Duelling

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Do you support duelling as a manner of settling disputes and/or "recreational" duelling (Mensur)?

[Ronin]

I don´t fight fair.....I´m more inclined to smash a chair on your noggin when you´re not looking. :laugh4:

[FactionHeir]

What type of duel you talking? Handgun and 10 feet or with a Rapier? Maybe even a fistfight?

I quite like those in old films and in games, though I imagine people nowadays will try to cheat. Like walking 9 instead of 10 before turning with the gun and all.

Is there actually a law banning those? They used to be legal I think.

[BigTex]

All for it, but not with handguns. There needs to be some skill involved. Swords make it to quick at that, knife's and fists.

Pretty sure that duel's qualify as mansluaghter in most countries. If they arent outlawed specifically their covered in laws dealing with homicide, sadly.

[King Henry V]

It is the only honourable way to resolve a dispute between gentlemen, provided of course that they are gentlemen. If they are not, then the old fisty-cuffs is just as acceptable.

[PBI]

I am opposed to it.

Resolving disputes is what the law is for. Failing that, the ability to deal with those you don't like with without resorting to violence is a basic prerequisite of civilized society.

I certainly don't see why prowess in physical combat has any bearing on the legitimacy of either side in a dispute. Seems mostly like a means for those skilled in combat to take whatever they want from those who are not.

Furthermore, I consider the right to life to be inalienable. Meaning, there is no contract you can enter into to surrender it. Since your opponent in a duel cannot have legitimately waived their right to life, killing them is murder.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Is there actually a law banning those? They used to be legal I think.

It is illegal in most jurisdictions, but I believe it is legal in certain US states, except by members of the National Guard.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I am opposed to it.

Resolving disputes is what the law is for. Failing that, the ability to deal with those you don't like with without resorting to violence is a basic prerequisite of civilized society.

I certainly don't see why prowess in physical combat has any bearing on the legitimacy of either side in a dispute. Seems mostly like a means for those skilled in combat to take whatever they want from those who are not.

It is a way of settling questions of honour which must be agreed to by both parties, not a way of doing divorce settlements.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Nope. I'm against it.

The only one who can harm my honor is myself.

CR

[Kralizec]

Against. You don't stand a chance against Jotun anyway We have courts to settle disputes.


It is a way of settling questions of honour which must be agreed to by both parties, not a way of doing divorce settlements.

It's as backwards and primitive as honour killings. But if it's on mutual agreement, I grant that it's a great plus that it will only lead to idiots killing idiots.

Just curious, what sort of disputes do you have in mind that ought to be settled by duels?

[FactionHeir]

Usually tends to be over material goods or women I think.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Just curious, what sort of disputes do you have in mind that ought to be settled by duels?

Well, naturally legal disputes can be settled in a court of law. I was thinking more where a party has been insulted, or a third party has been insulted. Defending honour, so to speak. Or, as in the case of Mensur, tradition.

[Lemur]

Much more interesting if you could duel over small claims and insurance issues. Your neighbor built a fence that you believe is two feet into your property? Duel!

[Kralizec]

Who is the barbarian wuss who voted for non-lethal dueling? ~;p

Joking, of course.

[Hosakawa Tito]

"recreational" duelling (Mensur)?

Killing for fun? Not my cup of tea. However, some of my colleagues from work and I get together for some paintball madness once in a while. Kind of like 'playing army' for adults, and them babies do sting and leave welts & bruises. Paintball dueling...could be a happy compromise.:tomato::hmg:

[yesdachi]

If both participants agree to the rules then I am ok with it. But I am also ok with suicide, abortion and euthanasia.

IIRC the concept of sword duels in the “west” fell out of favor when they started cheating (sucker moves that were planned and practiced) in France back in the time of wigs. But they used little girl swords only fit for dancing and tea. I would choose a Dotanuki or something with a little more testosterone. :viking:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Killing for fun? Not my cup of tea.

Mensur is not killing - it is very rare for death to occur. It's not really a duel either, as there is no winner or loser. This also answers Fenring's statement.

[Devastatin Dave]

Its hard to consider. Now if we're talking about duelling bangos and the possibility of forced sodomy, I'm all for it!!! :yes:

[PBI]

I retract my earlier opposition. I had not considered the possibilities of banjo duelling.

[LittleGrizzly]

If used instead of huge armies to settle national disputes then im all for it...

[yesdachi]

If used instead of huge armies to settle national disputes then im all for it...

