Should dueling be illegal provided everyone involved in a consenting adult?
>>18540570But then how will lawyers make money?
duel is western coded so its good.i should be able to challenge the president to a duel without his bodyguard being able to intervene.THIS IS BASED AND WARHAMMER CODED
>>18540589>-codedGo back to tumblr
>>18540570its a niggerish way to settle disputes
>>18540570Dueling is based and should be brought back immediately. People are getting WAY too comfortable acting like jackasses in public because they know if they got popped in the mouth their attacker will at least get an aggravated assault charge / felony as a result.
>>18540570yes it should be legal, but with swords, guns are low skilled
>>18540678Why not fists/body only?Swords could be a winner through 1 lucky jab.
>>18540678>>18540694I say we use pet monsters, perhaps ones sealed in small spheres when not used for dueling
>>18540718We don't live in the Pokémon universe
>>18540589>>18540665The problem is that the one you challenge to a duel, can decline said duel. In the case of challenging the US president, a law could be passed that dictates that any US president automatically declines a duel before any challenge is being issued in the first place. Also, imagine the incapacitating hindrance of thousands of dissatisfied citizens challenging the president to a duel every single day, if the president has to decline on a person to person basis, he would be unable to do his job for it would be excessively time-consuming.It also can be loop-holed so that you can force someone to duel who can't or is much less able to while you have trained yourself to be the best duelist in the world. The match would be horribly one-sided and is basically a disguised execution.
>>18540678This. Skill beats monkey strength, but no guns because that proves nothing.
>>18540745Both parties have to accept the duel and so it doesn't matter if one side just doesn't respond (i.e. politicians who would constantly be asked to duel, just like they were at the time when dueling was in fashion)
>>18540570No. Leaving this open as an option encourages people to go and do it. It is not civil. The civil thing to do in response to an issued grievance is to prepare a formal response that will either come down to "I disagree, here's why" or "thank you for your criticism, here's what I plan to do to rectify the issue"
>>18540745the threat of death meant lincoln got his shit togheter, if the other guy that challenged him managed to stab him it would mean we wouldnt have niggers or such nigger lovers around(based)
From Chief Justice John Robert's year end report at the SCOTUS:https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2015year-endreport.pdf >It may be that Wilson’s code had exactly the opposite effect, glorifying and institutionalizing a barbarous practice that led to wanton death. Our Nation had lost Alexander Hamilton to a senseless duel in 1804. Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain could have perished in duels if their seconds, in each instance, had not negotiated an amicable solution. But others were not so fortunate; one historian has calculated that, between 1798 and the Civil War, the United States Navy lost two-thirds as many officers to dueling as it did to more than 60 years of combat at sea.>Public opinion ultimately turned against dueling as a means of settling quarrels. By 1859, eighteen of the 33 States of the Union had outlawed duels. Following the Civil War, a public weary of bloodshed turned increasingly to other forums, including the courts, to settle disputes. But reminders of the practice persist. When Kentucky lawyers are admitted to the bar, they are required, by law, to swear that they have not participated in a duel.
>>18540678>>18540694Use knives like in Dune.
>>18540570In countries were euthanasia is legal it makes sense. Plus being trans too, which has a higher death rate than dueling
>>18540570The problem is needless deaths happened when men were too scared to chicken out. Just duel privately in a discreet location.
>>18540570Yes because in the end it boils down to the extrajudicial harming or killing of one (or two) people. >>18540665>People are getting WAY too comfortable acting like jackasses in publicPeople were acting like jackasses in public when duels were still common. One of the reason for the 17th century ban on Christmas in England and her colonies was that this festival devolved into drunken mass riots. And ultimately duels were the prerogative of the nobility and later on the upper bourgeois. Peoples of the lower classes just shanked each other when there were grave disputes that couldn't be settled with mediation or the involvement of the authorities.>>18540774>Both parties have to accept the duelThat wasn't the case in history.
>>18540982The death rate for dueling is actually dramatically less than 50% to account for non fatal wounds and people just backing out/ missing. Trannies have to battle with the entire hormonal system telling them to tie a noose around their neck and hang until everything goes black forever, and most of them lose!
>>18540570>>18540570I'm 100% in support of consensual dueling.It would have solved so many problems in my life. Not to mention, so many fucktards would knock off their bullshit if arguments could get to the "put up or shut up" point.If you think of how polite things were from the late 16th to early 18th Century, I'm pretty sure the prevalence of dueling had something to do it. You were less likely to throw around words if it could turn into a deathmatch. Or even escalate to the point where you're called out to duel (when denying it would make you look like a bitch).Yeah, I'm down. It also creates a situation where a dude with no fear of death could easily dominate society, like Andrew Jackson. If not for the prevalance of dueling, Andrew Jackson would have been a nobody, but it was an easy way for him to showcase his balls of steel and coolness while under pressure.
>>18540988>making crime illegal will stop crimeYou sound like you would have been challenged to a duel
>>18540981Have you heard the saying? "Nobody wins in a knife fight. The loser dies in an alley and the winner dies in an ambulance."
>>18540990>If you think of how polite things were from the late 16th to early 18th CenturyKek, you have no idea. And to reassure you: you can just beat up or even try to kill any "adversary" of you nowadays. Of course you will get prosecuted for this but this was also the case for 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th century duels and whatever fights lower class people got into.>>18540992>making crime illegal will stop crimeI didn't make this point.
>>18540589She looks like she has mild down syndrome
>>18540570>consenting adultNo, since you can pressure someone into forcing their consent, and hence get away with murder. Even when dueling was popular it often wasn't even legal, there's just no reason to have it respected by law at all, as that only encourages petty honor killing.
