Dueling

[The Nihilist]

Sure - violence is always the best and preferable solution.
I´d choose nukes, though.

You might want to take some extra paces.

 

[The Nihilist]

A little fun fact about dueling. It was believed in a dual that god would choose the winner. The idea of not killing someone if thye slipped or fumbled was laughable. It was believed such things was god condemning that person to die.

That said, i would dual if it was for the right reasons.

That's inconsistent with my understanding of the practice. Do you have a source?

 

[mpok1519]

for children, its fine. They dont know any better.

Not for grown, rational, intellegent human adults however.

With this being said, note that just bc you're over 18, doesn't mean youre not a child. You can be 60 years old and still be a dumb little kid.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

Right or wrong? Moral or immoral? What do you think about dueling? Would you accept a challenge to a duel?

I certainly would.

Its illegal, so have fun in prison.

 

[Hakan101]

I'm sure he is aware that it's illegal, but what he wants to know is do we think it's moral. Which I do not. It's no different than two kids agreeing to fight after school.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

For those that say it's 'stupid', explain to me why, define and articulate this.

I will respond more properly once this is explained.

How about the fact that if you kill someone in a duel, its first degree murder. Engaging in a duel sounds really stupid.

 

[Mling]

I can think of few debates mild enough to allow the wait-time and calmness of a duel, but severe enough to warrant the murder.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's inconsistent with my understanding of the practice. Do you have a source?

which part? The part where the winner is proclaimed to be right by god, or where chivalry is not helping someone up if they dropped their weapon in a dual and instead killing them because it was thought as providence from god?

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Judicial_duel

As it existed in the mediæval laws of western Europe, it was typically explained as a judicium Dei, the judgment of God. In theory, the trial so conducted would yield a just result because God would strengthen the arm of the combatant who was in the right. In this, it resembled trial by ordeal, which were a number of hazardous tests whose outcome would indicate guilt or innocence; these outcomes, too, were God's verdicts. It seems likelier that since in the days of feudalism, weak central governments and no standing armies, conflicts between nobles could lead to minor wars, a judicially organised duel was a less expensive substitute that gave the litigants and the public the physical satisfaction they wished.

The second one is going to be harder to find as a source but is quite easy to see with the mindset of the people at the time.

 

[MoonLancer]

How about the fact that if you kill someone in a duel, its first degree murder. Engaging in a duel sounds really stupid.

Not if its a judicial dual. Then its sanctioned by both the state and by god.

 

[Verv]

More or less.



Leaving the family is the immoral action. Dueling, not so much. There are other ways to leave your family destitute.

There are other ways and dueling would be a sure fire way for most people.

Even if it was not leaving them financially destitute, there is a good chance that ti will cause emotional and psychological trauma on your loved ones to be risking your life especially for something not positive.

It would also reinforce bad ideas to your loved ones that this sort of behavior is acceptable.

Any action which in some way promotes senseless violence is an immoral one.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Let me just sum up what I have to say about all of these arguments all at once since they are pretty much the same, the below:

In all honesty, assuming both people were willing participants, I wouldn't say it's immoral. If you want to get yourself killed, you can. Especially if it means that you're not around to pass these stupid ideas on to the next generation.

No. It's idiotic. It's a left-over from when apes used to fight each other for mating rights. Not deciding questions by who's a better shot is what separates us from the apes.

How about the fact that if you kill someone in a duel, its first degree murder. Engaging in a duel sounds really stupid.

for children, its fine. They dont know any better.

Not for grown, rational, intellegent human adults however.

With this being said, note that just bc you're over 18, doesn't mean youre not a child. You can be 60 years old and still be a dumb little kid.

Are all reductio ad ridiculum. You're not telling me why it's stupid, you're not telling me why it's wrong or immoral or anything. All of you are merely saying "that's stupid, that's barbaric, that's blah blah blah." You're arguments are about as 'stupid' as saying the practice itself is 'stupid.' Come on, step up now.

Its illegal, so have fun in prison.

Really? I had no idea, thank you for that brilliant deduction. I know that it is illegal (currently) however the question is obviously assuming that in a hypothetical situation, if it were legal, would it be immoral or moral, right or wrong, etc. Seriously, is this among the best responses that I am going to get on this matter?

"It's stewpid."

"It's illegal, have fun with prison, hardy har har."

Come on, surely, all of you can do better than this.

 

[mpok1519]

"Its stupid" is the best argument in this; it's true and simple to understand. There are better alternatives to resolve differences. Guns are just easier.

 

[MoonLancer]

who said anything about guns.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

"Its stupid" is the best argument in this

No, it isn't, see above.

it's true and simple to understand.

Really? So, "dueling is stewpid," is axiomatic truth? Why? Elaborate.

There are better alternatives to resolve differences. Guns are just easier.

Perhaps in some situations but in others, no, words will not amend the situation nor take back the grievous action which the one being challenged has done to the one whom demands satisfaction. Nor does dueling inherently imply pistols, on the contrary, within the history of Western dueling there have been other weapons used. Our actions in this life have consequences, both good and bad and both in this life and the hereafter and some of the consequences aren't pretty nor can words make amends for said actions, in any real sense nor monetary compensation or any other form recompense. Also, dueling doesn't inherently mean that the other must die nor has this always been the end result of every single duel in Western history. There have been rules to these engagements you know.

 

[mpok1519]

No, it isn't, see above.

Yeah it is. "Why shouldnt you jump off a cliff" is answered with the same logic. "Bc it is stupid." Do you really need an explanation as to why it is stupid?

Really? So, "dueling is stewpid," is axiomatic truth? Why? Elaborate.