Well then it is just an extension of the Olympics. in which case I suggest the duel be… swimming. ~D

[BigTex]

Much more interesting if you could duel over small claims and insurance issues. Your neighbor built a fence that you believe is two feet into your property? Duel!

Exactly, get rid of that puritanicle feminate slap fest known as small claims court. Man up, solve it the proper way, duel! If you win, then obviously your arguement was the stronger and correct.

[CountArach]

Might is not right... This has to be the worst way to settle disputes.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Might is not right... This has to be the worst way to settle disputes.

Not legal disputes necessarily, but disputes of honour.

[PBI]

Regarding honour, I feel Crazed Rabbit was right on the money with this:



The only one who can harm my honor is myself.

[Incongruous]

Might is not right... This has to be the worst way to settle disputes.

Yeah, money makes right tends to be so much better.
Or perhaps even, technicality makes right?

[HoreTore]

Do you support duelling as a manner of settling disputes and/or "recreational" duelling (Mensur)?

You're asking whether or not I support "Might is right"?

No, the stone age was a few thousand years ago....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You're asking whether or not I support "Might is right"?


It has nothing to do with "might is right", but two consenting adults who, for whatever reason, decide to duel.

[HoreTore]

It has nothing to do with "might is right", but two consenting adults who, for whatever reason, decide to duel.

Bah. I spit on your flirt with aristocratic macho-nonsense.

Taking a life is illegal. And it should remain as such.

[Incongruous]

Bah. I spit on your flirt with aristocratic macho-nonsense.

Taking a life is illegal. And it should remain as such.

No it isn't, at least not in certain circumstances.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Bah. I spit on your flirt with aristocratic macho-nonsense.

Taking a life is illegal. And it should remain as such.

Do you support assisted suicide? If both parties agree to a duel in writing, both should have the reasonable expectation that they will die. Like soldiers, if you will.

[CountArach]

Yeah, money makes right tends to be so much better.
Or perhaps even, technicality makes right?
I thought that this was about non-legal matters? Besides, I don't think our current court system works, so that argument holds no sway with me.

Do you support assisted suicide? If both parties agree to a duel in writing, both should have the reasonable expectation that they will die. Like soldiers, if you will.
Euthanasia and Duelling are incomparable. One is about choosing to end your own life. One is killing another person.

[PBI]

It's an interesting take on it, however instead of viewing it as assisted suicide you could equally well view it as premeditated murder.

For the record, I do not support assisted suicide for anyone but the terminally ill. Certainly not for perfectly healthy young men who still have plenty to contribute to society. The example of Evariste Galois always springs to mind, a brilliant young mathematician killed in a duel aged 20.

[rory_20_uk]

If two morons want to kill each other, from thugs fighting with broken bottles to aristos with platinum swords I really don't have a problem with it. Chances are they're going to do it anyway. At least no one else wil get hurt.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Anyway, EMFM, have you been getting inspiration from muslims lately?:inquisitive:

[Kralizec]

Do you support assisted suicide? If both parties agree to a duel in writing, both should have the reasonable expectation that they will die. Like soldiers, if you will.

That's a good argument, actually. But even in places where asisted suicide it's proceeded by careful deliberation and review by medical experts. In contrast I don't see how you can prevent scenarios where one drunk challenges someone and the other is to far gone to refuse while he otherwise would have.

[rory_20_uk]

With regulation. Rules such as has to be sober, written contract etc etc.

It might stop drunks killing each other on the street if they have to get things sorted out and the red rage will have settled down.

~:smoking:

[CountArach]

With regulation. Rules such as has to be sober, written contract etc etc.

It might stop drunks killing each other on the street if they have to get things sorted out and the red rage will have settled down.

~:smoking:
No it won't help with that at all. Drunk people are still going to kill each other - if they are drunk enough to kill someone what makes you think they are going to stop and arrange for a challenge? Besides, if, as you suggest, they have to be sober to do it... then it physically cannot help anything.

[KukriKhan]

What is your stance on duelling?

No problem. It's just as ridiculous as war, with its 'rules' about who, and how, one human can kill another human.

Just know that where I live, the winner/killer gets to go to jail for the rest of his/her life, and maybe be served a life-ending drug cocktail as well.

[yesdachi]

It's an interesting take on it, however instead of viewing it as assisted suicide you could equally well view it as premeditated murder.

