Dueling

[Andrew Ryan]

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

What part of I know that currently under today's laws that it is illegal and that it would be considered first degree murder is throwing you off? How many times do I have to state this? Honestly. Furthermore, I have already stated that this question and conversation is hypothetical and is assuming that it was/would be legal (as it was in the past).

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

Of course because I'm not buying into the idea that "dueling is dumb, 'nuff said," and support the practice historically and currently if it were to become legal again I must just be some fool absorbed in some renaissance fantasy? Please, this statement is childish and stupid. Given the arguments thus far I am beginning to wonder do any of you have any moral objection and so on to the practice of dueling or are you just responding out of subconscious fear because you wouldn't have the fortitude to accept a challenge to a duel and thus would never want this practice to become or be legal. See how easy that was to make assumptions about the other person without really addressing the issue?

 

[quatona]

I am beginning to wonder do any of you have any moral objection and so on to the practice of dueling or are you just responding out of subconscious fear because you wouldn't have the fortitude to accept a challenge to a duel and thus would never want this practice to become or be legal.

As far as I am concerned the fear of ancient [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] fight rituals in which people kill each other for irrational reasons becoming legal or being legal is not subconscious but quite conscious.
"My feelings are hurt. Someone needs to be killed, even if it is me". Help me make sense of this. To me it sounds like a kindergarten drama inflated to XXL size.

 

[Chesterton]

Here's the way we civilized inbreds duel:

YouTube - Deliverance - Dueling Banjo

 

[SithDoughnut]

Given the arguments thus far I am beginning to wonder do any of you have any moral objection and so on to the practice of dueling or are you just responding out of subconscious fear because you wouldn't have the fortitude to accept a challenge to a duel and thus would never want this practice to become or be legal. See how easy that was to make assumptions about the other person without really addressing the issue?

The practice should not be legal because if it was legal, it would have to be regulated. If it's regulated, it would cost the justice system money, time and resources. There are better things to spend money on than allowing idiots to kill each other.

 

[Freodin]

The arguments against it so far were that it is "stupid" to have adults kill each other over disputes. One could call it "unreasonable", "exaggerated" or whatever. I think that it just don´t serve any purpose.

So what are the arguments FOR duelling?

 

[mpok1519]

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

How is base jumping a good idea? Whatever "benefits" come from base-jumping can no-doubt be gained through other means. Yes, base-jumping is stupid. People do stupid things "for fun" all the time. Doesn't mean its not stupid. yeah sure its fun. But its still stupid. A human can spend their time doing more productive things other than fulfilling their adrenaline junky nature. An adrenaline junky is still a junky.

 

[mpok1519]

Reasons for dueling? None. Any dispute can be resolved non-violently. It just takes courage. Rationale. Logic. Being a grown adult also helps.

Whiney little bratty children might not see resolve in every dispute, but thats because they don't know any better.

 

[MoonLancer]

What part of I know that currently under today's laws that it is illegal and that it would be considered first degree murder is throwing you off? How many times do I have to state this? Honestly. Furthermore, I have already stated that this question and conversation is hypothetical and is assuming that it was/would be legal (as it was in the past).

He was just as welcoming and helpful in another thread too.

Of course because I'm not buying into the idea that "dueling is dumb, 'nuff said," and support the practice historically and currently if it were to become legal again I must just be some fool absorbed in some renaissance fantasy? Please, this statement is childish and stupid. Given the arguments thus far I am beginning to wonder do any of you have any moral objection and so on to the practice of dueling or are you just responding out of subconscious fear because you wouldn't have the fortitude to accept a challenge to a duel and thus would never want this practice to become or be legal. See how easy that was to make assumptions about the other person without really addressing the issue?

You will notice that in another thread the exact same thing to me. people seem to be easily threatened by anything remotely skill based. Having skills in something also makes you an Elitist.

As far as I am concerned the fear of ancient [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] fight rituals in which people kill each other for irrational reasons becoming legal or being legal is not subconscious but quite conscious.
"My feelings are hurt. Someone needs to be killed, even if it is me". Help me make sense of this. To me it sounds like a kindergarten drama inflated to XXL size.

Not all duals were honor duals. In fact for the longest time duals were Judicial. Its not exactly the same as TV and Movies make it out to be so you would do best to learn more about the subject.

That said the OP could be more specific about what kind of duals he is talking about.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

I will respond more properly, in full, later however I just wanted to say that if all I am going to get in responses are:

"ZOMG, dewling is so steeeeeeewpid, it's childish inbred yokle brats just measuring der penises and seeing how far deh can pee, hardy har har, it's stewpid because it's stewpid because I done told yew it's stewpid, deeeeeeer, don't you git it? Don't yew know killan won't solve nothin? It's stewpid, this is fact and if you can't get that yer stewpid and you never will, I can't explain it to you because it's steeeeeewpid."

And other such nonsense then I will probably just end up not responding and ending the conversation because it will be pointless.

 

[quatona]

Not all duals were honor duals. In fact for the longest time duals were Judicial. Its not exactly the same as TV and Movies make it out to be so you would do best to learn more about the subject.

Yeah, that´s why I kept asking.

 

[quatona]

Not all duals were honor duals. In fact for the longest time duals were Judicial. Its not exactly the same as TV and Movies make it out to be so you would do best to learn more about the subject.

