I think it would be pretty badass if you could take someone to court in order to get a duel certificate to duel or whatever.
Murdering people has always been illegal.
>>18465622Factually incorrect.
I was just reading about duels in the Russian Empire the other day. They were banned officially but the officer corps and co. just ignored it despite the ever harsher laws and they couldn't do shit to stop them so they were finally made legal late in the 19th century but the Bolsheviks made them go away when they took power. Kinda interesting.You should also read Schopenhauer's opinion on the matter, it's rather intriguing.
>>18465620It was illegal before they stopped doing it. Mostly because having your upper classes kill each other is really inconvenient to a state.
>>18465620>Why did people stop duelingBecause after it was made illegal it resulted in a prosecution for murder.>and even made it illegal?Because it was both wasteful and exploitable.Wasteful in that many, many useful men died well before their time and their skills were not applied to the state's benefit, which made governments seethe. Exploitable in that it could easily be weaponized in a thousand different ways, mostly by goading social lessers into demanding a duel that would ruin them professionally (like against a superior officer in the military), or keep their mouth shut and be ruined socially anyway.>what about dueling for the purpose of murdering someone in person or through a third partyIt happened but it wasn't that common: "professional" duelers existed for this purpose, but setting up a proper duel with a gentleman isn't easy once you made a reputation as a thug for hire.And of course dueling on your own behalf comes at the risk of losing.
>>18465620They switched to guns because they leveled the paying field and fit better conceptually for deciding a matter of honor. But then they found that, in practice, it was more deadly while also being less cool. So the whole thing fell out of fashion.
>>18465620It was heavily abused. Criminals would demand you to duel Johnny Skullfucker with 300 duel victories under his belt, otherwise they'd just murder you more slowly and painfully, along with your family too. So you took your chances and tried to see if the 0,01% chance of winning the duel worked out, and he predictably got to kill you legally.
>>18465620The rich kid side kept losing the duels. So they ruined them for everyone.
>>18465622It's not murder, that's mutual combat with agreed upon witnesses, rules, and weapons.
>>18465620>whycheating
>>18465620Duels were never really legal or at the very least they were a gray area that most authorities didn't want to have to deal with.
>>18465620Because it killed the 1%. Also because honour stopped being part of your social credit system at some point and nowadays, convicted criminals with a known history of scamming their business associates while fucking their wives get to walk and live.
>>18465620Duelling was made illegal by lawyers so they could run a monopoly on your participation in the legal process.
>>18465727found the sovereign citizen
>>18465633It really boils down to this. If your society / families / whatever spend(s) time and resources on educating youth in universities and officer academies, and then those young men end up killing each other over petty disputes, it’s ultimately just a ridiculous waste of resources and potential.Perhaps the risk of getting challenged in a duel did have some positive social effects, but still, it’s just not worth it if it ends up in officers and academians killing each other over some snide remarks.
>>18465620>Why did they become illegal?Duels undermined the judicial monopoly of the state. There were of course officially sanctioned Judicial Duels in the middle ages but for those to take place preliminary court trials had to take place and often reach a point where a clear verdict couldn't be reached - thus the necessity for a judgement by God. But especially the church was against this interpretation and with the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 bannned members of the clergy to act as judges in cases where judicial duels took place, thus officially taking away the aspect of those being sanctioned by God. As the ecclesiastical influence waned the secular states were not interested in leaving parts of their jurisdiction open to chance and thus judicial duels became less and less common.>Why did people stop dueling?The non-judicial duels were a form of vigilantism. Especially the nobility (which stood in opposition to the ever centralising early modern states) was interested in keeping the state out of their affairs and thus tried to settle their issues internally - sometimes in the forms of duels. Those duels were not about upholding law but about upholding vague codes of class-bound honor. With time other groups became also "eligible" to those class-bound honor codes and thus dueling became not just limited to the old nobility. But those forms of dueling were illegal and in oppoistion to the judicial monopoly of the state and ultimately only solved (at best) direct interpersonal issues. There was nothing from stopping a party from pursuing official legal complaints after a duel was conducted. And by the 20th century dueling fell largely out of fashion as a way to settle disagreements; except for some niche cases. But it became increasingly sportifed and paved the way for modern foil fencing and academic fencing.>>18465633>Mostly because having your upper classes kill each other is really inconvenient to a state.This as well.
>>18465653>mostly by goading social lessersWhat do you mean with "social lessers"? Medieval judicial duels could see a duel between two individuals belonging to separate classesbut in the context of 17th, 18th and 19th century duels they were exclusively conducted within a class. A petty noblemen wouldn't duel a farmer regardless of circumstance.