For the record, I do not support assisted suicide for anyone but the terminally ill. Certainly not for perfectly healthy young men who still have plenty to contribute to society. The example of Evariste Galois always springs to mind, a brilliant young mathematician killed in a duel aged 20.

So… if it were a pair of terminally ill people it would be ok? ~D


We have thousands of years of animal instinct built into us and yet we try and hide it behind a fake sophistication where being physical is taboo. A personal dispute has to be resolved by courts and laws that are filled with loopholes and emotionless technicalities. I don’t think every argument needs to be solved with a death match but I think a good smack down now and again is healthy. Flashes of my childhood come to mind where fighting with my friends and brother was a good way to blow off steam and settle arguments. Maybe sometimes we need to embrace the inner animal.

And remember…

The first rule of fight club, you do not talk about fight club.

[Ronin]

We have thousands of years of animal instinct built into us and yet we try and hide it behind a fake sophistication where being physical is taboo. A personal dispute has to be resolved by courts and laws that are filled with loopholes and emotionless technicalities. I don’t think every argument needs to be solved with a death match but I think a good smack down now and again is healthy. Flashes of my childhood come to mind where fighting with my friends and brother was a good way to blow off steam and settle arguments. Maybe sometimes we need to embrace the inner animal.



we have plenty of laws that go against our basic animal instincts because our instincts don´t take into account the rights of other people....and the respect of such rights is necessary for us to function in a society...

if laws that go against our instincts where to be thrown away then one could make the case that for example the definition of rape should be removed from the law.....after all If I see a pretty girl walking down the street and my instincts tell me to have sex with her then what´s the problem?...the fact that she might not be so inclined?...pfff....I am stronger than her so I can force it so what´s the problem any way?

likewise 2 people kicking the crap and/or killing eachother does not "solve" anything.....it does not determine who is right....only who is stronger/more well trained/luckier/whatever.

[rory_20_uk]

If both of sound mind and body accede to this method of despute resolution, that's fine.

~:smoking:

[yesdachi]

we have plenty of laws that go against our basic animal instincts because our instincts don´t take into account the rights of other people....and the respect of such rights is necessary for us to function in a society...

if laws that go against our instincts where to be thrown away then one could make the case that for example the definition of rape should be removed from the law.....after all If I see a pretty girl walking down the street and my instincts tell me to have sex with her then what´s the problem?...the fact that she might not be so inclined?...pfff....I am stronger than her so I can force it so what´s the problem any way?

likewise 2 people kicking the crap and/or killing eachother does not "solve" anything.....it does not determine who is right....only who is stronger/more well trained/luckier/whatever.

I am not talking about throwing out all the laws that allow us to function as a society. I purposely left out the sexual aspect but that is another topic we have tried to repress to the point it is almost sacrilegious to have an “impure” thought, which only builds the frustration that can be vented with a good physical tussle.

How many single people go to bed every night alone because they were too cautious/proper/shy/guilty to let an attractive someone know they would like to spend some animal time with them? I don’t know but I know there are a lot of randy people out there that could use a good nights worth of instinct (Olympic village anyone).

Occasionally consenting adults ought to embrace their animal, be it fighting, sex or anything else physical.

Who says two people kicking the crap out of each other needs to "solve" anything.

[Ronin]

Occasionally consenting adults ought to embrace their animal, be it fighting, sex or anything else physical.

Who says two people kicking the crap out of each other needs to "solve" anything.

We are kind of in agreement then...


I have no problem with 2 consenting adults that decide they want to bring violence upon each other....as far as I know the law already has no problem with this...it only becomes a police matter if someone files an assault charge.

but branding this a "duel" and giving it a specific definition in law gives it an air of significance that the act itself does not deserve......


as far as the sexual thing I also agree with you that people should be in tune with their sexual desires and less preoccupied with societal taboos...but that still doesn´t equate with throwing the rule book out the window...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Anyway, EMFM, have you been getting inspiration from muslims lately?:inquisitive:

Hardly. Duelling is a European tradition where two equals can settle personal matters if they so wish, not someone killing his wife because she wasn't a virgin. Nobody is being forced to duel.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think i could support it in a sense, no weapons and no fighting to the death. Accidents happen, but something like boxing someone can throw the towel in or the referee can call it, if there's two people who really want to beat the crap out of each other then let them go for it legally, though i would probably challenge a few local policemen, meaning i could insult them if they backed out (or legally get some revenge whilst getting my ass handed to me)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Duelling would be a bad idea. You'd just end up with lots of idiots wasting the health services money.

