Poll: Should dueling be legal?
- Thread starter gabe12301
- Start date
Recommended Videos
*This Queue is taking ages. You Sir, I challenge you to a duel for that place in the queue! ONGUARD!*
But if it worked, why would that be a bad thing?AnubisAuman said:
And I'd support it. The duelers must both consent, and some paperwork would have to be done, but it could happen. Also, if another person was accidentally killed by the duel, that would mean the killer would be executed, regardless or not if he was the winner of the duel.
Also, have a separate 'dueling area,' some type of arena. Attach one to every courthouse. Would solve the problems of consent and collateral damage.CommanderKirov said:
Furthermore, you should both stand before the judge like any other small claims court case, and at their discretion, they could send the two of you to the arena. Would maybe help out with all of those idiotic Sue-ings we keep hearing about? Like the lady who sues starbucks over coffee that is too hot. The only problem with that, is that starbucks the entity itself wouldn't be able to stand inside of a dueling pit, so would probably have to use some sort of designated Gladiator. This person would obviously be specialized in pit-fighting and would be trained to win duels for his company... Not exactly a fair fight, and kind of defeats the purpose of the duel, from an honor point of view.
But on the other hand, boom! Job creation. We've just created an entirely new industry. With all of the people involved pre and post-duel, along with the combatants themselves, many new jobs will be available. Also with the turnover rate of the combatants, there will be a need for a constantly recycling source of new combatants.
Finally, it's not like we'd need to go all Thunderdome on people's asses, but... I feel the pros would definitely outweigh the cons.
Drunk guy: Hey there pretty girl
Me: hey, thats my girlfriend stop flirting with her
Drunk guy: fuck off *****
Me: dude, we've been dating for 5 years... go away. Shes with me
Drunk guy: I'll do what i fucking want to!
Me: ???? You can't just do anything you want.
Drunk guy: hell yes i can. *pushes*
Me: WTF!? get lost
Drunk guy: I challenge you to a duel
Me: .... (Thinking to self) FUCK... *looks at girlfriend* FUCK.... ok, meet me outside.
NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. I do not feel like getting into a fight to the death with every drunken jackass who hits on my girlfriend. I've come to blows or nearly come to blows often enough with people. I really don't want it to be for my life the next time it happens. NO. It was a bad idea before and it's a bad idea now.
This:
Me: hey, thats my girlfriend stop flirting with her
Drunk guy: fuck off *****
Me: dude, we've been dating for 5 years... go away. Shes with me
Drunk guy: I'll do what i fucking want to!
Me: ???? You can't just do anything you want.
Drunk guy: hell yes i can. *pushes*
Me: WTF!? get lost
Drunk guy: I challenge you to a duel
Me: .... (Thinking to self) FUCK... *looks at girlfriend* FUCK.... ok, meet me outside.
NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. I do not feel like getting into a fight to the death with every drunken jackass who hits on my girlfriend. I've come to blows or nearly come to blows often enough with people. I really don't want it to be for my life the next time it happens. NO. It was a bad idea before and it's a bad idea now.
This:
SirBryghtside said:
Sure as hell would save a lot of legal nonsense. Provided it's strictly regulated and all; a bureau, arenas, the likes. And if two people really want each other dead and are willing to engage in a duel, who are we to judge and stop them? Hell it doesn't even have to be death persee.SirBryghtside said:
But as honour is a low priority in today's society, I doubt it'd work out well.
*snicker snort* Oh yes, funny you. Just because it doesn't involve death doesn't mean it's less barbaric. Just watch the musical Chicago for a parody on the whole spiel. Really, we're the same ol' people as ever, we just go about it a lot more sneaky and cover it up with a thin veneer of deceny while it's probably even more rotten than ever.TheTurtleMan said:
In Romania you can kill someone if you give them 24 hours notice and you don't shoot them in the back.gabe12301 said:
(or at least that was the case a few years back, the laws might have changed)
but a duel is a far more honorable way to settle disputes than "the justice system" [sub]pronounced in a high pitched lisping voice[/sub]
I live in America by the way, where even the people caught red handed get a "fair" trial and the only way to get the death penalty is to cheat on your taxes or have been seen with in 10 miles of Pot at one point in your life.
So yeah the ability to settle any criminal case with 10 steps and one shot would be a welcome amendment to the constitution.
I think there are too many people in the world, and too much anonymity. A duel, and the honor it supposedly satisfies, are based on your reputation, your standing within the community and the world you live in. But unless a celebrity dueled, nobody would know who the combatants were and nobody would care, rendering the whole idea of a duel pointless.
In order for duels or other contests of honor to work, you need a small community where everyone knows and cares about each other, so the duel, accepting or declining it, and winning and losing it would actually mean something to the people you live with and rely upon. This happens in smaller, isolated communities (like towns, villages, and tight knit cities), or in places with exclusive social classes (in most cultures duels are something that only nobles do, because there are relatively few of them and they're easier to keep track of than the thousands of faceless peasants).
That being said, I think trial by ordeal is a concept that we could use a dose of in this modern age. Duels are part of a larger category of trials by ordeal, and basically with all such trials the idea is that, in order to make a legal claim, you must risk pain, injury, and/or death to prove that you are sincere in your claim and that it's important to you. I saw a documentary about this village in Africa where, in cases when it was one person's word against another's and there were no other witnesses or evidence to draw upon, both the people involved in the claim would have to reach into a bowl full of boiling hot oil and retrieve a metal ring. Since both people had to do it, it prevented frivolous claims--imagine if every time you went to court to fight a well-deserved traffic ticket you had to stick your hand in boiling oil! It also tested the resolve of the people--if you're innocent, your indignation and determination to defend yourself will likely be much higher than someone just trying to get a few bucks out of it. Or at least that's the idea.