Two grown people killing one another to settle differences without thinking like most rational, intellegent, civil grown people do? In this day and age where civillity is normal and barbarism abnormal? Really? Elaborate on facts even the intellectually disingenuous could understand?

Perhaps in some situations but in others, no, words will not amend the situation nor take back the grievous action which the one being challenged has done to the one whom demands satisfaction.

The one not satisfied in anyway other than the death of the person he doesn't like = stupid. He should grow a pair and move on with his life like a real man.

Nor does dueling inherently imply pistols, on the contrary, within the history of Western dueling there have been other weapons used. Our actions in this life have consequences, both good and bad and both in this life and the hereafter and some of the consequences aren't pretty nor can words make amends for said actions, in any real sense nor monetary compensation or any other form recompense.

How is shooting or hurting someone any form of justice? Does it replace what was lost? No. Does the subsequential pain of another fill any gap or void in the life of a victim? No. If someone wrongs me in a way there is "no compensation" for, does it make me feel better if they get hit by a truck and die the next day? Yes, but only if I am a sick sociopath that probably deserves the same treatment. This kind of justice is simply delusional, and unhealthy for the individuals involved and society itself.

Also, dueling doesn't inherently mean that the other must die nor has this always been the end result of every single duel in Western history. There have been rules to these engagements you know.

We live in today. And the rules are "dueling is stupid".

 

[MoonLancer]

Yeah it is. "Why shouldnt you jump off a cliff" is answered with the same logic. "Bc it is stupid." Do you really need an explanation as to why it is stupid?

It seems to me that you do not seem eloquent enough to explain your position so you resort to "its stupid"

These things often are hard to explain when they seem so obvious and so ingrained in our reasoning. That we haven't even thought about it.

Here is just one reason why jumping off a cliff might in fact be a good idea and might even be fun. It just goes to show sometimes we cant trust our basic gut reactions and need to think about them first.

YouTube - Extreme Base Jumping in Wingsuits

 

[SithDoughnut]

There are other ways and dueling would be a sure fire way for most people.

Even if it was not leaving them financially destitute, there is a good chance that ti will cause emotional and psychological trauma on your loved ones to be risking your life especially for something not positive.

I agree. I viewed the acts of leaving your family and duelling as separate, but if we view them together, then I would say it is immoral. I still wouldn't say it is outright wrong, but I wouldn't view it as a good thing to do, ethically speaking. I didn't think of effects on other people when I made my first post, I was only thinking about the act itself.

It would also reinforce bad ideas to your loved ones that this sort of behavior is acceptable.

Any action which in some way promotes senseless violence is an immoral one.

So action films are immoral? I agree with your other reasons, but this one I'm not so sure about.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Are all reductio ad ridiculum.

Calling something stupid is not reductio ad ridiculum. Calling something stupid by the method of a strawman argument or another type of misrepresentation is reductio ad ridiculum. If no reason is given (as you complain about), then this fallacy does not fit.

You're not telling me why it's stupid, you're not telling me why it's wrong or immoral or anything.

Getting yourself killed for no good reason is stupid; there are plenty of less dangerous alternatives to duelling. Yes, that's an opinion, so you're not going to get any evidence to back that view up. My view is that putting yourself at risk without good reason is a stupid thing to do. Duelling in order to solve a dispute is not a good reason, as other, less dangerous methods exist. That does not make them necessarily wrong (although I've changed my opinion since Verv pointed out some things I'd missed), but stupid does not mean immoral.

All of you are merely saying "that's stupid, that's barbaric, that's blah blah blah." You're arguments are about as 'stupid' as saying the practice itself is 'stupid.' Come on, step up now.

Tell you what, instead of being unnecessarily rude, how about you actually set the tone of the thread by giving your reasons?

I certainly would.

Where's the reasoning? Where's the statements to illustrate your point? If you want the thread to be full of reasoning, you have to give some yourself. The OP had no substance, so the posts followed the example.

Now, can we have a polite discussion from here on? It's an interesting topic you've made.

 

[quatona]

Really? So, "dueling is stewpid," is axiomatic truth? Why? Elaborate.

Well, if it is an axiomatic truth it can´t and needn´t be elaborated on. It´s axiomatic, after all.

Personally, I don´t think it´s axiomatic, but of course (like anything) it can be deduced from core beliefs. It´s close to "if it needs to be explained to you it can´t be explained to you".
Dueling results in unnecessary homicide, and if that´s not enough for you to call something "stupid" (which I think is a pretty mild term for it) all I can conclude is that you and I come from different universes.

Perhaps in some situations but in others, no, words will not amend the situation nor take back the grievous action which the one being challenged has done to the one whom demands satisfaction.

Nor does murdering or being murdered.

Nor does dueling inherently imply pistols, on the contrary, within the history of Western dueling there have been other weapons used.

Like...comparing penis sizes?

Our actions in this life have consequences, both good and bad and both in this life and the hereafter and some of the consequences aren't pretty nor can words make amends for said actions, in any real sense nor monetary compensation or any other form recompense.

Exactly, and one of those actions is dueling.

For all I know, irrational stuff like "pride" and "honour" is involved in the concept of dueling.

In order to have a rational discussion about the issue, I would first like to see the answers to the following questions:

What is the problem dueling is meant to solve?
How exactly is the problem solved
1. by killing or
2. by getting yourself killed?
a. for the challenger
b. for the challenged?

Maybe explaining this by using a concrete example would be helpful.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

Let me just sum up what I have to say about all of these arguments all at once since they are pretty much the same, the below:
..better than this.

Refusing to acknowledge a plain statement of the law that a death by dueling is first degree murder is childish.

That you have some fantasy about duels is beside the point.