On the other hand, it would be hilarious to see the whole slap in the face with the glove thing again. :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

Nobody is being forced to duel.

We both know that's just wishful thinking.

[LittleGrizzly]

Just stick it on tv in exchange for healthcare being provided for all duellers, im sure tv companys would snap it up, i'd like to see some flat out brawling between fairly normal guys, UFC is good but give me some unskilled flat out aggressive street fighting anyday!

It would be some great entertainment!!

[seireikhaan]

Duel with wooden swords, or something else non-lethal, if you want. I don't care if two guys want to bash each other up a bit as long as they're not doing any serious damage.

[Papewaio]

It is stupid. Young people suffer from peer pressure to drink and smoke. Men of all species will do dangerous things to impress females that are present. Heck even guppies have been shown to do the equivalent of 'train surfing' if females are present, take them away and they don't do such foolish things.

As much as I think our meme's and gene's when in alignment can be far more productive, I don't think foolishly wasting resources is a grand act.

The act of creating life, raising that individual, teaching them and keeping them healthy... all to throw that life away on some moronic notion of personal honour in a duel. That is the pinnacle of sheer idiocy. Honour your country, your ancestors and your ideals, but do not pick a path so pathetic that all that society has invested into is thrown away over a personal insult.

Create don't destroy.

If people are so out of tune with their instincts that they think dueling to the death is natural and healthy then they have a lot of maturing to do. Most animals that fight over mates do so with minimal damage done were possible, personally I prefer the Bonobo's dueling :2thumbsup:. As for those who can't form the beast with two backs because they have feel curtailed by social norms, then they too will be edited out of the evolutionary track.

[Ice]

No.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

We both know that's just wishful thinking.

Sorry, but perhaps you'd care to explain how people will be forced to duel when their identity must be verified, they have to submit a signed paper to a third party, etc.?

[Strike For The South]

Sorry, but perhaps you'd care to explain how people will be forced to duel when their identity must be verified, they have to submit a signed paper to a third party, etc.?

Because men feel the need to meet a challenge and the utter embarrassment that duel turned down would bring would be to great. Hell I drink when people call me out. I hate to see what I would do if someone challenged to kill me.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Because men feel the need to meet a challenge and the utter embarrassment that duel turned down would bring would be to great. Hell I drink when people call me out. I hate to see what I would do if someone challenged to kill me.

You're sober, have to sign a contract, wait for a while before the actual duel. If you haven't cooled down by then...

[PBI]

People already can duel away to their hearts' content. We'll just arrest the winner for murder afterwards.

It's hard for me to understand why we should allow people who are willing to gun each other down in cold blood over mere insults or percieved lack of "respect" to wander around free. If their so-called honour is really that important to them it's hard to see why they should not be expected to bear a jail term in order to defend it.

[CountArach]

You're sober, have to sign a contract, wait for a while before the actual duel. If you haven't cooled down by then...
I think the point was more to do with peer pressure forcing people to fight, something which I agree is a valid point.

[yesdachi]

...We'll just arrest the winner for murder afterwards.

Would it be murder or, if the other person is trying to kill you, would it be self defense?

[CountArach]

Would it be murder or, if the other person is trying to kill you, would it be self defense?
It would be murder because you started by actively seeking to kill them.

[HoreTore]

I think the point was more to do with peer pressure forcing people to fight, something which I agree is a valid point.

:2thumbsup:

[yesdachi]

It would be murder because you started by actively seeking to kill them.

But they actively sought to kill me.

[CountArach]

But they actively sought to kill me.
Well by that argument they were acting in self-defence, so you were in fact committing murder.

[yesdachi]

Well by that argument they were acting in self-defence, so you were in fact committing murder.

If they would have won they would have been acting in self defense. I get the feeling we could keep going around on this argument. ~D

[CountArach]

If they would have won they would have been acting in self defense. I get the feeling we could keep going around on this argument. ~D
Well yeah, but I don't accept it is self-defence :wink: . If you sign up to this, you are aware of the risks and your state aim is the death of the other person for whatever reason. Hence, it is murder.

[PBI]

I wondered about the self defense thing, but at least according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat) there is a so-called Duty to Retreat, whereby you can only plead self-defense if violence was the only option and you had made every attempt to avoid the conflict. Since in this case you are actively seeking out a conflict it's not self defense, it's murder, the same as if you had started a fight which got out of hand and resulted in you killing the other person.