NationStates Jolt Archive

Assume that a law has been passed allowing gladitorial style fights to the death. Both contestants have given their consent, and are of sound mind.

Would you watch?

Would you be willing to participate for a sufficient sum of (tax free?) cash?

Note: This is not a judicial punishment. I am not asking if you would watch two condemned prisoners forced into combat. I thought the question made that quite clear, but some people either cannot or will not comprehend even short simple questions.

No. Simple as.

Neither watch nor participate.

my question is: why in the whereandwhatever would i want to?

i can't immagine how i would in any way be gratified by doing so.
now watching nonleathal sexual torture, in which the victum was actualy brought to sexual gratification and not just physicly, if that's actualy even possibe other then in fiction, ...

but people or other creatures actualy killing each other except for lunch?
i don't get it.

i know historicly it's been done, and supposedly drew huge audiances, the victors being considered something of celebraties while at the same time still often slaves.

hoomans are just wierd.

=^^=
.../\...

No dice.

I would absoulty watch. Theres nothing more natural or raw than giving in to the animal entincts to fight it out til someone is dead.

...only if they used inflated condoms to do so. And they wore funny hats.

I would absoulty watch. Theres nothing more natural or raw than giving in to the animal entincts to fight it out til someone is dead.

the pretense of this being an animal instinct is one of the biggest big lies of all times. not that it doesn't ever happen. i'm not pretending that. but it is generaly pretty unusual circumstances under which it ever does.

creatures will kill for lunch yes. and they'll fight for mates or territory, depending on species, but these latter are almost never fatal nor intended to be. occasionaly a fatality my occur, but this is the exception and not the intent.

even with different species competing over the same territory this is still rare, though perhapse less so then the other examples.

only humans would consider this any kind 'sport'

so don't give with 'animal instincts' bit. that's pure fecal matter.

=^^=
.../\...

"Unquestionably yes to both"

Why the Hell not? I would love to watch and participate. It would be a Satanist's dream to finally be able to fully unleash his anger and to use it to legally kill an hated enemy.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

I would participate and watch.

I wouldn't want any money though, and I'll explain why.

Someone mentioned humans seeing this as sport and I agree, its sport.

Just as hunting is sport, however hunting is killing creatures less intelligent then yourself.

Do we pay hunters to go do something they enjoy?

Nope, so why should I be paid to kill another human?

When it is two humans, you both - unless one of the two are mentally ill/retarded(not meant offensive, thats the term)- have a standard line of intelligence.

This, for myself, makes the kill much more worthy and gratifying; even less guilt ridden then killing a (lawyer)quail.


Add on to this that other humans can observe such a negative subject(death) and enjoy themselves, then I'm for it 'till I heard a decent, IMO, counter arguement.

I'd watch...and as long as the money is good, and I'm allowed to have some input into the actual combat scenario, I'd probably participate as well.

I'm not participating if I get ambushed by tigers, Maximus style...but if I at least get to pick my own gear, then I'm down. :)

As long as I have a private suite or balcony in the arena to view it from, absolutely. But combat, absolutely not...I'm too comfortable watching others fight to the death from my private suite to even consider engaging in combat.

i'd watch, so i wouldn't puss out in participating

Does claymation count?

I love listening to all these people go "AW HELL YEAH I'M A COLD BLOODED KILLER". I can guarantee nobody in this thread has even killed a sentient being before. And here I thought the NationStates board was relatively mature.

By the way, no. Don't plan on dying and don't care enough to watch.

Unquestionably yes to both

Bring back the days of gladiatorial combat. My only conditions are that they all have to have sweet roman-esque names, and lions must be featured somewhere.

Assume that a law has been passed allowing gladitorial style fights to the death. Both contestants have given their concent, and are of sound mind.

Would you watch?

Would you be willing to participate for a sufficient sum of (tax free?) cash?
Bloodsport. How barbaric.

There is enough violence in the world without adding to it for entertainment purposes. Legalized murder...no thanks!!

obviously i'd watch, it'd be hilarious. And obviously i'd never take part, because I might die.

Geez, no! Seriously, how can two people enter into a contest knowing that they had only a 50% chance of survival? I wouldn't call anyone who willingly took those odds to be sound of mind. And how anyone, in this day and age, enjoy seeing two people slaughter each other for sport is beyond me!

Seriously, I'd be disgusted if something like this were allowed!

Knowing that some point in my earlier years I was more or less suicidal. So I'd probably be participating in it just to find a purpose and maybe glory.

That was a long time ago though, now, I might watch most of the fight but turn off when it comes to the killing part. I'm not much of a killer.

As long as the gladiators were doing it willingly I would watch, but not participate.

i think people on death row should have to become gladiators

it would provide entertainment, they wouldn't be on death row for as long (save tax money and more humane = less shower rape), it would provide an outlet for the agression already possessed by the inmates and it would be just plain cool.

There's no way I could get excited about a contest in which a human being will be killed.

Now, make it a vicious fight that's *not* to the death, maybe.

I would much rather have legalized duels than gladiator fights. As for people who question the morality of people fighting each other... Human history is bathed in blood. Do you watch TV? If so, you have probably seen imitated death. Sometimes realistic enough to look real. This would be the same, only with people dying. I say, do it with death row prisoners. A much better use of doomed flesh.

Isn't this sort of..Uh... Unconstitutional? The only way (legally) it would be done is if the contestants were prisoners, since they have no rights. However, they would have to be prisoners sentenced to death. In which case it would be cruel and unusual punishment. *ponders*... Meh, people kill people anyways, even if it's sick, I suppose making a brand new legal way to do it works. Reality T.V. is gonna get pretty outrageous when they have to kill humans to get people to watch it... Whatever gets the ratings, eh?

I would much rather have legalized duels than gladiator fights. As for people who question the morality of people fighting each other... Human history is bathed in blood. Do you watch TV? If so, you have probably seen imitated death. Sometimes realistic enough to look real. This would be the same, only with people dying. I say, do it with death row prisoners. A much better use of doomed flesh.

Imitated death is way different from RL. I mean, usually when someone dies on screen, you see blood seeping from, what looks like a bullet wound, ok, quite realistic, how often have you seen someone die in one of these movies from having half his skull blown off (usually all you see is them with the gun in their mouth, then pan away and see the blood spatter on the wall behind), seeing someone having limbs blown off after stepping on a mine, having your throat cut - not the rivers of blood thing with a thin red leaking line across the front, but a wide, ear to ear smile with plenty of throat bits, air bubbles from a sliced trachea, etc, etc? Seeing someone actually die in front of you, nad you knowing that they're not going to get up afterwards and dust themselves off is just a little different from seeing someone's life ebb away as you watch. No, this type of 'entertainment' is not MY idea of fun...

There's no way I could get excited about a contest in which a human being will be killed.

Now, make it a vicious fight that's *not* to the death, maybe.


But that's what WWE is for!

But that's what WWE is for!

Too bad it's fake.