The problem with these, and with duels in particular, is that people can gain an unfair advantage by becoming good at facing the ordeal. In order to be effective a duel should take place using weapons that both parties are equally skilled (or unskilled) with. In many dueling traditions the choice of weapon usually went to the one who was challenged, meaning that a skilled swordsman couldn't just go around challenging everyone to a swordfight--anyone he challenged would pick something other than swords. During the classic dueling time periods it was assumed that everyone was comfortably familiar with swords or pistols, so these worked as a good equal playing field in most cases. But there was also an element of bravado to it--someone looking to earn additional cred might choose the weapon their challenger was strongest with in order to "defeat them at their best!" But the basic idea is that you're supposed to risk your life in order to demonstrate your honor and resolve that you are in the right. It's basically a big game of chicken.
Also, even in very duel-happy cultures, a duel was always the last resort after more traditional legal options had been exhausted. You don't just jump immediately to a duel to the death over trivial issues. It was usually either an unresolvable case of one person's word against another's, without any other witnesses or evidence, or it was a matter of honor and reputation, where the law really can't impose fines or awards (the court can't order your community to respect you, after all). And even with duels there are different grades of seriousness--most people think duel to the death when they hear the word duel, but there were duels to first blood (the person who got cut first lost), and in a lot of pistol duels the requirement was that each party had to take a shot at the other--even if they both missed, they both risked their lives to prove their honor, and therefore their reputations were established and nobody would doubt their bravery.
In order for duels or other contests of honor to work, you need a small community where everyone knows and cares about each other, so the duel, accepting or declining it, and winning and losing it would actually mean something to the people you live with and rely upon. This happens in smaller, isolated communities (like towns, villages, and tight knit cities), or in places with exclusive social classes (in most cultures duels are something that only nobles do, because there are relatively few of them and they're easier to keep track of than the thousands of faceless peasants).
That being said, I think trial by ordeal is a concept that we could use a dose of in this modern age. Duels are part of a larger category of trials by ordeal, and basically with all such trials the idea is that, in order to make a legal claim, you must risk pain, injury, and/or death to prove that you are sincere in your claim and that it's important to you. I saw a documentary about this village in Africa where, in cases when it was one person's word against another's and there were no other witnesses or evidence to draw upon, both the people involved in the claim would have to reach into a bowl full of boiling hot oil and retrieve a metal ring. Since both people had to do it, it prevented frivolous claims--imagine if every time you went to court to fight a well-deserved traffic ticket you had to stick your hand in boiling oil! It also tested the resolve of the people--if you're innocent, your indignation and determination to defend yourself will likely be much higher than someone just trying to get a few bucks out of it. Or at least that's the idea.
The problem with these, and with duels in particular, is that people can gain an unfair advantage by becoming good at facing the ordeal. In order to be effective a duel should take place using weapons that both parties are equally skilled (or unskilled) with. In many dueling traditions the choice of weapon usually went to the one who was challenged, meaning that a skilled swordsman couldn't just go around challenging everyone to a swordfight--anyone he challenged would pick something other than swords. During the classic dueling time periods it was assumed that everyone was comfortably familiar with swords or pistols, so these worked as a good equal playing field in most cases. But there was also an element of bravado to it--someone looking to earn additional cred might choose the weapon their challenger was strongest with in order to "defeat them at their best!" But the basic idea is that you're supposed to risk your life in order to demonstrate your honor and resolve that you are in the right. It's basically a big game of chicken.
Also, even in very duel-happy cultures, a duel was always the last resort after more traditional legal options had been exhausted. You don't just jump immediately to a duel to the death over trivial issues. It was usually either an unresolvable case of one person's word against another's, without any other witnesses or evidence, or it was a matter of honor and reputation, where the law really can't impose fines or awards (the court can't order your community to respect you, after all). And even with duels there are different grades of seriousness--most people think duel to the death when they hear the word duel, but there were duels to first blood (the person who got cut first lost), and in a lot of pistol duels the requirement was that each party had to take a shot at the other--even if they both missed, they both risked their lives to prove their honor, and therefore their reputations were established and nobody would doubt their bravery.
This is just a bad idea in every way possible. Murder is murder, whether through it's through 'traditional' homicide or dueling.
I'd also like to add that the original post specifically states that 'dueling' is referring to sword or pistol dueling, which always end in death.
I'd also like to add that the original post specifically states that 'dueling' is referring to sword or pistol dueling, which always end in death.
I think you're all underestimating modern society's total absence of backbone. It is considered an insufferable outrage if too many pickles end up on your giant-mega-burger. If the person who messed up the order could just declare a duel, how often would the whiner accept just to save face. I'm pretty sure reason would prevail most of the time, and people wouldn't risk their lives about the honor our culture gave up over a hundred years ago. As long as it is made acceptable to back out, it would at least stop people causing a bunch of trouble for reason they don't even care about, just because they think they can sue.EllEzDee said:
Whiner: "Waiter, you gave me the wrong drink, this is unacceptable, I demand a full refund-"
Waiter: "AT DAWN WE DUEL!"
Whiner: "Here's your tip..."
BEST. POST. EVER.fix-the-spade said:
gabe12301 said:
Starts at 1:00, if you wanna skip all the jibberjabber.
You can't bring up Alexander Hamilton's duel without posting that.