear weapons in public and those who claimed to have a higher sense of honor (officers, university students, nobles and later reserve officers and academic graduates as well).
The sense of honor wasn't restricted to personal honor, often it was all about defending the honor of your rank. And the outcome of the duel wasn't that important, because just the participation was proof enough to show that you were a man of high honor.
Even though the main concept behind a duel is interesting it wouldn't work in our modern and liberal (western) world that abolished the estate-based society.
A modern version of a duel wouldn't work, because the duel (early modern era) was always an elitist form of pride of rank. This means as well that only those were able to demand satisfaction, who were allowed to wear weapons in public and those who claimed to have a higher sense of honor (officers, university students, nobles and later reserve officers and academic graduates as well).
The sense of honor wasn't restricted to personal honor, often it was all about defending the honor of your rank. And the outcome of the duel wasn't that important, because just the participation was proof enough to show that you were a man of high honor.
Even though the main concept behind a duel is interesting it wouldn't work in our modern and liberal (western) world that abolished the estate-based society.
No. We shouldn't teach people that a person who hurts their honor deserves to die. The people like that nowadays are psychos. My father once told me about a court case he was serving jury duty for, where a teenage girl was stabbed and slashed to death by another girl. When the time came to decide, there was a hung jury because of this one woman who voted "innocent;" not because of lack of evidence or logic, but because she thought that the murderer had a right to uphold her honor.
Also, what if you were a nonviolent person? If you were to refuse a duel, then you would be the weakling; the wimp; the chicken; you'd be ridiculed by society, forever an outcast. You'd be pressured into a primitive game of kill or die.
Also, what if you were a nonviolent person? If you were to refuse a duel, then you would be the weakling; the wimp; the chicken; you'd be ridiculed by society, forever an outcast. You'd be pressured into a primitive game of kill or die.
I think it is amazing at a moment when the problem of bullying is so prominent, that people are honestly advocating dueling...which is basically legalized bullying with death...and usually not of the juicehead gorillas who are going to be calling for these duels, but of the sort of geeky people we are on this site.
How do you tell the different between someone who was killed in a duel and someone who was just shot in cold blood? The survivor will tell you it was a duel in both cases.
Is duelling then next logical step for a country once they've gotten bored with being allowed to carry guns all the time? Or are you trying to bring more order to situations in which your people try to use a gun to win an unrelated argument?
Is duelling then next logical step for a country once they've gotten bored with being allowed to carry guns all the time? Or are you trying to bring more order to situations in which your people try to use a gun to win an unrelated argument?
I don?t even want to know what flood gates it would open. I mean for a start who handles the aftermath. I mean at worst you have two dead bodies/injured people, and then you have to find out if it was consensual on both side which is all kind of legal shenanigans. Even just before and setting the duel; contracts, finding a safe area to use so if you are using guns or any other weapon you don?t accidentally cause damage to anything or anyone else, getting a witness, getting people that could handle the mess afterwards. I mean, even just setting up a duel would probably turn out to be a long, laboured, expensive process. Also can you just have a duel or would some outside party have to decide if the conflict is worth going through the whole thing?
I mean it?s not just going to be simple it can?t be, two people can?t just decide to have a duel, tell nobody else and wander off into a forest and if anyone gets injured or dies it?s just left there. And if you?re talking about a proper duel there?s also the first to consider as well, the duellists right hand man and all that. That?s at least four people to get sorted out for this whole mess.
I mean it?s not just going to be simple it can?t be, two people can?t just decide to have a duel, tell nobody else and wander off into a forest and if anyone gets injured or dies it?s just left there. And if you?re talking about a proper duel there?s also the first to consider as well, the duellists right hand man and all that. That?s at least four people to get sorted out for this whole mess.
