Poll: Should dueling be legal?

[trooper6]

Dueling would imply we still had some code of honor.

Fuck you and every other fucking idiot that thinks we were somehow more 'honorable' in the past.
"Oh look, it's a Roman Legion coming here to enslave our men, gang-rape our women, and execute anyone who doesn't adequately fulfill those purposes, how honorable."
"Oh look, it's a bunch of knights from a neighboring kingdom coming to raze our hamlet to the ground, how honorable."
"Oh look, the local daimyo is here to execute some serfs for not producing enough rice this season, how honorable."
"Oh look, it's the Union Army coming to sack Richmond, in the cause of stopping our practice of enslaving others based on the color of their fucking skin, how honorable."

Indeed. "Codes of Honor" of the past were just social pressure systems to try and make up for the fact that there were generally no police departments until the 19th Century...around the time when we stopped having dueling as a matter of fact.

Dueling is not conducive to law, order, and civilized society. The ideologies that undergirded a society that supported dueling also supported systems wherein vast numbers of people didn't even have basic rights.

This is a bunch of weird romantic nostalgia for a time that really sucked for most people. A brutal, nasty, dirty, time.

 

[Keela]

I'd give it a yes. If gang violence can be solved without innocents getting hurt and can be solved without the cops having to get injured and having all our ambulances, cops, etc. able to use their time otherwise, I don't see it causing as many problems as it fixes. Why not?

 

[Berserker119]

No, bad idea, too many dead people as it is.

 

[wammnebu]

not a chance, the modern legal system is annoying but not fatal.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

Hell yes. I mean, there would probably be a sizeable amount of paperwork in order for it to work in the modern day, but it would make the world so much more badass.

Also, people would be far more laid back, since being an uptight douche could easily result in a fight to the death.

Yes and here is proof.
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/dueling_headerwm.jpg

Quoted for truth. This chart is actually what came to mind when I first read the title of the thread.

 

[Smokej]

A modification of the classic Duel is still used in Germany. It's called the "Mensur" and it's a traditional form of academic fencing which is used by some student corporations. It's a successor of the honor duel but with the increasing regulations of duels it's more of ritual these days.

A modern version of a duel wouldn't work, because the duel (early modern era) was always an elitist form of pride of rank. This means as well that only those were able to demand satisfaction, who were allowed to wear weapons in public and those who claimed to have a higher sense of honor (officers, university students, nobles and later reserve officers and academic graduates as well).

The sense of honor wasn't restricted to personal honor, often it was all about defending the honor of your rank. And the outcome of the duel wasn't that important, because just the participation was proof enough to show that you were a man of high honor.

Even though the main concept behind a duel is interesting it wouldn't work in our modern and liberal (western) world that abolished the estate-based society.

 

[Kadoodle]

No. We shouldn't teach people that a person who hurts their honor deserves to die. The people like that nowadays are psychos. My father once told me about a court case he was serving jury duty for, where a teenage girl was stabbed and slashed to death by another girl. When the time came to decide, there was a hung jury because of this one woman who voted "innocent;" not because of lack of evidence or logic, but because she thought that the murderer had a right to uphold her honor.

Also, what if you were a nonviolent person? If you were to refuse a duel, then you would be the weakling; the wimp; the chicken; you'd be ridiculed by society, forever an outcast. You'd be pressured into a primitive game of kill or die.

 

[trooper6]

I think it is amazing at a moment when the problem of bullying is so prominent, that people are honestly advocating dueling...which is basically legalized bullying with death...and usually not of the juicehead gorillas who are going to be calling for these duels, but of the sort of geeky people we are on this site.

 

[thePyro_13]

How do you tell the different between someone who was killed in a duel and someone who was just shot in cold blood? The survivor will tell you it was a duel in both cases.

Is duelling then next logical step for a country once they've gotten bored with being allowed to carry guns all the time? Or are you trying to bring more order to situations in which your people try to use a gun to win an unrelated argument?

 

[PurplePlatypus]

I don?t even want to know what flood gates it would open. I mean for a start who handles the aftermath. I mean at worst you have two dead bodies/injured people, and then you have to find out if it was consensual on both side which is all kind of legal shenanigans. Even just before and setting the duel; contracts, finding a safe area to use so if you are using guns or any other weapon you don?t accidentally cause damage to anything or anyone else, getting a witness, getting people that could handle the mess afterwards. I mean, even just setting up a duel would probably turn out to be a long, laboured, expensive process. Also can you just have a duel or would some outside party have to decide if the conflict is worth going through the whole thing?

I mean it?s not just going to be simple it can?t be, two people can?t just decide to have a duel, tell nobody else and wander off into a forest and if anyone gets injured or dies it?s just left there. And if you?re talking about a proper duel there?s also the first to consider as well, the duellists right hand man and all that. That?s at least four people to get sorted out for this whole mess.

