Dueling

[DontTreadOnMike]

If both agree to it, it's not immoral. It's stupid and I would never do it. But consenting adults can make their own decisions.

 

[Saint Andrew]

i for one would most definatly duel as long as i get to choose swords and practice for a year. guns i think are more intimidating. also if i was going to duel i would want to do it somplace private and with four witnesses. and only if it was for a serious reason to duel like if somone murdered a friend or relative of mine.

 

[MoonLancer]

i for one would most definatly duel as long as i get to choose swords and practice for a year. guns i think are more intimidating. also if i was going to duel i would want to do it somplace private and with four witnesses. and only if it was for a serious reason to duel like if somone murdered a friend or relative of mine.

A typical dual that took place in 1400s gave the fighters 2 months of preparation. Also the duals were public events. There was a list/ring. Anyone who stepped out would be hung until death. Your coffin was already prepared for you when you enter the fight and sits outside of the ring.

 

[highlife]

i for one would most definatly duel as long as i get to choose swords and practice for a year. guns i think are more intimidating. also if i was going to duel i would want to do it somplace private and with four witnesses. and only if it was for a serious reason to duel like if somone murdered a friend or relative of mine.

So you would not only give them the opprotunity to murder your friend but murder you as well, thats the issue with dueling is that the "bad" guy will not nessicarily loose. Sniper rifles ensure that you can get your kill without exposing yourself to much risk. The only snaffu is that training on a sniper rifle system is extremely expensive to get set up and take a long time to train but its worth it for the risk you mitigate in not having to get into a close quarters situation. Of course the person you are taking out is not nessicarily a willing participant but in your scenario they made themselves a participant by killing someone you know. This is all of course predicated on any of this being legal, since this entire discussion is really a form of vigalantism with different exposures to risk.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

i for one would most definatly duel as long as i get to choose swords and practice for a year. guns i think are more intimidating. also if i was going to duel i would want to do it somplace private and with four witnesses. and only if it was for a serious reason to duel like if somone murdered a friend or relative of mine.

If dueling by pistols is intimidating then the offended who is demanding satisfaction shouldn't opt for this and instead opt for dueling by the sword. The offended party could then choose the rules of the duel, to first blood, to death or till the offending party was unable to continue the duel. In the case of pistols you have the option to both fire one shot, if neither party hit the other, the duel could be declared over. Or the duel could go until one was either wounded or dead though anything after 3 shots was considered barbaric and absurd. Contrary to what another member said the place of the duel or the field of honor was not in public.

Also, in traditional dueling there was people called 'seconds' which were representatives of each party who would be at the field of honor to act as intermediaries and would go to each side to offer one final chance at restitution and redress. They also checked the weapons to make sure they were equal and that the duel was fair. Also, before the duel, the offending party had numerous chances to retract or offer a public apology or some form of restitution to the offended party before hand and even, as stated previously, at the field of honor.

The idea of using sniper rifles is cowardly and shouldn't be included in the discussion of traditional dueling. If you are not man enough to face your offender in the field of honor then you shouldn't demand satisfaction and accept your dishonor. By sniping your offender you would only dishonor yourself further than what the offending party did to you.

By demanding satisfaction you are taking the risk of physical harm and you should bear this in mind (even though, this is all hypothetical as far as this discussion is concerned considering dueling is [sadly] illegal). As far as getting shot yourself an example that comes to mind is the duel between Andrew Jackson and Charles Dickinson. Dickinson had the first shot and fired and hit Jackson in the chest however Jackson did not go down and then fired and killed Dickinson severing an artery. Such things can happen. Dueling is cathartic and carries risks, this should be excepted. If it were legal, everyone should bear this in mind and I think it would act as a deterrent.

 

[highlife]

If dueling by pistols is intimidating then the offended who is demanding satisfaction shouldn't opt for this and instead opt for dueling by the sword. The offended party could then choose the rules of the duel, to first blood, to death or till the offending party was unable to continue the duel. In the case of pistols you have the option to both fire one shot, if neither party hit the other, the duel could be declared over. Or the duel could go until one was either wounded or dead though anything after 3 shots was considered barbaric and absurd. Contrary to what another member said the place of the duel or the field of honor was not in public.

Also, in traditional dueling there was people called 'seconds' which were representatives of each party who would be at the field of honor to act as intermediaries and would go to each side to offer one final chance at restitution and redress. They also checked the weapons to make sure they were equal and that the duel was fair. Also, before the duel, the offending party had numerous chances to retract or offer a public apology or some form of restitution to the offended party before hand and even, as stated previously, at the field of honor.