All the UFC needs now is weaponry and I'll watch.

What two consenting adult prisoners want to do to each other on live TV is none of my business.

Though I'd definitely watch if it involved entertaining violence.

I don't watch violent movies to see the violence.

Considering these gladiator fights are mere violence and there are other types of more entertaining entertainments out there, I would simply not go, for lack of interest.

It just wouldn't be any fun.

never !!!!!!!:upyours:

I voted watch but not participate. I'm not in my fighting shape. If you'd have asked me about three years ago, I'd have voted to participate as well provided the money was right.

Too bad it's fake.

All the UFC needs now is weaponry and I'll watch.


Oh, that I know, but those guys still get hurt sometimes, it's always fun to see them pretending to pound each other's head in....

the pretense of this being an animal instinct is one of the biggest big lies of all times. not that it doesn't ever happen. i'm not pretending that. but it is generaly pretty unusual circumstances under which it ever does.

creatures will kill for lunch yes. and they'll fight for mates or territory, depending on species, but these latter are almost never fatal nor intended to be. occasionaly a fatality my occur, but this is the exception and not the intent.

even with different species competing over the same territory this is still rare, though perhapse less so then the other examples.

only humans would consider this any kind 'sport'

so don't give with 'animal instincts' bit. that's pure fecal matter.

=^^=
.../\...

why would humans have sport if it wasn't instinctive? Almost everything is instinctive. If it wasn't instinct to have fun and do stuff like sport, or killing something for the sake of killing it, people wouldn't. I think you should man up a bit.

Not only would I watch, I would put up money to see criminals have to fight to their death, only to have the victor 'taken out of the equation' as well. Perhaps feeding them to lions, or sharks. If we were to publically execute a bunch of criminals, perhaps these wastes of society would think twice before following in their parents' footsteps.

I love listening to all these people go "AW HELL YEAH I'M A COLD BLOODED KILLER". I can guarantee nobody in this thread has even killed a sentient being before. And here I thought the NationStates board was relatively mature.

By the way, no. Don't plan on dying and don't care enough to watch.

HOw do you know? On this board, I am sure there are plently of veterns, and some of said veterns may very will have killed someone before.

(Iv not, but on a large board like this, dont assume anything)

the pretense of this being an animal instinct is one of the biggest big lies of all times. not that it doesn't ever happen. i'm not pretending that. but it is generaly pretty unusual circumstances under which it ever does.

creatures will kill for lunch yes. and they'll fight for mates or territory, depending on species, but these latter are almost never fatal nor intended to be. occasionaly a fatality my occur, but this is the exception and not the intent.

even with different species competing over the same territory this is still rare, though perhapse less so then the other examples.

only humans would consider this any kind 'sport'

so don't give with 'animal instincts' bit. that's pure fecal matter.

=^^=
.../\...


Actually, chimps have been found to beat and kill other chimps in their group, maybe because they're sick and are slowing down the troupe or stole fruit from the 'alpha male' or something. It's also been found that chimps compete more violently for the best pieces of food when food is abundant - Jane Goodall herself observed this when she first started working with primates and made the mistake of feeding them. Seems like the higher the intelligence quotient, the more likely you are to murder your own kind. Killer whales kill smaller animals for sport - just to prove that they can kill - I presume you've seen the footage of them tossing a baby seal back and forth until it died, then they lost interest. Of course animals kill of sport - it hones skills needed in times where the need to kill is necessary for survival.

If gladiator battles were legal i would be happy

I would watch and participate.

All I would ask is a romanesque amphitheater, It would be boring to have an out-of-shape combatant be finished off in the first few seconds of a fight by a more experienced one, so some sort selective match-ups should be implemented using various tests.

There could also be a prision league, featuring criminals imprisioned for life, sentenced to death or heinous crimes. Heck, through in relatives and close friends of the victims so they can have some true closure.

As for weapons I can't decide between classic Roman-time weapons (Trident, Gladius, Sica, Spear) or more suburban type weapons (Baseball bats, chains, shivs)

We could use it instead of the death penalty! I'd watch the 9-11 hijacker fight to the death against soemone.

We could use it instead of the death penalty! I'd watch the 9-11 hijacker fight to the death against soemone.

Thats the spirit! a solution to prision overpopulation, every week hold a poll of the prision's top 10-20 violent criminals and into the arena they go! the survivors don't get off the hook if they win, they simply continue with their sentence... maybe a more decent meal... nah... let 'em rot in their cells in fear of the next deatmatch.

Saluton,


...Of course animals kill of sport - it hones skills needed in times where the need to kill is necessary for survival.

I agree with Krakozha. An example of it is:
Wolf kids will play tug of war with a piece of aminal skin or bone among themselves.

Now, this does not seem like much, but it goes along with dominance. They are the next generation of Wolves, one of them will be Alpha. In this case, there is no blood involved.

I am tring to show the relationship between fun/sport Vs. gaining skill usable in real life situations. Hope it worked.

Now, I would be all for this "blood-sport scenario" happening for a few reasons, IF it were solely among life-term prisoners:

- Money spent on food/housing/utilities/etc of prisoners, would decrease from the detainment side, i.e. fewer of them. At the same time, the gov't could tax the winnings of the bets, helping pay for other things.

- Battle would become even more ritualized. Currently, it is between sovereigns, 3 000 miles away from each other with shiney red buttons. Battle between individuals is rare, being mostly steet fighting. Given time, combatants would not have to kill to win, because of the amount of ritual. By that time, humanity might be the free-love-fluff-bunny-white-lighter world that many of people these days want. "FREE HUGS AND BUNNIES AND KITTENS FOR ALL!" *gag!*

- Video footage MIGHT capture a new kata for police/military use.

- My brothers and I wrestle for the hell of it. For fun, NEVER because there is something about the other one pissing us off. We always confine it to open handed, and biffing each others noses...*see ritual above* Point being this; The amount of time humanity has been hunter/gatherer/killer Vs. corporate wage slave is hugely benefited on the hunter side. It HAS to be let free once in a while, it is a part of the species.

For you trekkie fans out there, even the vulcans have to fight on occasion. culture based on logic and peace, yet still have weapons...*ponders*

Gxis Revido,
Senjoro Rafe,
La Rafe Sistemo,
The Rafe System

I would have to say yeah...would be a hoot....if ya could battle Neo-Cons to the death...or mabey evangelical preachers.....ya wouldnt really have to pay me for that privlage even, as long as i could take 'trophies' :) and as long as they didnt have nething like a magic bird gun that can lodge pellets into someones heart....WTF??? i meen, did the guy have paper skin? or are we being lied to...ohh yeah...look who was involved...of corse we were.....

We could use it instead of the death penalty! I'd watch the 9-11 hijacker fight to the death against soemone.