​

Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession, in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right. In essence, it is a judicially sanctioned duel. It remained in use throughout the European Middle Ages, gradually disappearing in the course of the 16th century.
(from Wikipedia)

​

What a brilliant concept.

 

[quatona]

I will respond more properly, in full, later however I just wanted to say that if all I am going to get in responses are:

"ZOMG, dewling is so steeeeeeewpid, it's childish inbred yokle brats just measuring der penises and seeing how far deh can pee, hardy har har, it's stewpid because it's stewpid because I done told yew it's stewpid, deeeeeeer, don't you git it? Don't yew know killan won't solve nothin? It's stewpid, this is fact and if you can't get that yer stewpid and you never will, I can't explain it to you because it's steeeeeewpid."

Well, you didn´t get such a post. You had to write it yourself, and you had to invent the poor style, grammar and orthography yourself, too.

And other such nonsense then I will probably just end up not responding and ending the conversation because it will be pointless.

That´s not all you have been getting. You´ve been getting a couple of questions and quite some posts that did not simply resort to "it´s stupid".

But for some strange reason you keep focussing on those posts that you don´t want to answer but haven´t answered those other posts.

 

[MoonLancer]

What a brilliant concept.

thanks for looking it up or posting it if you already were aware of the concept.

If I was to rewrite the rules it should only be granted in extreme cases and where both parties are willing to take part in the dual

also something to take note. When a person is feeling guilty it directly effects their ability to fight. This was known at the time Judicial duals took place.

Psychologically a guilty person will make more mistakes then a innocent person would.

If two people of equal skill fight, the winner is typically innocent.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

...
And other such nonsense then I will probably just end up not responding and ending the conversation because it will be pointless.

You've been schooled on this thread so often, it will be seen as running away.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Well, you didn´t get such a post.

I know however it's a fairly decent summation of the majority if not all of the arguments I have been getting against dueling whether you want to admit it or not and whether you like it or not. Why you continue to point out things I already know is beyond me or to put it more bluntly, thank you captain obvious.

That´s not all you have been getting.

Yes, it is, with few exceptions and with few if any other arguments taken out, that is all I have been getting.

But for some strange reason you keep focussing on those posts that you don´t want to answer but haven´t answered those other posts.

Are we reading the same thread? By and large no one has offered any real arguments against dueling, rather just ridiculing the idea and those whom engage in it, case and point, measuring penises, dueling banjos and the insult of being inbred, challenges of manhood (ex: "grow a pair"), the countless times it's been called stupid, the comparison to unruly children, etc. Very few posts have actually contained questions or any attempt to discuss or debate the practice other than, again, ridiculing the practice itself and those whom engage in it. Like it or not, guilty or not, this is how the thread has been going which is why I am increasingly losing motivation to continue the discussion, which is to say, if after my last post which I address the other posts which I haven't thus far is met with the same responses, I will probably just end the conversation because it will be a waste of my time and pointless to continue. I am not 'focussing' on anything, this is merely how the thread is going.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

You've been schooled on this thread so often, it will be seen as running away.

This is absurd to the point where I find it legitimately humorous. I've been "schooled," have I? Ridiculing the practice of dueling and those whom participate in it and reiterating the same points over and over and chuckling amongst yourselves and ignoring some of the points I have been making about the particulars of dueling is not "schooling," me. No one has yet to make any real legitimate argument against the practice aside from again ridiculing the practice and those whom participate in said practice. Aside from a few questions here and there (of no consequence really) that's all that has taken place. I will also say that ending a obviously pointless conversation could hardly be considered "running away," but if that's what you need to tell yourself if after my next post this nonsense continues and I end the conversation, then be my guest. I really don't care if you all declare yourself the victors simply because I choose to end a pointless conversation/'debate' (and yes, I am using this word lightly).

 

[Verv]

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

Most action films involve some sort of plot, albeit foolish, that brings the story along to justify the use of violence for some sort of just cause.

 

[Freodin]

By and large no one has offered any real arguments against dueling, ...

Perhaps you could start by provinde any real arguments FOR duelling before you start to complain about those who try to argue against it?

Six pages, and while I have read a number of arguments against - basically: that it serves no point - you haven´t give us a single reason why we should consider it.

So how about you start to present some meat?

 

[quatona]

Very few posts have actually contained questions or any attempt to discuss or debate the practice other than, again, ridiculing the practice itself and those whom engage in it.

Then stop whining and start answering them.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I will respond more properly, in full, later however I just wanted to say that if all I am going to get in responses are:

"ZOMG, dewling is so steeeeeeewpid, it's childish inbred yokle brats just measuring der penises and seeing how far deh can pee, hardy har har, it's stewpid because it's stewpid because I done told yew it's stewpid, deeeeeeer, don't you git it? Don't yew know killan won't solve nothin? It's stewpid, this is fact and if you can't get that yer stewpid and you never will, I can't explain it to you because it's steeeeeewpid."

And other such nonsense then I will probably just end up not responding and ending the conversation because it will be pointless.

Well how about you actually address the posts that don't just say that instead of acting like a troll? If you want to leave the conversation now though, that's fine, seeing as you've contributed nothing so far.

So, are you going to try intelligent conversation or are you going to keep wasting server space?

If you want, you can start by answering my posts here and here, which deal with duelling being a waste of goverment money and duelling being a waste of life respectively. And then perhaps you can give your argument, because so far you've said nothing of value. The OP had no substance and no argument, and all your other posts are akin to a two year old who is unhappy that people are disagreeing with it.