The idea of using sniper rifles is cowardly and shouldn't be included in the discussion of traditional dueling. If you are not man enough to face your offender in the field of honor then you shouldn't demand satisfaction and accept your dishonor. By sniping your offender you would only dishonor yourself further than what the offending party did to you.

By demanding satisfaction you are taking the risk of physical harm and you should bear this in mind (even though, this is all hypothetical as far as this discussion is concerned considering dueling is [sadly] illegal). As far as getting shot yourself an example that comes to mind is the duel between Andrew Jackson and Charles Dickinson. Dickinson had the first shot and fired and hit Jackson in the chest however Jackson did not go down and then fired and killed Dickinson severing an artery. Such things can happen. Dueling is cathartic and carries risks, this should be excepted. If it were legal, everyone should bear this in mind and I think it would act as a deterrent.

That is why the state is there to execute justice so that I dont have to snipe them. I dont care much for honor and all that, I like to mitigate my risks and still get the job done. One could say that the entire methodology for the way the USA fights wars is not honorable since we bomb and snipe our enemys but at the end of the day there is no one left to call you a coward because they are all bombed or sniped then you can go back and have a beer and a pizza.

 

[Andrew Ryan]

That is why the state is there to execute justice so that I dont have to snipe them. I dont care much for honor and all that, I like to mitigate my risks and still get the job done. One could say that the entire methodology for the way the USA fights wars is not honorable since we bomb and snipe our enemys but at the end of the day there is no one left to call you a coward because they are all bombed or sniped then you can go back and have a beer and a pizza.

As I have stated previously there is a difference between the military using snipers and other such methods for war and covert ops and using sniper rifles within the context of traditional dueling proper.

 

[highlife]

As I have stated previously there is a difference between the military using snipers and other such methods for war and covert ops and using sniper rifles within the context of traditional dueling proper.

Only because we have laws and the state to act on our behalf in civil matters, if we did not then there would be no difference. Becasue really all military action is is disagreement on a bigger scale. If there were no laws or enforcement to incarcerate and potentially execute someone who killed a loved one then it would be no different than a military action.

 

[MoonLancer]

If dueling by pistols is intimidating then the offended who is demanding satisfaction shouldn't opt for this and instead opt for dueling by the sword. The offended party could then choose the rules of the duel, to first blood, to death or till the offending party was unable to continue the duel. In the case of pistols you have the option to both fire one shot, if neither party hit the other, the duel could be declared over. Or the duel could go until one was either wounded or dead though anything after 3 shots was considered barbaric and absurd. Contrary to what another member said the place of the duel or the field of honor was not in public.

Also, in traditional dueling there was people called 'seconds' which were representatives of each party who would be at the field of honor to act as intermediaries and would go to each side to offer one final chance at restitution and redress. They also checked the weapons to make sure they were equal and that the duel was fair. Also, before the duel, the offending party had numerous chances to retract or offer a public apology or some form of restitution to the offended party before hand and even, as stated previously, at the field of honor.

The idea of using sniper rifles is cowardly and shouldn't be included in the discussion of traditional dueling. If you are not man enough to face your offender in the field of honor then you shouldn't demand satisfaction and accept your dishonor. By sniping your offender you would only dishonor yourself further than what the offending party did to you.

By demanding satisfaction you are taking the risk of physical harm and you should bear this in mind (even though, this is all hypothetical as far as this discussion is concerned considering dueling is [sadly] illegal). As far as getting shot yourself an example that comes to mind is the duel between Andrew Jackson and Charles Dickinson. Dickinson had the first shot and fired and hit Jackson in the chest however Jackson did not go down and then fired and killed Dickinson severing an artery. Such things can happen. Dueling is cathartic and carries risks, this should be excepted. If it were legal, everyone should bear this in mind and I think it would act as a deterrent.

I am in fact NOT wrong. You are talking about Duals of honor while I am talking about a Judicial Dual. They are not the same nor are they even the same time period. This whole thread has been one huge mess of equivocation because many people do not understand history that well.

Movies do so much injustice to history. I demand a Dual of honor!

 

[Andrew Ryan]

I am in fact NOT wrong. You are talking about Duals of honor while I am talking about a Judicial Dual. They are not the same nor are they even the same time period. This whole thread has been one huge mess of equivocation because many people do not understand history that well.

You assume to much about my comments. I thought the intial post that you were responding to was about duels of honor, not judicial duels. I believe I misread things.

I demand a Dual of honor!

I accept! Name the time and the location of the field of honor. Shall it be duel by sword or by pistol?

 

[MoonLancer]

hehe . I just realized i only gave the date and not the type of dual.

I'm glad we understand each other now.

many people in this thread don't seem to realize that there were many types of duals all throughout history. And there for arguing such a broad topic without clarification can be rather confusing.