9/11 hijacker? you want to fight a satalite remote control box? or cheney on the other end of the controler?
or are you refering to the loosely involved (not a hijacker....how could he still be alive if he was, survived the crash? ....oops...nvr mind... http://www.rense.com/general20/alives.htm ) supposeded terrorist (probally tortured till he would admit to anything) there attepting to get a death penalty on for misleading the athorities?

i would watch XD

The idea of this is stupid and those who voted in favour are stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT some happy clappy liberal and I support the death penalty for murder, rape, child abuse and incest.

I can see the benefit of public executions for child abusers and rapists, to show the people what happens when one falls for their evil inclinations.

But death match games would NOT be the best way to solve crime. With death match games, you have winners and losers, and the winners can become famous and loved by the public, just like in the Roman 'Empire'.

Do we want to see child rapists and other crimials becoming famous, their lives and fame being displayed in celeberatiy magazines, as if they were actors or Paris Hilton?

Punishment has TWO purposes, to deter others from becoming criminals and to remove dangerous people from society. Punishment is NOT ment to pass judgement for that is done in the next life, for God alone passes judgement.

Even if your athiest, the TWO purposes of punishment (deterence and removing a threat to others) is enough to deal with criminals.

Death match games are nothing to do with punishment, just entertainment for sick and evil people. The audience who would take pleasure in watching death match games, they are as evil as any criminal and they too would burn in the Principality of Flames in the next life.

Justice is not for sale weither and selling tickets for these 'games' would corrupt justice and society, thus turning our world into a carbon copy of the Principality of Flames.

Yes, we do need the death penalty, but just execute, with no need for sick 'games' like the evil Romans did, for God's Will is intolerant of such 'justice'.

I'd watch. I mean, it be like cock fights without the feathers!

I mean, unless you like it like that....

Actually....

TONIGHT ONLY!!
CHICKEN MAN VS. THE FLYING DODO
FIGHT TO THE DEATH!
TICKETS ARE ON SALE NOW!

Assume that a law has been passed allowing gladitorial style fights to the death. Both contestants have given their consent, and are of sound mind.

Quoting myself just to make it clear that this is NOT a judicial punishment between condemned prisoners, but an agreed upon contest between two consenting adults.

I can think of a long list of individuals who I'd do my best to persuade to participate.
And I'd love to watch.
But I would not really care to participate.

Fight on gladiators. XD

Quoting myself just to make it clear that this is NOT a judicial punishment between condemned prisoners, but an agreed upon contest between two consenting adults.
My question is why would you be interested in such a contest? Or, are you just doing some research?

No.

And

no.

Watch? No! That sort of thing is designed to get rid of convicts, athletes with huge salaries(because if it's a death match, someone's gotta die), the desperate poor and entertain the lower classes who currently love NASCAR for the wrecks and Wrestling and Football.

Sponsor, yes.

I doubt I'd watch, actually watching isn't all that interesting. Nor would I participate unless paid a lot of money beforehand... I have better things to do with my time than prove that I can kill a guy with a Spinning Hook to the temple followed by a Flying Sidekick to the throat.

...and as long as they didnt have nething like a magic bird gun that can lodge pellets into someones heart....WTF??? i meen, did the guy have paper skin? or are we being lied to...ohh yeah...look who was involved...of corse we were.....

What??

This is funny... I was just having this conversation with my fiancee tonight. She was going on about whatever show was on... "America's next hot model" or some such rubbish... and I told her she's contributing to the inevitable future of television where they'll start killing each other on live tv to entertain people.
Because you hear about the stuff people like about the stupid idol-style shows... it's the conflict, and trying to be #1.
I figure it's only a matter of time until gladiator type fighting makes its way to live tv.
And, yeah, I'm against it. I don't even like Survivor. :p

are you kidding? No! I can't even watch Rocky without being in physical pain, I am too empathetic, I would never be able to watch two people fighting to the death.

Quoting myself just to make it clear that this is NOT a judicial punishment between condemned prisoners, but an agreed upon contest between two consenting adults.

Sorry for the sidetrack :p

Must be all the Bum Fights and Backyard Wrestling ( if all else fails blame the media :) )

Of course most of the American posters here think that only hardcore criminals will be the ones forced to fight to the death. As the Death Penalty hearings have shown, too many people on Death Row have turned out to be innocent after DNA or other new evidence were introduced to their cases. Would you be all that happy knowing that the guy who just got decapitated for Nielsens Sweeps might not have been a murderer after all?

And of course, the concept of gladiatorial matches to the death just sticks out as barbaric and inhuman in the modern age. Starting on that path only means other nations will quickly follow trend.

I can see it now... "Muslim Gladiators," "Student Democracy Demonstrator Gladiators," "Protestant Gladiators," "Sudanese Gladiators"... the possibilities are endless.

Quoting myself just to make it clear that this is NOT a judicial punishment between condemned prisoners, but an agreed upon contest between two consenting adults.

would be cool if it was an option for them, although it may not be so great to watch the winner rape the dead body of the loser.

Of course most of the American posters here think that only hardcore criminals will be the ones forced to fight to the death. As the Death Penalty hearings have shown, too many people on Death Row have turned out to be innocent after DNA or other new evidence were introduced to their cases. Would you be all that happy knowing that the guy who just got decapitated for Nielsens Sweeps might not have been a murderer after all?

And of course, the concept of gladiatorial matches to the death just sticks out as barbaric and inhuman in the modern age. Starting on that path only means other nations will quickly follow trend.

I can see it now... "Muslim Gladiators," "Student Democracy Demonstrator Gladiators," "Protestant Gladiators," "Sudanese Gladiators"... the possibilities are endless.

Learn to read. :headbang:

Sorry for the sidetrack :p

Must be all the Bum Fights and Backyard Wrestling ( if all else fails blame the media :) )


No worries. It's just that too many posters here can't read and comprehend simple questions.

Learn to read. :headbang:

And you're naive if you think that there's going to be nothing but transparency and mutual agreement when it comes to life and death. This is the kind of stuff that organized crime and despotic regimes thrive on, and they both have ways of making sure one or both sides "agree" to a death match.

[Some witty remark][/Some witty remark]
No.

I've seen people die. Anyone who has would not see it as enjoyable.

Note: This is not a judicial punishment. I am not asking if you would watch two condemned prisoners forced into combat. I thought the question made that quite clear, but some people either cannot or will not comprehend even short simple questions.

too true comrade

I've seen people die. Anyone who has would not see it as enjoyable.

yeah your right the romans absolutely hated the gladiator games, the collosium was often empty and it wasnt a huge part of their society, they didnt have arenas in numerous parts of the roman empire

It would depend on the scenario

something like a cage match with no weapons might be somewhat interesting, but its still basically wrestling and even if its more than that, I'm not much of a fan.
A gladiator stle match where each oponenet gets an equal selection of weapons would be much more interesting and I would probably watch but not participate.
The third option, an FPS/Paintball style deatch-match by some sort of rifle (Sniper rifle, battle rifle, the like) would be very interesting (Espc. if it was done correctly with a good arena and good camera coverage) and I would probably watch, and almost certainly participate given the option.
You could use pistols/SMGs and other more CQB guns, but that's wouldn't be very interesting, just two guys blowing eachother away with no real skill and only lady luck to tell you delivers the lethal shot first. and even if you win, you're likely to be so badly injured you might as well have lost.

