Dueling

[mpok1519]

rational, logical intellegent adults. Only if they are willing to solve the dispute peacefully. Otherwise, one (at least one) of them may hire killers.

Thats not civil or peaceful though.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

How does dualing waste government money compared to someone who must serve life in prison? I would content that duals would actually SAVE on government money.

Dualing may be looked at as a loss of life, however we are overpopulated as it is. Besides in many cases justice is impossible. In my opinion people with power would have a harder time hiding behind that power if duals were legal.

the concept you're having fantasies about is "dueling".

 

[Ayersy]

I'd say if the two participants signed a legal waiver, confirming they both knew the rules, and both knew that at least one of them would die, and that they were fine with that, then there's no reason to stop them. It's their choice to throw their lives away.

Personally, though, I wouldn't accept a challenge to a duel, since I see nothing noble in it, and needlessly throwing my life away in a penis-measuring contest seems incredibly stupid to me. I don't need to kill, or be killed, in order to prove I'm a man.

Someone's physical dexterity or willingness to kill doesn't mean they are right, either. People who are right should be able to prove it, using their brains. Rather than resorting to violence because they don't like whatever the person says/did.

All it would prove is that the winner of the duel is physically more capable at killing, luckier, or more willing to kill. That's it. It's not justice, it's not clever, and it's nothing to be respected. Like I said though, if two people wanna do it, they can. None of my business if 2 people have a death-wish.

 

[MacNeil, D.]

I'd say if the two participants signed a legal waiver, confirming they both knew the rules, ...h.

You understand that every gang hit would become a "duel" right?

 

[Ayersy]

You understand that every gang hit would become a "duel" right?

What I meant was that it could be done in a regulated setting, such as in a room somewhere, or firing range, with officials present (Behind bullet-proof glass, of course), who have checked over all the paperwork, and are monitoring everything.

Personally, I wouldn't really want it legalized, because it's just plain silly, but if people did insist on it, then it'd have to be regulated and observed. I don't know why they couldn't just have a punch up, though, seems a far more sane solution to the problem.

 

[No Swansong]

I'd say if the two participants signed a legal waiver, confirming they both knew the rules, and both knew that at least one of them would die, and that they were fine with that, then there's no reason to stop them. It's their choice to throw their lives away.

Personally, though, I wouldn't accept a challenge to a duel, since I see nothing noble in it, and needlessly throwing my life away in a penis-measuring contest seems incredibly stupid to me. I don't need to kill, or be killed, in order to prove I'm a man.

Someone's physical dexterity or willingness to kill doesn't mean they are right, either. People who are right should be able to prove it, using their brains. Rather than resorting to violence because they don't like whatever the person says/did.

All it would prove is that the winner of the duel is physically more capable at killing, luckier, or more willing to kill. That's it. It's not justice, it's not clever, and it's nothing to be respected. Like I said though, if two people wanna do it, they can. None of my business if 2 people have a death-wish.

An individual cannot waive the rights of the state. The state has the right to prosecute those humans who purposely kill other humans. This is not done for the benefit of the victim but for society in general. Any such waiver would be null at least in the U.S.

I have to agree with you that it would take someone with diminished intellect to participate in a duel.

 

[highlife]

I would prefer a sniper rifle where I wait for the man to serve his kids pancakes with the money he extroted from me. With a sniper rifle there is no risk of me getting shot but they do require a great deal of training and even mechanics (modifying bullets, calibers and barrels, scopes, etc) to master. Our courts are a joke becuase they usually reward poor behavior and the decisions are based on crafty lawyers hired by the richer person. Even with a slam dunk case its still a money game with lawyers.

 

[aldar]

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

I certainly would.

Only in worldofwarcraft ZUGZUG!

 

[mpok1519]

I would prefer a sniper rifle where I wait for the man to serve his kids pancakes with the money he extroted from me. With a sniper rifle there is no risk of me getting shot but they do require a great deal of training and even mechanics (modifying bullets, calibers and barrels, scopes, etc) to master. Our courts are a joke becuase they usually reward poor behavior and the decisions are based on crafty lawyers hired by the richer person. Even with a slam dunk case its still a money game with lawyers.

Ah yes, which is why is perfectly okay for you, and not a jury of your peers, do be the swift hand of justice handed down from God Himself.

(......creeeeeppyyyyyy.......)

 

[SithDoughnut]

I would prefer a sniper rifle where I wait for the man to serve his kids pancakes with the money he extroted from me. With a sniper rifle there is no risk of me getting shot but they do require a great deal of training and even mechanics (modifying bullets, calibers and barrels, scopes, etc) to master. Our courts are a joke becuase they usually reward poor behavior and the decisions are based on crafty lawyers hired by the richer person. Even with a slam dunk case its still a money game with lawyers.

Better than having people running around with sniper rifles thinking they are above the law.

 

[highlife]

Ah yes, which is why is perfectly okay for you, and not a jury of your peers, do be the swift hand of justice handed down from God Himself.

(......creeeeeppyyyyyy.......)

