I don’t know…
However, dueling was falling out of favor something like 200 years ago…there must have been some reason. I’d have to do research to find out what those reasons were.
Even if we were to stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the drawbacks of legalized dueling could all be mitigated, what would be the advantage? Don’t just tell us why this isn’t a bad idea; tell us why it’s a good idea.
Scroll back up the thread…all most all of the highlights for why it was a bad idea have been hit already. Here is the Wiki version of the history of dueling for anyone who is interested.
Bottom line though is that the whole concept of dueling stems I believe from the idea of a warrior culture or an aristocracy. It has no place in a modern society and stems from a time either before the rule of law or when things were a lot less rigorous. We have enough problems without bringing back quasi-legal ways to murder each other at the drop of an insult…we find enough ways to do that in any case.
-XT
What about people who couldn’t afford the notary fee? Should the federal government have a dueling coupon program?
Did Vox ever clearly state what they wanted to accomplish by legalizing deuling? If it’s “he wants to be able to kill people for fun”, he should probably take up video gaming or paint balling. If it’s something else, then what?
Yes. He clearly stated that he’s not interested on bringing back dueling per se, but in presenting the idea as a counter argument to those who want to legalize drugs and prostitution. A sort of “if you accept this, why won’t you accept that”? Sort of argument.
On the opposite side, I take the position that yes, stupid people should be able to kill each other safely and orderly. But dueling wouldn’t actually prosper in a society where concepts like honor are laughably old fashioned, anyway.
Hmmm… too many rules. I doubt anyone full of rage is willing to discuss
a duel or let his/her adversary have any say in the conditions of a duel.
Either way, if it goes to the death, the winner of the duel goes to jail for life,
or executed anyway. That equals two planned murders.
As an aside, I invite all to watch Drunk History starring Michael Cera
on the Alexander Hamilton / Burr duel reenactment. Too effin’ funny!
And it provides an alternate ending to a duel outcome, of course.
As a business manager, I don’t want to think about having to deal with my employees calling in sick because they were injured in a duel.
Ah, so it’s a stupid false analogy argument that is being thrown down instead of a real argument for the issure he’d really like to argue, but can’t. That explains a lot.
True; it would only appeal to people who are very drunk, very stupid, or very confident in their own ability to win.
Killing is bad, I don’t just think it is. No matter how ritualized and regulated it may be, dueling is still just murder.
You’re equating drinking, smoking, fucking, and snorting with killing? No wonder you can’t find the harm in a shoot out. Yes we allow people to do all sorts of dangerous things but in a duel you aren’t shooting yourself, someone else is shooting you and you are shooting at someone else, so saying you aren’t hurting anyone by being in a duel is moronic. Just because you gave a guy permission to kill you does not give him the right to commit murder.
It’s retribution, which cannot be allowed to be carried out by affected parties.
No, I am afraid you are wrong there. In a pistol duel, honor was satisfied merely by the exchange of shots. In sword duels, “first blood” was enough. Or read up on the German student duels. The fatality rate for duels is rarely as high as 50% (cite).
Regards,
Shodan
It’s the best there is.
Sure. You could call them Private Duel Ouchers.
If that counts as duelling, then duelling via paintball gun is already legal.
Note that I am not seriously advocating legalized dueling…however, potential benefits:
-
Profit. I’m convinced you could sell enough tickets, PPV, related merchandise, DVDs, etc to make money. Americans will pay to watch people fake-fight (pro wrestling), or really fight-- boxing or MMA. Why not pay to watch people take it to the next level and fight to the death? This would create jobs and tax revenue. (Remember I called dibs on the PPV rights early in the thread).
-
Reduce gang violence. I think if you package it right, gangs would be all over it. No more driveby emptying a clip into a crowd to get back at a rival gang that was getting back at you for getting back at them. Play up the honor/machismo thing, add in some PPV exposure, maybe some gambling action.
-
Loser’s estate gets a cut of the profits, so his kids/family aren’t out anything but his presence.
-
If there’s a formal governing body…say the World Dueling Federation…running the show, you have controls in place to prevent cheating, not honoring a withdrawal, etc.
One problem with allowing dueling is that it raises the stakes of minor altercations. While it feels nice to get satisfaction over a disagreement, as a society we have decided that, for example, soda preference is not a valid reason to kill someone over, even if they agree that it is, and even if they’re being a total twit about it.
Many people who advocate dueling (or other honor-based systems of resolving disagreements) do so because they believe it will raise the level of discourse and politeness. The idea is that a heavily armed society is a polite society because you don’t dare offending someone who’s willing to throw down. Unfortunately, that’s not a given. A valid strategy to attain status in a society in which honor and the willingness to kill for it is strongly valued is to go all-in on even the slightest violation, making others so fearful of your willingness to kill/die over minor disagreements that they will refuse to disagree with you at all. What’s really valued isn’t honor, it’s fear.
This does not lead to improved civil discourse.
Can someone publicly call you a coward if you refuse to duel with them, even though they want the duel for obviously stupid reasons?
Of course! If you refuse to duel you will be shamed before the entirety of that segment of society which we all hope will kill itself off in duels as soon as possible.
So what happens if Mr. Smith impugns Mr. Jones’ honor, calling him a “scruffy-looking nerf-herder”? Mr. Jones demands satisfaction, and challenges Mr. Smith, but Mr. Smith refuses to accept the challenge, thinking duelling is silly. Yet Mr. Smith continues to insult and impugn Mr. Jones, calling him a “limp-wristed goat fellator with delusions of grandeur”.
Now, in a culture that values honor for honor’s sake, Mr. Smith would no longer be taken seriously by anyone again. Other people would deride Mr. Smith’s honor at other opportunities, because he failed to take up the challenge. Not only that, but Mr. Smith’s friends and family would get a poor reputation, because of Mr. Smith’s lack of honor. This would lead to others being insulted or challenged to duels on his behalf, etc. Thus societal pressure for Mr. Smith to accept the challenge, or risk offending his own family and friends.
But in our society, the honor thing is not really in play. I mean, people can have a sense of personal honor at stake, but refusing a challenge does not carry the same societal blacklist. So what does Mr. Jones do then? Returned insults and repeated challenges to duel are refused, but there’s no societal pressure to assuage the insult.
Start a fistfight right there? Threaten him with “You will regret this!”, then go off and plan his murder or other “sensible” retribution? Echange ever more creative insults until the audience decides the victor by acclimation? Oh wait, their pretty much in the same situation they are in without recourse to duelling. So what does duelling gain the challenger, other than the opportunity to look like a pompous ass?
The flipside situation, the culture shifts the other way so honor is taken seriously. So you get professional duelists being hired to take out opponents. Sure the challengee, gets to pick the weapon, but if honor is such an important part of society, then people can be manipulated through insults to their honor to challenge the hired duelist, and thereby let the duelist choose the weapon.
Anyone is always free to call anyone else a coward in public, for any reason. And the public is always free to give that label of coward exactly as much significance as they want, for any reason.