Learn to read. :headbang:
Well, you didn't expect a thread such as this to attract the intellectual types did you? :rolleyes:

I would totally watch this. it would be very interesting to see what it was like to the death. i am in karate and really enjoy watching sparring between two skilled opponents but if they knew their life was on the line you would see some incredible techniques.

yeah your right the romans absolutely hated the gladiator games, the collosium was often empty and it wasnt a huge part of their society, they didnt have arenas in numerous parts of the roman empire

Gladiator games weren't even a big part of Roman civilization until near its decline, when they were offered up as what else... public distraction from all the little problems that were adding to tear away at the emptire.

Geez, no! Seriously, how can two people enter into a contest knowing that they had only a 50% chance of survival? I wouldn't call anyone who willingly took those odds to be sound of mind. And how anyone, in this day and age, enjoy seeing two people slaughter each other for sport is beyond me!

Seriously, I'd be disgusted if something like this were allowed!

Actually, I would think it was more like they thought they had a 90% chance of survival.

Of course, only one of them is right.

Yeah, for sport, it would be a waste of time, but as far as settling international disputes vs conducting war, I'd be all for it.

The idea of this is stupid and those who voted in favour are stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT some happy clappy liberal and I support the death penalty for murder, rape, child abuse and incest.



lol i certainly wouldn't have thought you liberal if you believe in the death penalty for incest - thats flipping harsh (some cases in the UK aren't even pursued by the police when they have absolute proof or a confession, never mind the death penalty)

I am too empathetic

I wouldn't call it "too" empathetic. Lack of empathy is much more of a problem than the reverse.

Of course. I am as pacifist as the next guy, I think war is awful...in real life. In books and movies, though, it's awesome to watch a huge, bloody battle.

I'm not going to deny that war is awful, and I believe in a "Peace first!" doctrine, but i'm not going to lie to myself and say that a bloody fight isn't cool.

So, if both contestants agreed to it (truly agreed, nobody was forced into it) and if at the end of the fight, the loser had the option of walking free or REALLY fighting to the death, yeah, i'd watch.

I would watch; I already lik watching kickboxing, so this is really just the same thing plus 1.

As to participate, no thanks. I like guns, and I collect knives, and I'm quite sure I'd not like to be on the recieving end of either.

I think it's horrible to enjoy with suffering, animal or human so you can imagine. I can understand hunting as lon g is a way of getting food but not as a sport. Anyway, I think it's even worse to accept watching it but not risk your own life.

I'm wondering about death row statements here. One thing is to be for the death penalty (I'm not, by the way) but it doesn't become the prisioner into a non human being, so they still have rights. The could be guilty of horrid crimes (please, note the conditional) but they are people. So they are not ready to serve to any sick purpouse to be thought.

Only americans can have such a way of thinking, mixing death and spectacle, in this days, of course. Also romans did, maybe is a mental illness reserved to empires :p

Yes to both I'm already a bare knuckle boxer so a death match is,nt too much of a stretch.

You have to consider why people would participate in such a blood-sport in the first place. If competitors are entering of their own free will those that would compete are obviously not going to be representative of the overall population of a country. You would end up with a good mix of the desperate and the crazy all basically fighting for glory or the sweet release of death. Ultimately, we are talking about the poorest of the poor risking their lives to entertain everyone else. At its best this practice would be the worst kind of exploitation, and at its worst it would contribute to the cementing of a permanent underclass in those places where these death matches are legal. But, assuming they were legal already, I’d sit back with a beer and watch with interest but no way in hell would I step in the ring myself.:D

too true comrade

Hey, bio. Ain't it the truth.

Well, you didn't expect a thread such as this to attract the intellectual types did you?

Heh. Most appropriate seeing as my comment was addressed to someone who seems to share your "intellectual type".

As to your question of why I posted this question, it was simply interesting.

And Gauthier, I'm sorry you have such low self esteem as to need to make a veiled and mild personal attack (ooh, you think I'm naive - it really hurts!) when it's pointed out that you couldn't be arsed to read the OP and instead randomly replied to what you assumed was the topic of this thread.

Why not watch? It would help murderers and sadists do what they love to do to other sadists and murderers. Thats better that on random people. I wouldnt want to participate, but watching an Unreal Tournament would be great.

i would watch gladly and enjoy joining in. hell i've been trained to kill might as well use it. and it isn't animal instinct to kill its human instinct to destroy each other. and the smell of blood is so how to put it Invigorating

Assume that a law has been passed allowing gladitorial style fights to the death. Both contestants have given their consent, and are of sound mind.
If they were of sound mind even in the very least, they wouldn't do such braindead crap! :rolleyes:
My answer: Certainly no! This is really sick.

i would watch gladly and enjoy joining in. hell i've been trained to kill might as well use it. and it isn't animal instinct to kill its human instinct to destroy each other. and the smell of blood is so how to put it Invigorating

I THINK THIS MIGHT NOT BE TRUE.

Why woud anyone want to watch someone else die? This isn't TV you know. Morbid curiosity, sure, but I can't even look at Rotten.com.

I THINK THIS MIGHT NOT BE TRUE.

Why woud anyone want to watch someone else die? This isn't TV you know. Morbid curiosity, sure, but I can't even look at Rotten.com.


i've been training in martial arts since age 5 i've been learning swordsmenship since age 7 and the art of sordsmanship is the art of killing and if you thing that i'm lieing i'll have to show you. and killing is in the instincts of every human yet for most it sublimital and in the untuched reaches of their brain others are consumed by it such as murders and some can tap into it and find themselves working for the government in some form or fashion
:upyours: massmurder

i've been training in martial arts since age 5 i've been learning swordsmenship since age 7 and the art of sordsmanship is the art of killing and if you thing that i'm lieing i'll have to show you. and killing is in the instincts of every human yet for most it sublimital and in the untuched reaches of their brain others are consumed by it such as murders and some can tap into it and find themselves working for the government in some form or fashion
:upyours: massmurder

:confused: what is "sordsmanship"?

:confused: what is "sordsmanship"?
just forgot the w give a man a break i'm only human

Roman gladiatorial combat was a test of skill between the two men. Duels to the death were rare and generally both combatants survived to fight again. They are skilled entertainers, it would be rather wasteful for one to die after every battle. I'm not an expert, but I believe that gladiators only were killed if they put on a particularily poor show. In the colliseum, the gladiator fights were the highlight of the show, not the entire show. The majority of colliseum spectacle was slaughter of animals and prisoners in creative ways, such as acting out the story of Daedalus and Icarus. (Daedalus made wax wings for Icarus, Icarus flew too close to the sun, the wings melted then Icarus fell to his death).