 

[Verlander]

Nope. Some drunk prick starts a fight with you, kills you and gets off scott free? Not bloody likely.

 

[Levi93]

I think it should be legal as long as authorities are informed of the duel and both parties also agree I see nothing wrong.

 

[SultanP]

Drunk guy: Hey there pretty girl
Me: hey, thats my girlfriend stop flirting with her
Drunk guy: fuck off *****
Me: dude, we've been dating for 5 years... go away. Shes with me
Drunk guy: I'll do what i fucking want to!
Me: ???? You can't just do anything you want.
Drunk guy: hell yes i can. *pushes*
Me: WTF!? get lost
Drunk guy: I challenge you to a duel
Me: .... (Thinking to self) FUCK... *looks at girlfriend* FUCK.... ok, meet me outside.


NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. I do not feel like getting into a fight to the death with every drunken jackass who hits on my girlfriend. I've come to blows or nearly come to blows often enough with people. I really don't want it to be for my life the next time it happens. NO. It was a bad idea before and it's a bad idea now.

This:

More people voted yes than no?

I... I...

What?

Learn to say no, perhaps?

I am wholeheartedly in favour of duels, since both parties would have to agree, and I am a strong proponent of personal liberties. I think that if two people want to fight each other, either till death or submission, that should be allowed.

 

[blaize2010]

gladiator duels would be awesome

and so we have become rome, ladies and gentleman. might as well get out the grapes and togas and go for a full blown corrupt government

 

[blaize2010]

Drunk guy: Hey there pretty girl
Me: hey, thats my girlfriend stop flirting with her
Drunk guy: fuck off *****
Me: dude, we've been dating for 5 years... go away. Shes with me
Drunk guy: I'll do what i fucking want to!
Me: ???? You can't just do anything you want.
Drunk guy: hell yes i can. *pushes*
Me: WTF!? get lost
Drunk guy: I challenge you to a duel
Me: .... (Thinking to self) FUCK... *looks at girlfriend* FUCK.... ok, meet me outside.


NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. I do not feel like getting into a fight to the death with every drunken jackass who hits on my girlfriend. I've come to blows or nearly come to blows often enough with people. I really don't want it to be for my life the next time it happens. NO. It was a bad idea before and it's a bad idea now.

This:

More people voted yes than no?

I... I...

What?

Learn to say no, perhaps?

I am wholeheartedly in favour of duels, since both parties would have to agree, and I am a strong proponent of personal liberties. I think that if two people want to fight each other, either till death or submission, that should be allowed.

drunken jackasses are easy to beat. if you don't want to kill them and its a sword fight, just humiliate them ala captain mal in firefly. if its a gun duel, just aim for the shoulder, duck, and call 911

 

[Gigano]

I'm not convinced that he who has the best marksmanship necessarily has the best cause...

So it's an exceedingly poor way to handle conflict resolution. If both participants are declared sane and consenting adults though, then I suppose it's their choices and lives to gamble with.

Suicide shouldn't be criminalized, so ideally neither should this, at least when established beyond all doubt that it's entirely voluntary for both parties (and due collateral is put in for any and all health expenses that might arise). It's really only comparable to assisted suicide then.

Not much of a practically relevant issue though.

 

[justnotcricket]

No. There are too many people out there who, though they might have a metric buttload (perhaps too much of a sense of)honour, would basically be being murdered by an opponent who was obviously better than them, or would cheat. I'm sorry, it's never been the way to settle things. It's a waste, and if legalised would be a social regression, I think.

It's a romantic idea, to some, but just doesn't work in practical terms and ends up being a waste of human life.

EDIT: when I say 'better' I mena in terms of quick drawing, or marksmanship or whatever you like. Not in terms of their easons for dueling.

 

[Jefferist]

Yes. As has been said many times, this would weed out the over confrontational idiots and decrease our rapidly growing population.

 

[gabe12301]

It seems to me that even considering making duels legal is ass backwards. Everyone who voted "yes" has some problems.

Oh, and people saying stuff like "it would weed out stupid people" and "it would help overpopulation".

Jesus fucking christ, hope you never get any political power.

hehehehehe HAHAHAHAHA MWAHAHAHAHAHA

When I get elected the streets will run red with blood!!!!

but seriously, although I voted yes those two reasons are dumb.

 

[trooper6]

Yes. As has been said many times, this would weed out the over confrontational idiots and decrease our rapidly growing population.

Unless those over confrontational idiots are better sword fighters or pistol fighters than you. In which case the over confrontational idiots just go about murdering geeky folks who have romanticized duels.