• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Dueling?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know, I've done some thinking about this.

Dueling is seen as a pro-liberty, pro-individual-rights issue by some Libertarians, such as L. Neil Smith.

The problem with dueling is that it's predicated on an "honor culture" so extreme, that to NOT duel would be seen as "chicken" or something and would ostracize you from the community.

So the possibilities for abuse and "bullying" are just too crazy.

The Arab world is an extreme example of an "honor-based society" and...sorry, I don't like what that does culturally.

On a more practical note: look at the amount of dirt-digging I engage in, exposing crooks in government. If dueling was allowed, Jesus H. Christ, I'd have been invited to at least half a dozen or more already :uhoh:. And that's not something *I* would describe as "justice" :scrutiny:.
 
Since I think that human beings own their own bodies and minds, I have no problem with two people entering into a duel of their own free will. I doubt it's a custom I would participate in, though.

Were dueling brought back, the laws/regulations would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. As long as the two principles agree, and as long as no uninvolved parties are injured, then anything goes.

- Chris
 
Sounds right, but... assessed based on what principle?
This one: "As long as the two principles agree, and as long as no uninvolved parties are injured, then anything goes."

A duel is a contract, used as a means of settling a dispute. In a free society, there are no limits to the terms of a contract entered into by consenting adults.

- Chris
 
As I recall the Confederate forces lost more officers in duels that to enemy fire. I suspect the results speak for themselves.

Geoff
Who shows respect for others ability, by shooting them in the back.
 
Jeff -- ALL officers, or just top brass? The latter I could maybe believe.. the former not a chance in heck.

I tend to agree with Chris on this one -- if two folks want to settle their disagreements with pistols at twenty paces, I'm not gonna get between 'em.

;)


-K


Tis not so deep as a well, nor wide as a church door, but mind you tis enough... interrupting other people's duels is a risky business.
 
No, I don't think we should bring dueling back. But we should bring honor back ... real honor that is based on excellent character, not some blissninny conception of "self esteem" that gets all huffy when one is "dissed."
 
Very little in this world is inevitable; I don't see your Rob Leatham/Saddam Hussein surviving very long before someone challenged him to a duel, say, with sabers. Or hand grenades. Or just shot him in the back on general principles. I'd shed few tears.

Now if our theoretical BG had a bunch of thugs watching his back and handling his scutwork, well, that's a different story... ;)

Something worth mentioning; there's no reason at all why dueling has to be of the, "Meet me upon the field of honor at dawn, pistols for two and coffee for one," variety. If two people want to settle a dispute, they're free to use any test of skill or chance that they can both agree on. Dueling via a game of chess doesn't have quite the same drama as the Code Duello, but it has other advantages.

- Chris
 
I don't see your Rob Leatham/Saddam Hussein surviving very long before someone challenged him to a duel, say, with sabers.

Historically, the challenged party chooses the weapons. Also, according to the code duello as followed in Ireland (and most everywhere else) if one swore upon his honor that one was no swordsman, then pistols were the order of the day.
Duelling was supposed to be an affair between gentlemen. One did not duel with people of lower social station. One simply had such ruffians flogged or killed. Bringing it back isn't a good idea in a more or less egalitarian society such as our own. Art Eatman already hit the main reason why.

Golgo-13
whose family was of the aristocracy back in old country
(Curse those Bolsheviks!)
 
Chris Rhines:

A duel is a contract, used as a means of settling a dispute. In a free society, there are no limits to the terms of a contract entered into by consenting adults.

In a free society you wouldn't want to see an unlimited right to contract. Illegal activities ought not to be subject to contracting. Contracting for the commission of a murder, for example, is itself an illegal act and is is a type of unenforceable contract.
 
No one has yet come up with any possible advantage to legalized dueling. What would be the point? Why SHOULD it be legal?
 
I am all for real honor in our society. A duel now and then would keep one sharp and courteous. It could lead to a polite society.


Oh I'm sorry, I thought you said three! paces, turn and fire... My bad, shall we start anew? On the count of three... :eek:


Giant
 
In theory, I'm in favor of bringing back duels. In practice, I think of all the times I've been horribly rude to people who nonetheless let me live.
 
Perhaps because we are a civilized society that has learned to solve minor personal conflicts without bloodshed.

In Russia i believe swords were the weapon used in dueling. If im not mistaken a lot of measures were put into place to see to it that the duels did not result in death as well. Although, this was never always the case.
 
Interesting that you should mention Yevgeny Onegin. A fine work by Pushkin. Sad that the world lost such a great mind as Pushkin at such a young age (37). You might care to look up how he died. It stands as just one example of the foolishness of such an enterprise.

and your right, pistols as well as swords were used in russia.

edited for spelling
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top