For more information, I suggest you read:
"As the Romans Did" by Joanne Shelton
"Romans: An Introduction" by Antony Kamm

I personally voted in favour of gladiatorial combat.

What if we devised a more entertaining way of "collecting" gladiators?

Only those who watch the television show have to participate in it at one point. No one knows exactly when he is going to be lifted off of his bunk and dragged to the arena. And the only way to avoid the danger is by not watching...

:headbang:

This kind of stuff really makes me wonder if we should have ever left the trees. Here we have the culmination of many thousands of years of thought-evolution and we still vote in favor of fighting to the death.

If man is truly the measure of all things, this kind of thinking shines a bleak light on reality indeed

I'd watch, since it's a punishment dealt out by the courts. I mean, if they murdered someone, don't they deserv the same? They're going to hell anyways, they might as well go having fun.

Roman gladiatorial combat was a test of skill between the two men. Duels to the death were rare and generally both combatants survived to fight again. They are skilled entertainers, it would be rather wasteful for one to die after every battle. I'm not an expert, but I believe that gladiators only were killed if they put on a particularily poor show. In the colliseum, the gladiator fights were the highlight of the show, not the entire show. The majority of colliseum spectacle was slaughter of animals and prisoners in creative ways, such as acting out the story of Daedalus and Icarus. (Daedalus made wax wings for Icarus, Icarus flew too close to the sun, the wings melted then Icarus fell to his death).

For more information, I suggest you read:
"As the Romans Did" by Joanne Shelton
"Romans: An Introduction" by Antony Kamm

I personally voted in favour of gladiatorial combat.

Roman gladiatoral combat was indeed interesting (and also a good source of food for starving lions and tigers XD). Thanks for the books.

It would be one of those things were i would watch occasionally while changing the channels, and also i would possibly participate, but only if it offered money and I was desperate.:gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5:

No and no. I say neither only because this is not a just reason to kill another. I would support the death sentence of those who participate, though.

Roman gladiatoral combat was indeed interesting (and also a good source of food for starving lions and tigers XD). Thanks for the books.

Please note that the books are about Roman society and culture in general, and there is not an awful lot specifically about gladiators. They are sufficient should you want to write an essay on the subject or just have general knowledge about gladiators and Roman society's view towards them, but not for much more than that.

I can kill a guy with a Spinning Hook to the temple followed by a Flying Sidekick to the throat.

That would be cool to watch.

NOTE: Gladatorial fights do exist. Not with knives, and people rarely die
just google street fights, real fights, fights, garage fights, etc

No time to read the whole thread, so maybe this has already been said. I would not watch or participate. The idea of watching a human being die is utterly repulsive to me. People die every day in horrible tragic circumstances. To add more death to our society and culture would be detrimental. It would essentially devalue human life. If people are able to watch public deathmatches, who's to say it wouldn't inspire more psychos to kill illegally? Unnatural death is senseless and horrible. Why add to it with such deathmatches? I don't know how so many people could deal with watching others die for no reason if you've ever lost anyone. :(

Assume that a law has been passed allowing gladitorial style fights to the death. Both contestants have given their consent, and are of sound mind.

Would you watch?
Well, if two people are willing to die for my entertainment, I can't say I'd refuse the offer to watch.
Would you be willing to participate for a sufficient sum of (tax free?) cash?
No, I'm not particularly interested in debasing myself like that.

It depends on the style and quality of the program.

I'd watch, since it's a punishment dealt out by the courts. I mean, if they murdered someone, don't they deserv the same? They're going to hell anyways, they might as well go having fun.

Is the statement "This is not a judicial punishment." too difficult for you to understand?

As long as the "gladiators" were consenting adults of sound mind (wouldn't participating somehow rule out the sound mind aspect?) I would watch at least once out of morbid curiousity, but I would have to admit that I am far too chicken/sane to consider participating myself.

im assuming most participants would be either insane or american...
and i dont really like either so i'd watch and enjoy...
and if the cash was good id join the fun(???)

I love listening to all these people go "AW HELL YEAH I'M A COLD BLOODED KILLER". I can guarantee nobody in this thread has even killed a sentient being before. And here I thought the NationStates board was relatively mature.

By the way, no. Don't plan on dying and don't care enough to watch.

:rolleyes:
no, surely nobody here has killed aaaaanything sentient...grow a brain and think of what you're saying, there are couple of thousands of people on NS...And you think that nobody's ever killed anything?

Assume that a law has been passed allowing gladitorial style fights to the death. Both contestants have given their consent, and are of sound mind.

Would you watch?

Would you be willing to participate for a sufficient sum of (tax free?) cash?

Note: This is not a judicial punishment. I am not asking if you would watch two condemned prisoners forced into combat. I thought the question made that quite clear, but some people either cannot or will not comprehend even short simple questions.

Why would anyone of sound mind volunteer to do this anyway?

Seems a bit strange...

Why would anyone of sound mind volunteer to do this anyway?

Seems a bit strange...
People do strange things that lead to their death all the time. Here in Western Canada during ski season we have people who go out of bounds into clearly marked dangerious areas and get lifted out in body bags!:confused:

Let alone the green peta types who want to go and pet bears!:rolleyes: At least the bears get fed!:headbang:

Many people enjoy sports which involve high risk of injury/death, I live by the U.S./Mexico border and bullfights in the city of Mexicali draw huge crowds, of course this example may not apply if you listen to those bleeding-heart types that whine on how the animals don't have choice :rolleyes:

There is nothing like watching a matador getting ripped another one by a bull then limping back to safety.

At some point in the fight you can get to a point where one contestant could kill the other.

It is not that far from it and i already watch this.

how about this. Condemed crimials on death row. Next week they have death by lethal injection. They are given a choice: die next week, or fight to the death in a gladiator battle, the winner surviving untill he is killed in kombat. Most people on death row are already murderers and would not object. It wouldn't even have to be all melee, they could have sinper duels, mazes with booby traps... how would that not pwn? If normal people wanted to join in, they could, and make some money. It would be our national pastime!

:eek: :sniper:

I as I am would not, and find the idea sickening.
However, being raised in a society where such practice is acceptable, I am afraid that I probably would observe. I think I fear for my life enough not to particpate, though.

I'd watch but not participate. No need to risk my life in a 50/50 chance of survival.

Are we turning into a Roman society? ;)

Good lord yes, granted the costumes were anachronistic and cliched.

Ave Imperator! Morituri te salutant!

Sorry if someone mentioned this, but this form of entertainment and/or self gratification is obsolete with the current sports, films and politics.

I would participate. But only if I was desperate for getting a lot of money fast, and it will have to be a sniper dual because I'm too much of a weedy little coward to fight melee :P

But a gun fight would not be to good commercially because unless it is anything like the film 'Enemy At The Gates', it would not be as entertaining as a gladiatorial melee fight.

What fun!\

I'd not participate of course unless the money was HUGE and I actually had a good chance of winning in the form of combat taking place, but I'd definitely watch :D:p

Ave Imperator! Morituri te salutant!

