Poll: Should dueling be legal?
- Thread starter gabe12301
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think it's a great idea. Moreover, we should re-open the Roman Colosseum and have bloodsports that can be entered knowingly by anyone with free will.
It's about time we got our thirst for violence out in the open, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
It's about time we got our thirst for violence out in the open, instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
Never did he say you had to accept the challenge.staika said:
I think yes. It doesn't necessarily have to be to the death, but I personally wouldn't care. If two people hate each other that much, then let them settle it in whatever way they choose. Banning stuff will only make them more angry.
Your probably right. But as long as people are going to do it anyway, might as well stick them in a big dustbowl where we can get it OUT of our system.Blitzwing said:
No way, that's a really REALLY bad idea. Imagine how easy it would be for a murderer to say "Oh but we were dueling" as a scapegoat for every person they kill. There would be no way to prove if the actually were or weren't dueling, and something like that would desensitize children of whatever generation there is when this law making them think death is no big deal. We already have video games for that. If people want to duel they should just have a 1v1 in some game, any game for that matter.
Yes but only if they use old guns (revolver at the latest)
Also, both parties would have to consent and sign a form found in your local town hall or something like that.
presence of a lawyer is preferred but not mandatory.
Also, both parties would have to consent and sign a form found in your local town hall or something like that.
presence of a lawyer is preferred but not mandatory.
I can see why you would think it would be cool two equal opponents settling a matter of honour by strength of arms, but in reality it would be arrogant brutes pressuring any less able man they were certain they could beat into a battle and then killing to prove how big a person they are.
I like how a lot of people assume there would be no societal pressure to accept a duel. Because everyone looks up to the guy who steps out of a bar fight. Just because someone says yes, doesn't mean it is something they want to do. Having a system that allows for legalized killings is going to decrease the quality of life overall and solve nothing. Just because idiots participate in duels doesn't mean they lose. Additionally, not all bodies are created equal. What happens if I offend an elderly person? Do they get to claim a proxy, because I don't want to be fighting a professional duelist whenever I piss anyone off. Lastly, might does not make right. Settling disputes over who can win in a duel is backwards, barbaric and unnecessary. Sorry for the rambling list of reasons why I think this is wrong, but I am tired and overwhelmed with all the faulty arguments about why this should be allowed.
No, because the goal of any police force is to halt fights with the least amount of deaths possible.
Simple, look to American Gladiators, they both get up on the podiums on live TV wearing ridiculous spandex and a giant q-tip (cottonbud), and the first one to be knocked off their podium has to agree that they were wrong, or face legal action due to a broken duelling contract.
They'll have done it in front of a few million witness also, so no ducking out.
There'd be no legal weaseling out either, you both signed up for the duel, we have it in writing, we have you losing the duel on live TV, that means you're liable for replacing the couch that you ruined when you were drunk (or whatever the dispute was).
They'll have done it in front of a few million witness also, so no ducking out.
There'd be no legal weaseling out either, you both signed up for the duel, we have it in writing, we have you losing the duel on live TV, that means you're liable for replacing the couch that you ruined when you were drunk (or whatever the dispute was).
A good friend of mine was challenged to a duel once. He (a historian) worked as a (US) Civil War battlefield guide, and was confronted by an angry southerner. He was peeved with the perceived "anti-Confederacy" slant of his museum's material. "The war was not about slavery," he argued. "It was about state's rights." It's a common argument, and if you spend enough time in areas of the country especially relevant to the Civil War, you hear it all the damn time. It's technically true, in fact, but the state right principally in dispute was, in fact, SLAVERY, so the argument falls flat pretty quickly when it comes up against someone who actually knows the material.
But this guy was not having it, and ultimately challenged my friend to a pistol duel right there in the museum. We are not time travelers. This happened in 2007. We ultimately got security to escort the man out, stopping short of calling the police because this fellow seemed crazy enough to start shooting if he thought "the man" was actually out to get him, and that if he's challenging people to pistol duels, he's probably a pretty good shot.
So, no, I'm not for legalizing dueling. It validates the perspectives of crazy people.
But this guy was not having it, and ultimately challenged my friend to a pistol duel right there in the museum. We are not time travelers. This happened in 2007. We ultimately got security to escort the man out, stopping short of calling the police because this fellow seemed crazy enough to start shooting if he thought "the man" was actually out to get him, and that if he's challenging people to pistol duels, he's probably a pretty good shot.
So, no, I'm not for legalizing dueling. It validates the perspectives of crazy people.
Yes. Because there are times when two people hate each other so much that it's inevitable. Also issues of honor(believe it or not, plenty of people still possess it). Might as well let them do it legally.
Needs to be heavily regulated, however. As in judge/police officer seeing and signing off on it before it happens. With both parties consenting, obviously.
Needs to be heavily regulated, however. As in judge/police officer seeing and signing off on it before it happens. With both parties consenting, obviously.
