NationStates Jolt Archive

As far as I know, dueling is illegal.

Should it be? After all, it is consensual, even if one of the people involved might die. If legalized, though, there could be widespread abuse of such, with people who had committed murder claiming that it was a duel.

Still, if both of the people involved consent to take part, why exactly should it be illegal?

I'm not arguing that it should be legalized, btw, I'm just interested in this conundrum and in hearing NSG's thoughts on the matter.

Well if you had some sort of dueling contract which both parties signed beforehand the whole consensual issue might be able to stand without the abuse in case of actual murder.

Now claiming both parties were of sound mind at the time might be difficult...

Well, you could set up an official, government sanctioned, government operated, dueling operation, where people would have to sign up and all that sort of thing, and duels would be witnessed by a government official. That would prevent (more or less) cases of 'but it was a duel!'

On the ethical side...sure, go for it. But only for politicians, lawyers and AIG execs. ;)

Well, you could set up an official, government sanctioned, government operated, dueling operation, where people would have to sign up and all that sort of thing, and duels would be witnessed by a government official. That would prevent (more or less) cases of 'but it was a duel!'

On the ethical side...sure, go for it. But only for politicians, lawyers and AIG execs. ;)

You forgot insurance salesmen and telemarketers.

It should not be legal as it supersedes the jurisdiction of the state and law in favor of an honor system (not the honor system of payment, but the honor system of culture), not far removed from blood feuds and the like.

Duels with pies?

It should not be legal as it supersedes the jurisdiction of the state and law in favor of an honor system (not the honor system of payment, but the honor system of culture), not far removed from blood feuds and the like.

But what if it is regulated, with legal contracts and witnesses and such?

Duels with pies?

These are already legal, methinks. LG would probably know more about the practice.

As far as I know, dueling is illegal.

Should it be? After all, it is consensual, even if one of the people involved might die. If legalized, though, there could be widespread abuse of such, with people who had committed murder claiming that it was a duel.

Still, if both of the people involved consent to take part, why exactly should it be illegal?

I'm not arguing that it should be legalized, btw, I'm just interested in this conundrum and in hearing NSG's thoughts on the matter.

I don't think Dueling itself is illegal, but using weapons and causing bodily harm to others is.

I can challange you to a duel in a game of poker, CCG or even water balloons. all that would be legal, but the moment I pull out a real gun or blade...

But what if it is regulated, with legal contracts and witnesses and such?

To what point and purpose? We have a legal system. A man steals from me. I can a) call the police and allow society to handle it for me, or b) I can shoot the bastard.

And then, the bastards son or brother can declare a blood feud on my family.

Sound rediculous? Blood feuds are currently occuring in several countries due to these very same things...and even less. Albania is a great example with the Kanun being used as justification.

We have a contract that says neither family can take more action than the duel? Well, what crime allows for this? Someone steals from me? That is better handled by the state (lest you get shot because someone stole from you). Someone hurt your honor or your feelings? Well, grow up.

So why, exactly, should we permit an honor culture to replace a law culture? What purpose would a duel serve in modern society?

What purpose it would serve I don't know.

I just thought it was an interesting question.

If both parties consent, and can be proven to have done so, what is the harm in letting them have a saber duel?

And no, not over things like stealing. I didn't think that such was a common cause of duels anyway. Something more like seducing one's spouse, or ruining one's reputation by revealing highly embarrassing secrets and such. Legal, but very vicious things.

Not saying I agree with legalizing dueling, just I'm not really able to see why exactly I oppose it, other than thinking it's just bad.

Apparently, some of the last duels were fought with things like shovels of manure, because it was regarded as outmoded by the end.

What purpose it would serve I don't know.

I just thought it was an interesting question.

If both parties consent, and can be proven to have done so, what is the harm in letting them have a saber duel?

And no, not over things like stealing. I didn't think that such was a common cause of duels anyway. Something more like seducing one's spouse, or ruining one's reputation by revealing highly embarrassing secrets and such. Legal, but very vicious things.

Not saying I agree with legalizing dueling, just I'm not really able to see why exactly I oppose it, other than thinking it's just bad.
haha...I actually had this debate a few years back over Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson

So we leave the law to handle things like stealing and other actual crimes. Fair enough to leave that behind then.

As for other things, well...it isn't quite harmless. Logistically, many of these people who are dueling will have jobs, families, etc. Losing a member of society to a pointless feud is...well...pointless.

Moreover, even with a contract and consent, and even with a restriction on any actions taken beyond the initial duel, there would still be blood feuds.

You embarassed me. We duel. I win.
Your son approaches me and says "you killed my father. We shall duel".
I either consent, or refuse.
If I agree, there is yet another duel. If I lose, my son might come after your son. If I win, your wife may come after me. It becomes a pattern untill some one refuses.
If I refuse, your son is SOL. He is left with a dead father and absolutly no recourse. Unless he chooses to go outside of the law. I killed his father, so he will kill my son. And then, I must rely on the legal system to capture him. Of course, my son is dead, you're dead, and your son is in jail. Still seems a bit unbalanced, no?
Thus, we have blood feud.