Hmm kinda like dueling which is the topic. The entire discussion is absurd but if we were living in lawlessness I simply stated what I would prefer.

That is pretty funny though, you guys discussing dueling and I talk about sniping and whoa thats insane LOL.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Hmm kinda like dueling which is the topic. The entire discussion is absurd but if we were living in lawlessness I simply stated what I would prefer.

That is pretty funny though, you guys discussing dueling and I talk about sniping and whoa thats insane LOL.

Not even close to being the same. Dueling is between willing participants. You're talking about murdering someone in front of their kids.

 

[highlife]

Not even close to being the same. Dueling is between willing participants. You're talking about murdering someone in front of their kids.

Tomatoe tomato, dueling was done to settle some kind of issue. So persumably the person you are sniping is not an innocent party. Also sniping takes the risk away from the shooter while still settling the "score" which is really what dueling was all about. You dont have to do it in front of kids but that adds an extra effect of "this is what happens when you do X, Y or Z" its like that icing on the cake when sending the message.

So take away the doing it in front of the kids part and its really no different. If someone did X, Y or Z to me im not also going to give them the pleasure of being able to shoot me as well (depending on outcome), but I can reasonably assure a favorable outcome if im sniping and if I miss i can fire again.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

I totally forgot all about this thread. Looking back a couple pages, ja, still about as stupid as when I forgot about it. I might go back and respond however you people should really research dueling, the history of dueling, Code Duello and so on. For example no, entering into a duel doesn't inherently mean someone has to die. No, just because one challenges you to a duel doesn't inherently mean you must go to the field of honor without any possibility of reconciliation, restitution, and formal/public apologies. Infact, in traditional dueling, the seconds of each party involved would go to the otherside to offer one last chance at reconciliation and restitution. The party who accepted the duel and was the offender could also not show up though he would have been considered a coward. This was still a possibility. The terms of the duel were agreed upon beforehand. In the case of duel by swords for example, you could agree to first blood and no mortal wound would be necessary. It appears to me that alot of you are arguing against a practice which to a large extent you don't even fully understand. As another member stated (to my memory) previously in the thread, it's not like what you have seen in the movies.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Tomatoe tomato, dueling was done to settle some kind of issue. So persumably the person you are sniping is not an innocent party. Also sniping takes the risk away from the shooter while still settling the "score" which is really what dueling was all about. You dont have to do it in front of kids but that adds an extra effect of "this is what happens when you do X, Y or Z" its like that icing on the cake when sending the message.

So take away the doing it in front of the kids part and its really no different. If someone did X, Y or Z to me im not also going to give them the pleasure of being able to shoot me as well (depending on outcome), but I can reasonably assure a favorable outcome if im sniping and if I miss i can fire again.

No, it's actually extremely different than traditional dueling. It seems dishonourable and cowardly. To go even further, in the centuries in which dueling was legal it would have also been considered 'unmanly.'

 

[highlife]

No, it's actually extremely different than traditional dueling. It seems dishonourable and cowardly. To go even further, in the centuries in which dueling was legal it would have also been considered 'unmanly.'

Eh snipers would tell you otherwise. It has a very proud history in the army. If you can meet your objective without exposing youself then you are ahead of the game.

The bullet of a sniper has made history in some instances.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

Eh snipers would tell you otherwise. It has a very proud history in the army. If you can meet your objective without exposing youself then you are ahead of the game.

The bullet of a sniper has made history in some instances.

Sniping within the context of the military and war is different than speaking of it within the context of dueling which is what I was talking about when responding to you.

 

[highlife]

Sniping within the context of the military and war is different than speaking of it within the context of dueling which is what I was talking about when responding to you.

I knew you were going to say that, but I disagree. If your going to be engaging in an activity where you are taking life there is no difference.

unless you are talking abou the non lethal forms of dueling then I would agree its different.

 

[Freodin]

I totally forgot all about this thread. Looking back a couple pages, ja, still about as stupid as when I forgot about it. I might go back and respond however you people should really research dueling, the history of dueling, Code Duello and so on. For example no, entering into a duel doesn't inherently mean someone has to die. No, just because one challenges you to a duel doesn't inherently mean you must go to the field of honor without any possibility of reconciliation, restitution, and formal/public apologies. Infact, in traditional dueling, the seconds of each party involved would go to the otherside to offer one last chance at reconciliation and restitution. The party who accepted the duel and was the offender could also not show up though he would have been considered a coward. This was still a possibility. The terms of the duel were agreed upon beforehand. In the case of duel by swords for example, you could agree to first blood and no mortal wound would be necessary. It appears to me that alot of you are arguing against a practice which to a large extent you don't even fully understand. As another member stated (to my memory) previously in the thread, it's not like what you have seen in the movies.

Depends on what kind of movies you see...

But considering all that you posted here... I still have to see you present an argument FOR duelling.

 

[dewaddict84]

Duels?

I'd say it's wrong and immoral. I mean, I'm all up for a swordfight and a bout to 15 can be fun times. But a duel to the death? Or even as a means to settle things? Naw. Old fashioned hold-outs from brutal times.