>>18540988Dueling was never a poorfag thing like most retards in this thread assume it was. They think any dirty knife fight between niggers in the street is a "duel". Actual duels were used to leverage local influence or settle some outstanding debt. You could also decline but lose face or legally default on debts/cede wealth.
>>18540570This is not the only dignified way for a man to defend his honor and it should be legal.
>>18541034>Dueling was never a poorfag thing like most retards in this thread assume it was.I know. Apparently things were different in the USA where the line duels were more akin to semi-sanctioned brawls but most people itt bring up Europe.>or settle some outstanding debtNot in Europe. There debtors prisons were the legal way to deal with defaulting debtors.
Duels weren't always weapons, the challenged party could got to pick the medium. For example Mark Twain once was challenged to a duel and picked poetry writing, thats what we need
>>18541166Speaking for everyone, no your impromptu street rap battle does not actually satisfy the debt of honor.
Duels should be legal so that the idiots in society wipe each other out
>>18540570Consent is a made up concept.
>>18540570>should the murdering of the Sons of God be illegal?Yes.
No. Their body belong to the king. The king does not tolerate his talentuous men dying for their "honor", threatening the use the king can makes of their bodies for his grand purpose. Prefering your own honor rather than putting your entire life at tge service of the king's will effectively lesser his own honor, wich is way more crucial than anyone's honor.
>>18540968Dueling was for cases when such attempts failed, or were expected to fail. It never was the strongest man is telling the truth, more like don't behave like a jackass, or you end up in a duel.
>>18540570dueling with sabers while wearing goggles has nothing but upsides when it comes to the judicial process. pistols are gay though. not a real duel.
Dueling was a gatekeeping mechanism for the gentry class. The threat of being challenged to a duel, and of peer pressured into accepting the challenge, ensured that members of the gentry were committed to the gentry's values. The spread of dueling to the prosperous commercial classes was actually a sign that it was a dying custom; the gentry vigorously enforced rules against lower class dueling throughout the early modern period and only relaxed these rules when their class was disintegrating under economic pressure from the industrial revolution and the rising middle class began usurping their social role. In order to fulfill its social function of scaring away entryists(some of whom might happen to be highly skilled at combat) the outcome of a duel had to be as close to random as possible, so if one party was known to be a really good swordsman he would be expected to either agree to use weapons other than swords or to schedule the duel months into the future give his opponent an extended period in which to practice and git gud. Dueling pistols were intentionally made to be inaccurate to prevent marksmen from having an advantage.Our ruling class in the modern West is bourgeois to the core and has very bourgeois gatekeeping practices, so dueling doesn't serve any useful function in our society.
>>18542598>dueling with sabers while wearing goggles has nothing but upsides when it comes to the judicial processName a few of those upsides.
>>18540570Duelling was made illegal because far too many of the country's supposed best and brightest were off getting themselves killed in university over petty grievances and, I shit you not, poetry preferences. It's a fundamentally retarded practice.
>>18542689>everyone involved is a consenting adult?Do you hate freedom?
>>18540570Duelling can be good, but its major downsides can and should be mitigated. You don't need it to be to the death. Simply having a culturally accepted mechanism for someone to officially call people on their bullshit to the extent they'd fight over it is sufficient.I propose a modified form of boxing. Only body shots (obviously above the belt), with both combatants' torsos being given more padding than their fists. They fight until they can't anymore or until one of them gives up. Possible handicaps for disparities in size would be to increase or decrease the torso padding or add weight to the larger man to diminish his endurance.This obviously addresses the issue of lethality. But it also mitigates the risk of crippling injury. And ensures that even someone more skilled is going to get hit.Generally, the court of public opinion can handle judgement over the challenging and accepting of duels. No one is going to think less of a musician that ignores a challenge from someone that doesn't like their new album. But them declining a challenge from a former band mate they credibly fucked over in some way would obviously cause a loss of face. It may be prudent to establish the legal concept of a vexatious duellist for guys that try to use it as an excuse to start fights over minor or invented grievances.
>>18540601Yeah, you can see the same mindset that led to dueling in how blacks and white trash react to every perceived slight by chimping out because MUH HONOR DEMANDS IT.
>>18542850On the contrary, the apparent quickness to fight among the lower classes is exacerbated by the absence of codefied duelling. The intention there is as much or more about dragging the other person down to their level into nothing to lose criminality. They also hate a fair fight. Give civilized people a way to respond to their monkey business with a legally sanctioned, no sucker punches beating and you'll find them much more docile.
>>18542689This is the core problem with dueling. If it was limited to the most extreme cases of asshattery, it might even have net positive effects, but you just know that if dueling is legally accepted, it will leak down to fucking every petty dispute, especially among younger men.>but muh consenting adultsAllowing it is still a self-defeating action for society. Fertility rates already suck and things won’t get any better if we normalize lethal duels.
>>18542843>Simply having a culturally accepted mechanism for someone to officially call people on their bullshit to the extent they'd fight over it is sufficient.>But them declining a challenge from a former band mate they credibly fucked over in some way would obviously cause a loss of face. Why should I risk my body and take the chance of loosing if I can simply either call the police or press charges when I have a genuine cause?
>>18542923Because it is neither possible nor desirable to criminalize all possible anti-social behavior. Or to even draw a solid line where anti-social behavior begins and ends. Duelling, and the social consequences of both challenges and refusals to fight as judged by society, provide a more flexible, adaptable middle ground between doing nothing and trying to get someone sent to prison. Our current all or nothing approach to social consequence has shown clear weaknesses that could be addressed even with a somewhat defanged revival of duelling.>and take the chance of loosingYou misunderstand the nature of duels. Winning or losing matters less than the fact that you were willing to fight.