This is taken almost directly from a case study out of Albania.

haha...I actually had this debate a few years back over Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson

So we leave the law to handle things like stealing and other actual crimes. Fair enough to leave that behind then.

As for other things, well...it isn't quite harmless. Logistically, many of these people who are dueling will have jobs, families, etc. Losing a member of society to a pointless feud is...well...pointless.

Moreover, even with a contract and consent, and even with a restriction on any actions taken beyond the initial duel, there would still be blood feuds.

You embarassed me. We duel. I win.
Your son approaches me and says "you killed my father. We shall duel".
I either consent, or refuse.
If I agree, there is yet another duel. If I lose, my son might come after your son. If I win, your wife may come after me. It becomes a pattern untill some one refuses.
If I refuse, your son is SOL. He is left with a dead father and absolutly no recourse. Unless he chooses to go outside of the law. I killed his father, so he will kill my son. And then, I must rely on the legal system to capture him. Of course, my son is dead, you're dead, and your son is in jail. Still seems a bit unbalanced, no?
Thus, we have blood feud.

This is taken almost directly from a case study out of Albania.

Hmm, good point, seems to make sense.

Duels with pies?

These are already legal, methinks. LG would probably know more about the practice.

I wrote the Rules of Pie Dueling Etiquette. *nod*

Hmm, good point, seems to make sense.

Actually, interestingly, the US is a good example of the difference between legal culture vs. honor culture, right from the founding. Duels were never common in the north. Those states were densely populated, and many had strict rules and laws set forth by religion.

In the south, there were many fewer people, and laws were more difficult to enforce. There were more duels.

Out west, where there was almost no law, there were tons of duels and similar events.

Honor cultures arise in areas where laws are difficult to enforce. When people can begin to trust society to handle their legal needs, they are more willing to enter into the social contract and give up their rights to self-regulation.

If dueling is done correctly it should be legal.
By correctly I mean with minutes appointed by both parties.
a period of 30 days between the challenge and the duel with the minutes of both parties attempting to work out a compromise.

The duel should be conducted at 20 to 30 paces with smooth bore pistols and half powder charges.

Correctly done duels are not particularly lethal and it allows people to vent their frustrations and provides encouragement for a society to be polite.
It also breaks the government monopoly on force between consenting parties.

If dueling is done correctly it should be legal.
By correctly I mean with minutes appointed by both parties.
a period of 30 days between the challenge and the duel with the minutes of both parties attempting to work out a compromise.

The duel should be conducted at 20 to 30 paces with smooth bore pistols and half powder charges.

Correctly done duels are not particularly lethal and it allows people to vent their frustrations and provides encouragement for a society to be polite.
It also breaks the government monopoly on force between consenting parties.

Why pistols? Why not sabers?

Actually, interestingly, the US is a good example of the difference between legal culture vs. honor culture, right from the founding. Duels were never common in the north. Those states were densely populated, and many had strict rules and laws set forth by religion.

In the south, there were many fewer people, and laws were more difficult to enforce. There were more duels.

Out west, where there was almost no law, there were tons of duels and similar events.

Honor cultures arise in areas where laws are difficult to enforce. When people can begin to trust society to handle their legal needs, they are more willing to enter into the social contract and give up their rights to self-regulation.

Another good point. It's hard to imagine some of those western revolver duels happening in say, Boston. Unless of course it's over baseball.

I wrote the Rules of Pie Dueling Etiquette. *nod*

Care to explain, so that we might all know how to engage in pie dueling properly?

Care to explain, so that we might all know how to engage in pie dueling properly?

I'd rather demonstrate. :D

Why pistols? Why not sabers?
I thought it tended to be proper duelling swords, rather than cavalry weapons.

I thought it tended to be proper duelling swords, rather than cavalry weapons.

I was referring to the fencing variety.

Why pistols? Why not sabers?

increases the lethality.
also Adrenaline makes it hard to stop when one party has obviously won, without risk to the minutes.

Another good point. It's hard to imagine some of those western revolver duels happening in say, Boston. Unless of course it's over baseball.

Oh, don't get me wrong...I'd pistol whip a Habs fan. But they ain't getting a fair shot on me. ;)

Yes, dueling should be legal. It would make a more polite society, promote physical fitness, as an overweight and out of shape person would most likely lose a duel, depending on the weapons used, of course, and would allow people to handle matter themselves, and take the government out of many issues that people can handle themselves.

Yes, dueling should be legal. It would make a more polite society, promote physical fitness, as an overweight and out of shape person would most likely lose a duel, depending on the weapons used, of course, and would allow people to handle matter themselves, and take the government out of many issues that people can handle themselves.

Jeez, you're still here?

Yes, dueling should be legal. It would make a more polite society, promote physical fitness, as an overweight and out of shape person would most likely lose a duel, depending on the weapons used, of course, and would allow people to handle matter themselves, and take the government out of many issues that people can handle themselves.
a) someone out of shape who is likely to lose a duel probably wouldn't accept it.
And what would it take the government out of? As we've established, the government is a better solution to things like theft, etc. And the government doesn't get involved in honor things, like affairs, cheating, embarassment, etc.