If you are in the LA area I'm sure we can find some non lethal swords to settle this with. (even though i think its already been settled)

 

[highlife]

I have never heard of a judicial duel, why would the wronged party have to be put in a position where he is potentailly even more wronged. Thats not really a justice system but boarder line anarchy. Who ever is a fast crack shot can get away with terrorizing others because all they have to do is win a duel. I could see how that could result in some cut throats in someones sleep.

 

[MoonLancer]

I have never heard of a judicial duel, why would the wronged party have to be put in a position where he is potentailly even more wronged. Thats not really a justice system but boarder line anarchy. Who ever is a fast crack shot can get away with terrorizing others because all they have to do is win a duel. I could see how that could result in some cut throats in someones sleep.

Judicial duals were not done with guns that i know of.

The wronged party is typically the one that asks the courts for the dual.

example

Me: You killed my brother highlife. I demand justice

Court: there is no evidence but the whereabouts of highlife cannot be determined at the suspected time of death. You two will fight to death. God will determine who is just.


You must understand, sociologically a person will fight very poorly if they are in the wrong. This is a very true and demonstrable fact.

You must also understand that it was believed that god himself would determine the victor. That's hardly the most irrational thing i have seen people claim to believe on these forums.

People use god to determine what they believe to be true ALL the time. The only difference is the stakes are much higher in this case.

 

[quatona]

Judicial duals were not done with guns that i know of.

The wronged party is typically the one that asks the courts for the dual.

example

Me: You killed my brother highlife. I demand justice

Court: there is no evidence but the whereabouts of highlife cannot be determined at the suspected time of death. You two will fight to death. God will determine who is just.

Me: I haven´t killed your brother, and there´s no evidence that I have. I see no reason whatsoever to engage in a fight.
If a god exists, and if this god determines what is just, he can do it without my assistence.

You must understand, sociologically a person will fight very poorly if they are in the wrong. This is a very true and demonstrable fact.

You accuse me with no evidence, and you think it´s up to me to prove anything by risking my health or even my life? You must be joking.

You must also understand that it was believed that god himself would determine the victor.

Maybe it "was believed". It isn´t broadly believed today, I don´t believe it, actually I don´t even believe there is a god.

That's hardly the most irrational thing i have seen people claim to believe on these forums.

Certainly not the most irrational, but quite irrational nonetheless.

People use god to determine what they believe to be true ALL the time. The only difference is the stakes are much higher in this case.

So?

 

[MoonLancer]

Me: I haven´t killed your brother, and there´s no evidence that I have. I see no reason whatsoever to engage in a fight.
If a god exists, and if this god determines what is just, he can do it without my assistence.

Innocent people are put to death all the time based of false witness. The only difference is in a Judicial dual, one can actively fight for their freedom. I find that reassuring.

I would really not like to ever be put in a situation where a lawyer stands between me and death.

You accuse me with no evidence, and you think it´s up to me to prove anything by risking my health or even my life? You must be joking.

Happens even today if you think about it.

Maybe it "was believed". It isn´t broadly believed today, I don´t believe it, actually I don´t even believe there is a god.

Paradigm shifts and secular morality have that effect.

 

[quatona]

Innocent people are put to death all the time based of false witness.

1. Not where I live.
2. Afaik, "in dubio pro reo" is an established maxime in most every Western country.
3. So is the rule that the burden of evidence lies with the accusing party.
4. Even if it were true that "people are put to death all the time based on false witness", I for one would like to see that fixed rather than institutionalized.

The only difference is in a Judicial dual, one can actively fight for their freedom. I find that reassuring.

Well, it´s not the only difference, and I can´t manage to find any conflict management that is based on violence reassuring.

I would really not like to ever be put in a situation where a lawyer stands between me and death.

Nor would I. I don´t, however, see how a judicial duel would the only or a particularly good solution to the problem I have with this, nor actually a solution at all.

Happens even today if you think about it.

I´m not sure I know what you are referring to. Please help me.
Anyway, even if it were true that it happens even today I wouldn´t want more of the same.

Paradigm shifts and secular morality have that effect.

Not being a theist and not being a supporter of judicial systems that consider killing an acceptable means of justice, I pretty much appreciate these paradigm shifts.
The entire "someone has died, so someone else has to die" business simply doesn´t make sense to me. Let alone that - correct me if I am wrong - someone didn´t even have to be suspected of murder (but merely of lesser offenses) for a judicial duel to be the means and method of "solving" the isssue.

 

[this_is_new]

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

I certainly would.

I certainly would not. I believe there are better ways to sort out disputes and to spend time.