Probably have to be a bit modified with the times of course. Like, Ave Fox Broadcasting Company or some such.

I'd watch. But more or less I wouldn't participate, at least at this point in my lfie, unless the money was intense.

:rolleyes:
no, surely nobody here has killed aaaaanything sentient...grow a brain and think of what you're saying, there are couple of thousands of people on NS...And you think that nobody's ever killed anything?

Sentient, the only thing that is sentient is a human being. So yes, people may have squashed a fly or killed a pig, but most will not have killed a sentient form of life because that would have to be another human.

I would watch, but I wouldn't participate because I WANT TO LIVE. As for consent, some Gladiators in Roman times deliberately became Gladiators, so essentially doing it now would be very similar. It is not 'sick' to want to watch bloodsport, but nor is it 'good' to watch it. If you want to watch, watch, different people like different things, you can't denounce someone for liking it.

Sentient, the only thing that is sentient is a human being.

That's an extremely contentious statement. A sentient being is one that is conscious and is capable of feeling pleasure or pain. By definition, the being does not have to be intelligent.
In my personal opinion, many animals are highly likely to be sentient. It's certainly a live issue.

The Hindi believe everything, even man made things have sentience.

The Buddhists hold true that everything contains the nature of the Buddha, Buddhas nature, being compassion, requires sentience.

So to round up, most people believe in a vast sentient nature beyond the organic definition.

I'm rather intrested in seeing it. Though not for the reason of bloodlust. If to people are pitted againsed eachother and their own lives are on the line, they tend to show everything they can and have. They transform into a near primal state. It isn't often that I see such a state, expecially in this day and age, when both people are willing. I am intrested in seeing what people are capable of.

yes i would watch if somebody had to die that would be cool

the pretense of this being an animal instinct is one of the biggest big lies of all times. not that it doesn't ever happen. i'm not pretending that. but it is generaly pretty unusual circumstances under which it ever does.

creatures will kill for lunch yes. and they'll fight for mates or territory, depending on species, but these latter are almost never fatal nor intended to be. occasionaly a fatality my occur, but this is the exception and not the intent.

even with different species competing over the same territory this is still rare, though perhapse less so then the other examples.

only humans would consider this any kind 'sport'

so don't give with 'animal instincts' bit. that's pure fecal matter.

=^^=
.../\...
Well, I'm pretty sure I've heard about tribes of apes not just beating each other up but even slaughtering each other in the wild. I think it was some documentary about apes, and ape preserves in Africa, and how one adult male actually killed several of the other "tribe's" child-aged individuals.
*****
EDIT-Just to clarify the views I myself hold on meaningless or overly gratuitous violence...I would contend it is animalistic, and more a "natural animal" than a "human" instinct. Just because animals in the wild kill for a purpose does not mean that they sob for their victims as they kill, though some forms of folklore and the like do represent the animals as having some sympathy. I would argue that if killing for the sake of killing was not enjoyed by predatory animals, we would have a small number of pacifistic hunters even among species of lesser cerebral development. The fact that we do not, that animals which are predatory have a predisposition to do violence, in my opinion suggests that there is likely a primal enjoyment of violence as a base animalistic action. Humans, being more complex than most if not all (I hold a personal fear of the "cold intelligences" represented by squids and other cephalopods) organisms, have further developed rationale and purpose behind violence, but I think a certain brutal enjoyment of the violence is part of what allows many to partake in it, often more likely in places where they are convinced by mob logic to do so.
*****
*sob*

Anyway, I'd probably protest to start, being opposed to the overall idea, but if I wasn't able to stop it I'd watch too. As for participation...well, not as I am now, but I'd be willing to if I could restart my life as a crazily diverse martial artist guy with backgrounds in all kinds of different barefist fighting styles (unless the fights would involve armament, in which case I'd probably want to go get training in medieval jousting, crazy samurai swordfighting, and of course the current favorite of lethal combatants everywhere: guns).

"Unquestionably yes to both"

Why the Hell not? I would love to watch and participate. It would be a Satanist's dream to finally be able to fully unleash his anger and to use it to legally kill an hated enemy.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~

Unless the Satanist was getting his ass whipped?

I love listening to all these people go "AW HELL YEAH I'M A COLD BLOODED KILLER". I can guarantee nobody in this thread has even killed a sentient being before. And here I thought the NationStates board was relatively mature.

By the way, no. Don't plan on dying and don't care enough to watch.

Agreed. I think it would be a little different if someone was actually slipping a knife up your gizzards. It's a little more realistic than computer games, etc.

Why would anyone want to watch a legal death match?
It'd be boring and pointless, returning us to the days of Rome.
Where would the epic rivalries develop if 2 champions fought and 1 died. In boxing, rivalries can go on and on, building and building into something the public identifies with. A death match might be a novelty, but why bother? A silly idea.

I think it would be awesome to watch some dude jacked up on pcp take on a bear with a hunting knife. I know a few people who could probabibly pull it off too.

Personally, I would not wish to watch this kind of show.

I think that televising this kind of thing for entertainment purposes is wrong and
even if both participants are willing is a sick idea.

If you want to see death and suffering, just watch the news for crying out loud!

Theres no shortage of people out there killing each other all for either political, material or whatever reasons.

To those of you that want to, I think that you should grow up and stop kidding yourselves that life and death is a game. If you think you are brave or hard enough to fight to the death for real, join the military and see that killing is niether fun, nor entertaining. Movies and video games are very different from real life, and i think that some of you need to realise this.

I like how most of the people who are considering participating think that they'll actually win the battle. Think about it, people, the most likely people to enter into these kind of matches are huge, well trained folks who could snap an average guy in half. Not to suggest all of you are little geeks at your computer (I know I am one) but the average human wouldn't stand a chance. Even with the proper weaponry, you have immediately slimmer odds of winning.

And if money were involved, you can bet anything that eventually people would start to rig it in a certain persons favor to win more money and increase the popularity of this 'sport'. This would decrease your odds even further, to the point where instead of entering the ring you may as well just go ahead and kill yourself.

Plus there are steroids to consider. People could get hopped up on those, and why would anyone care? If the person using them dies, no one will ever know, if they win on them what are they going to say about it? 'He was so worried about living that he tried to enhance his performance every way possible'?

So really, in the end, it'd just be really big, strong guys against each other. And anyone else trying to enter would just get their heads ripped off.

BTW, I voted that this was a sick question. No matter how televised death is, no matter how many gory movies you've seen, seeing a real death will disgust just about any sane person. After the first showing of it, no one would want to watch anymore. The fact that it's 'real' would turn almost everyone off.

I believe you are right on many points...

Except for the last one, even though I believe I wouldn´t watch, I think there are plenty of people desensitized enough in this world to actually enjoy watching two guys reduce each other to a bloody pulp...

Assume that a law has been passed allowing gladitorial style fights to the death. Both contestants have given their consent, and are of sound mind.