>>18466214so the jews
>>18465620Anon, I am a literal autist. Like many retards, my brain is built wrong. My amygdala doesn't work correctly. As a direct result, I don't have the correct fear response to physical danger. I am also a trained and fairly capable fighter with swords and a few other things.Make duelling legal and there's nothing stopping retards like me from killing people who annoy us, have something we want, disagree on which train is best, ect. This would also cause a fucking ton of problems.>Rich people paying retards to pick fights with and kill anyone they don't like>It is now INCREDIBLY easy to simply bully people in compliance or silence as most people won't voluntarily get into a duel>Political opponent? Stab him. Other guy got the promotion at work? Stab him. It's extremely bad for a society with no upsides.
>>18466480>What do you mean with "social lessers"?I mean people you hold social power over>Be colonel>Talk massive shit to a captain>Captain either gets broken for dueling a superior officer or gets humiliated for not demanding satisfaction after being insultedYou see this mostly in militaries because of ranks and regulations, but in effect you could just do the same shit with any hierarchical gentlemanly pursuit by changing broke with blackballed.Duels generated massive enmity in most circumstances.
>>18466571Ahh I see what you meant. Personally I would have tried to formulate it differently but hey...Well at least within the military hierarchies the "ideal practice" was that the the "social ranking" of a person was augmented with the respective ranks. A higher rank ought not to duel with a lower rank. But this gets diffused by the fact that all officers were gentlemen and thus also "entitled" to a duel. And outside of the military the profession (i.e a judge or lawyer) did not matter as here it was gentleman vs gentleman.
>>18466571>be colonel>talk massive shit to a captain>get stabbed to deathYour assessment of the relative risks in this scenario are completely retarded.Right now, today, at this moment in a world where dueling no longer exists superior officers in militaries all across the world abuse their authority and the threat of reprisal to literally rape their subordinates.
>>18466636>Personally I would have tried to formulate it differently but hey...I'm a shit writer, I'm well aware.>ideal practiceYeah but see the point of calling it exploitable is to point out that it's easy to circumvent the ideal practices.>>18466678>Your assessment of the relative risks in this scenario are completely retarded.Neither my assessment nor yours makes any difference to the fact that it happened.
>>18466741>Neither my assessment nor yours makes any difference to the fact that it happened.So you can't write or read.
>>18466759Anon, you bring up irrelevant shit and you complain when I don't care? What do you expect to accomplish?Since you clearly think I didn't get your point, explain yourself instead of being snippy like a little bitch.
>>18466833>x is bad because y happened>pointing out that y^2 still happens without x is irrelevantOfficers abusing their subordinates is not a consequence of dueling. It's something people always do using whatever means are available. If anything, the presence of dueling makes this behavior riskier for the superior officer than it would otherwise be since there's a chance he could be killed over it.You already knew all of this. But maybe now you can stop playing dumb.
>>18466202>nobody was ever a selfish chud who cared only for material gains before the ~19th centuryWhy do tradfags unironically believe this?
>>18466844>It's something people always do using whatever means are available.So we shouldn't get rid of said means whenever they are identified? You're not making any sense.>If anything, the presence of dueling makes this behavior riskier for the superior officer than it would otherwise be since there's a chance he could be killed over it.Refer to >>18466636:>Well at least within the military hierarchies the "ideal practice" was that the the "social ranking" of a person was augmented with the respective ranks. A higher rank ought not to duel with a lower rank.The colonel could and would send for the captain's arrest once the challenge was made. All dueling did was force the lower ranked individual in a catch-22 scenario.
>>18466895>So we shouldn't get rid of said means whenever they are identified?You quoted both of the answers to this in this reply, you gorilla nigger.>the colonel could and would mark himself a dishonorable coward in front of all of his menYour refusal to confront the modern reality staring you in the face is the greatest counter argument against you. That a mere insult carried a choice between risking physical or social death is a blatantly less one sided environment than risk free anal rape.
>>18466929>the colonel could and would mark himself a dishonorable coward in front of all of his menLmao no, social mores are actually on his side. He might engender disdain for his bullying behaviour (and even that is iffy), but not for refusing to fight his lesser.>risk free anal rapeYou're just projecting your fetishes here aren't you?
>>18466996>start shit with subordinates>pull rank and punish subordinates to run from the resulting duel>in an era where you actually have to fight next to your subordinatesHave fun choking to death under your horse.And I see we've finally entered the denying reality phase of "I took up a position I can't defend but refuse to admit it."
>>18467003The other Anon here.Your whole arguement hinges on the circumstance where one officer is somehow bullying another officer of a lower rank. Which is quite the hairpull if you don't bring up concrete examples. Why? Because being a commissioned officer (regardless of rank) automatically exempts you from nearly all of the meanual works used to punish common soldiers and even puts you in another strata of the military justice system. Because at the end of the day they were all gentlemen.