Would you watch?

Would you be willing to participate for a sufficient sum of (tax free?) cash?




I answered yes to both, but this really depends on the style an type of gladiatorial combat. If it was, say, a method which involves your bare hands, I would not watch, because I would be bored.

Now, MP5's and an "Operation Paintball" type show... that'd be nice.

I love listening to all these people go "AW HELL YEAH I'M A COLD BLOODED KILLER". I can guarantee nobody in this thread has even killed a sentient being before. And here I thought the NationStates board was relatively mature.

By the way, no. Don't plan on dying and don't care enough to watch.
I'll add onto that and guarantee that all the people that proclaimed "YEAH, I'M A KILLER!!!" are the ones that would wet themselves in this situation in real life. It's the weak of body and spirit that enjoy pretending to be otherwise the most.

And me personally, I would refuse to partake in bloodshed for sport, and I would also refuse to let even one cent of my taxes go to support it. If somebody is dumb enough to think killing people is fun, they can enjoy themselves in the military.

If it was set up as cleverly as the Roman matches were I would definately watch. Fighting without weapons is pretty boring and barberic but the three types of armament the Romans instituted with various armor and weaponry vs. speed was badass. I would definately watch that if they were all willing. Maybe even if they were forced death row inmates.

Join? Hell no not under those circumstances. I would fight in a war that I believed in or for defence but not in some sort of sport I'm not much of an athlete type person.

Humans and animals both have the instinct to kill. Preditors DO NOT just kill for food it is well documented where a wolf or some other animal will kill ten times the amount of prey that they can eat for unknown reasons if it is available (not always of course but it definately happens a decent amount in such a situation). I've seen this with some type of wolf/coyote and baby seals on video. It was pretty ridiculous. \

As for killing eachother that isn't really too common. People and insects do this the most although Apes have been recorded as murdering rivals, sometimes with stones as weapons to crush skulls. Mostly murder against the same speices is unnecessary. If you can kick the ass of your rival you don't really need to kill them they won't cause you too much more trouble. This doesn't apply for humans because of money and other motivations so it is fairly easy to see why murder has evolved.

"Unquestionably yes to both"

Why the Hell not? I would love to watch and participate. It would be a Satanist's dream to finally be able to fully unleash his anger and to use it to legally kill an hated enemy.

~Satanic Reverend Medivh~


I totaly agree, but, they would not allow me to participate, for I am not of sound mind...

Finally we would have some real entertainment on TV! :D

I would watch, and I would consider participating. Especially in hand to hand combat/melee weapons. Because that's where my training is.

I'm what you would call a 'skinny computer geek', but I do enough combat training and practise to kill with my bare hands and/or with weapons. I'm now at the point where people just don't attack me. Compare me to most of the 'tough guys' in my town and you'd bet on them, but I can kill, and would if my life was on the line.

My $0.02

I would watch, and I would consider participating. Especially in hand to hand combat/melee weapons. Because that's where my training is.

I'm what you would call a 'skinny computer geek', but I do enough combat training and practise to kill with my bare hands and/or with weapons. I'm now at the point where people just don't attack me. Compare me to most of the 'tough guys' in my town and you'd bet on them, but I can kill, and would if my life was on the line.

My $0.02

Ok I admit I'd probably watch it. Or at least most of it. I'm a pansy and thus wouldn't participate (you draw blood from me once and I'm done). I don't mind seeing blood and gore though, I happen to like war movies where people get blown to smithereens. I will say though that actually watching a person die would probably disturb me greatly and so I doubt I'd stay for the whole thing. Told you I was pansy. And I just have to say, for all the people who are appauled at the "of course I'd watch!" responses and even more appauled at the "hell yeah I'd participate!" responses, get over it. We've all known that humans are like this for a long time now. Get used to the idea, it's pretty prevalent.

P.S. Did you know that duels are legal in Paraguy as long as both participants are registered blood donors??

Well Of Corse I Would Do Both.
[FONT="Palatino Linotype"]one to:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: i can kill people and get paid for it.:cool: the good part is its a great way to fined assasins. the govermint will love it and if thats not good enouph then well fined a way to do it vertually.:sniper: :sniper: and im not a comiey or puppet.
im an explosives expert and good at squerlly hunting with a spud gun.

Yeah, I think I'd like to see one, maybe.

I am proud to say that I am in that 2%

I wouldn't watch a gladiator style match. Individual combat has no interest for me.

A team based death-match (or computer game style CTF/mission based battle) would provide a create deal more entertainment, being both longer and involving greater tactical thought on both sides.

Or, a running man style hunt fest in the Channel Tunnel involving multiple wannabe immigrants and paying hunters. If you get past the hunters CONGRATULATIONS!! You get citizenship.

EDIT: If the second option was available, I'd SO do it. Maybe the first as well.

I would watch, and I would consider participating. Especially in hand to hand combat/melee weapons. Because that's where my training is.

I'm what you would call a 'skinny computer geek', but I do enough combat training and practise to kill with my bare hands and/or with weapons. I'm now at the point where people just don't attack me. Compare me to most of the 'tough guys' in my town and you'd bet on them, but I can kill, and would if my life was on the line.

My $0.02

There is something to be said for brute strength though. Technique when backed by strengthed is just plain deadly. I've done some fight club style matches in my day but nothing overly serious. When it comes to boxing, strength works when your working an arms. Its hard to have good technique when your arms has a contussion and you can't lift it. Best example I can think of was a fight I went to but did not participate in. One guy was an accomplished wrestler and a damn good boxer not to mention pretty built, everyone bet on him. The other fighter was a meth dealer who not only did his own collecting but also more than dabbled in steriods. His first punch snaped the other guys collar bone in half and his third punch cleanly tore the ligaments holding up the right side of the guys jaw. Definetly in the top three brutal fights I have ever witnessed. Sometimes strength really does help. You can't block what your body plain can't take.

This reminds me of a story I read about this circus master in South East Asia betting that his troop of midgets could take down a lion. They tried in front of a large audience and were slaughtered.

I voted I'd watch, but am having second thoughts. It might get awefully disturbing, but if they were actually fighting each other, with decent odds, it wouldn't be as bad as slaughter of innocents. Also they shouldn't kill at the end of the match as the Romans sometimes did.

I would participate and watch.

I wouldn't want any money though, and I'll explain why.

Someone mentioned humans seeing this as sport and I agree, its sport.

Just as hunting is sport, however hunting is killing creatures less intelligent then yourself.

Do we pay hunters to go do something they enjoy?

Nope, so why should I be paid to kill another human?

When it is two humans, you both - unless one of the two are mentally ill/retarded(not meant offensive, thats the term)- have a standard line of intelligence.

This, for myself, makes the kill much more worthy and gratifying; even less guilt ridden then killing a (lawyer)quail.


Add on to this that other humans can observe such a negative subject(death) and enjoy themselves, then I'm for it 'till I heard a decent, IMO, counter arguement.

Couldn't agree more

One question, wha da fook is answer "x" and all yall who support it, sickos :upyours:

If they use non-ballistics weapons I'd watch. It would be a simpler way to do the death penalty.

Participate? No thanks. The country needs it's doctors. :P

And Gauthier, I'm sorry you have such low self esteem as to need to make a veiled and mild personal attack (ooh, you think I'm naive - it really hurts!) when it's pointed out that you couldn't be arsed to read the OP and instead randomly replied to what you assumed was the topic of this thread.

Thank you for your brilliant psychiatric insight, Dr. Phil.[/SARCASM]

:upyours:

But since you're not used to having someone take a different approach to your simplistic question, I would neither watch nor participate because of the reasons I mentioned which boils down to a simple point: Bloodsports are inherently corrupt or corruptible. You don't have to read The Running Man (or watch the film if you're that lazy) to figure out that the contestants are the real losers in a modern bloodsport. Everyone knows boxing is corrupt just about everywhere and who in their right mind want those same kinds of mindsets placed in charge of human lives?

...only if they used inflated condoms to do so. And they wore funny hats.

oh yea..i so agree...lol

I wouldn't watch a gladiator style match. Individual combat has no interest for me.

A team based death-match (or computer game style CTF/mission based battle) would provide a create deal more entertainment, being both longer and involving greater tactical thought on both sides.

Or, a running man style hunt fest in the Channel Tunnel involving multiple wannabe immigrants and paying hunters. If you get past the hunters CONGRATULATIONS!! You get citizenship.

EDIT: If the second option was available, I'd SO do it. Maybe the first as well.

I Totaley agree!!!
We Need To Pit 10 agenst 50. We Need Deserted Ruined Citys With Sattilite Cameras So We Can Watch. And We NeedRobots In There To Increase The Tenchin So It Would Be 10 50 and ?Robots All Fighting Agenst Eachother.And We Can Call It Extreme Dead Show Or KS For Killing Spree!:sniper: :headbang: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :headbang: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper:

I Totaley agree!!!
We Need To Pit 10 agenst 50. We Need Deserted Ruined Citys With Sattilite Cameras So We Can Watch. And We NeedRobots In There To Increase The Tenchin So It Would Be 10 50 and ?Robots All Fighting Agenst Eachother.And We Can Call It Extreme Dead Show Or KS For Killing Spree!:sniper: :headbang: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper: :headbang: :gundge: :mp5: :sniper:

that was the most annoying post I've ever seen... ever

wooooo

youve been playing faaaaarrr too much unreal tournament

that was the most annoying post I've ever seen... ever

Agreed. You should probably be over 12 to be posting in this forum.

Neither watch nor participate.
Oh cum on you did it for the sex show!

Like the sex show I would probably watch some guy kill another out of sheer perversion, but I wouldn't take part.

I love listening to all these people go "AW HELL YEAH I'M A COLD BLOODED KILLER". I can guarantee nobody in this thread has even killed a sentient being before. And here I thought the NationStates board was relatively mature.

By the way, no. Don't plan on dying and don't care enough to watch.

In all honesty, I came too close to killing someone one time. It was a Lord of the Flies type situation and at the end of the fight I thought I had killed the guy but it just ended up that my attempt at breaking the guys neck just broke a vertebrae and I had made him passed but failed to damage the spinal cord. In all honesty, I am fucking glad, I am glad I didn't succeed cuz federal ass raping prison wouldn't be my cup of tea. The furtherst I've ever gotten is county jail and thats good enough for me. Their been other times when I would of killed people if they would of pushed the issue further but it would of been self-defense on my part (Mexi Pride, a local gang, was threatening to off one of my buddies after a drug deal went bad but I met them at the door with a 12 gauge and they backed down [earlier in the day they had pistol whipped my buddy and I guess they decided later on that that wasnt enough.]

FYI, im a dude, the name is because my nationstate is mockery of this evangelical free fundamentalist that goes to the same university as me. Yes, I did eventually reform and get my life back together, been out of the criminal world for almost 2 1/2 years now. Recedicism rate for guys like me though is like 98% so I got watch myself.

Roman gladiatorial combat was a test of skill between the two men. Duels to the death were rare and generally both combatants survived to fight again. They are skilled entertainers, it would be rather wasteful for one to die after every battle. I'm not an expert, but I believe that gladiators only were killed if they put on a particularily poor show. In the colliseum, the gladiator fights were the highlight of the show, not the entire show. The majority of colliseum spectacle was slaughter of animals and prisoners in creative ways, such as acting out the story of Daedalus and Icarus. (Daedalus made wax wings for Icarus, Icarus flew too close to the sun, the wings melted then Icarus fell to his death).

For more information, I suggest you read:
"As the Romans Did" by Joanne Shelton
"Romans: An Introduction" by Antony Kamm

I personally voted in favour of gladiatorial combat.


Almost exactly what I was going to say. If you take away the 'Death' part beacause as the bloke I have quoted said they didnt always die! Imagine a dueling thing like in Knights of the Old Republic (except with out guns and grenades of course.)

I am no expert on killing, I've never killed anyone and unless I join the army i doubt I ever will because honestly I dont think I could bring myself too.



Oh and by the way I am not a crazy dude who cant even watch a violent movie, hell I like seeing movie violence as much as the next guy but I reckon there is a real difference between Hollywood and the Collosseum.

Whats the harm in watching if they are alrite with doing it.
But me :upyours: wont get in to it.

Fuck yeah I'd watch...and if I knew that I even stood a chance of winning I'd probably participate...:sniper:

Beats football.

Man has killed man all long as man has lived. They fought, but for something. Sometimes for a good cause (WWII) sometimes for less noble causes (both gulf wars (oil)). The idea of fighting and death for no reason at all is unspeakable. I don't care who they are. Dr. King or an inmate, it does not matter. At least the wars we fight now a days are for oil, but these fight would be for NOTHING :mad: . We have for to much killing s it is we don't need mindless blood shed too. What about future genrations. What would they think of us. We would be the bloody mindless nobleless fools who nearly wiped out the human race! Is that who WE want to be:confused: . I would not like to be grouped in history with the bloodiest group with lack of value to life. WWII was to save a peoples and a world. When WWIII comes around with this BRILLAINT idea we would have no one to fight our enemies. Our real Enemies. So say hi to Hitler Jr. For me!

I love listening to all these people go "AW HELL YEAH I'M A COLD BLOODED KILLER". I can guarantee nobody in this thread has even killed a sentient being before. And here I thought the NationStates board was relatively mature.

By the way, no. Don't plan on dying and don't care enough to watch.

Killing "sentients" is what I do, so your guarantee was misplaced on this forums. So says Chief Warrant Officer Buhl of the U.S. Army, thank you very much.

Oh, and is "nobleless" a word? I don't believe it is, reduce your vocabulary one word and you may yet grow to be an intelligent human being.