Jeez, you're still here?

I check in from time to time.

a) someone out of shape who is likely to lose a duel probably wouldn't accept it.
And what would it take the government out of? As we've established, the government is a better solution to things like theft, etc. And the government doesn't get involved in honor things, like affairs, cheating, embarassment, etc.

I agree on theft, but the government certainly does get involved if someone punishes somebody for 'honor things'. Dueling would remedy this, and the possibility of being challenged for being a jackass would create a more polite society. Also, with the social ridicule of being labeled a coward for refusing to duel people may want to keep in shape just a bit more- or just not like asses!

I check in from time to time.



I agree on theft, but the government certainly does get involved if someone punishes somebody for 'honor things'. Dueling would remedy this, and the possibility of being challenged for being a jackass would create a more polite society. Also, with the social ridicule of being labeled a coward for refusing to duel people may want to keep in shape just a bit more- or just not like asses!

Yes. If you kill someone because they insult your honor, the government gets involved. And rightfully so.

And your issue with this is what?

I think the fact that it is used to coverup what would otherwise be flat out murder is the main reason why it's illegal.

That and the fact that killing someone on the basis of "honor" is one of the most bullshit reasons for ending a person's life that I've ever heard...if anything, not using violence and defending your honor through conduct and behavior is a hell of a lot more impressive than ending an otherwise innocent person's life. You're not going to impress anybody by getting yourself killed, and you're probably just going to end up branded as a murderer if you win. Plus, the person you killed probably has their own friends more than willing to avenge their death...

Sounds like a great plan.

a) someone out of shape who is likely to lose a duel probably wouldn't accept it.
And what would it take the government out of? As we've established, the government is a better solution to things like theft, etc. And the government doesn't get involved in honor things, like affairs, cheating, embarassment, etc.

If someone doesn't accept a duel then the challenger is satisfied.
For either the insult , or the validity of the insult has been removed.
2 consenting adults the government should have no say in their affairs.

If someone doesn't accept a duel then the challenger is satisfied.
For either the insult , or the validity of the insult has been removed.
2 consenting adults the government should have no say in their affairs.
Person A says "I challenge you to a duel"
Person B says "Bitch, please".

How is person A satisfied? they were still insulted, and the embarassment is still there.

there is no restriction saying "if you refuse duel, then you must retract your statement". I may fully believe my statement is accurate and correct.

a duel has nothing to do with validity. A claim can be both embarassing and true. It comes down to who shoots first. Yeah. That disproves the accusation. If it is false, sue for slander/libel. If it is true, hang your head in shame and stop being a cock.

As far as I know, dueling is illegal.

Should it be? After all, it is consensual, even if one of the people involved might die. If legalized, though, there could be widespread abuse of such, with people who had committed murder claiming that it was a duel.

Still, if both of the people involved consent to take part, why exactly should it be illegal?

I'm not arguing that it should be legalized, btw, I'm just interested in this conundrum and in hearing NSG's thoughts on the matter.

I firmly believe dueling should be legalized, provided it is done in a matter that proves it was not just murder reported as such.

Yes. If you kill someone because they insult your honor, the government gets involved. And rightfully so.

And your issue with this is what?

Dueling doesn't have to be to death. Though if it was, oh well.

Dueling doesn't have to be to death. Though if it was, oh well.
Doesn't have to be. But often was. Or with severe injury. Again, how is this better than the legal system? What purpose does this serve, specifically?

Doesn't have to be. But often was. Or with severe injury. Again, how is this better than the legal system? What purpose does this serve, specifically?

It lets you punish people how you see fit.

It lets you punish people how you see fit.

For what? What specific crimes are you better equipped to rule on than the local, state, or federal government? What does this permit that the legal system does not?
How does a culture of honor fit into a culture of law?
How does this not lead to blood feuds? Why are you allowed to "punish others as you see fit" without retribution from those who say "you're wrong"?

Assuming there is a suitable contract for it, I don't see why not. If people both agree to it, they know the consequences and therefore bear responsiblility for whatever happens.

Person A says "I challenge you to a duel"
Person B says "Bitch, please".

How is person A satisfied? they were still insulted, and the embarassment is still there.

Because regardless of the usage of swear words the person has refused a challenge to his honor. An unhonorable person's words mean nothing, or at least to someone who would propose a duel.

there is no restriction saying "if you refuse duel, then you must retract your statement". I may fully believe my statement is accurate and correct.

No you don't have to retract to refuse the duel. But if you refuse the duel you give the challenger the ability to say " I challenged him on the issue and he refused to stand for it" thereby satisfying honor.

a duel has nothing to do with validity. A claim can be both embarassing and true. It comes down to who shoots first. Yeah. That disproves the accusation. If it is false, sue for slander/libel. If it is true, hang your head in shame and stop being a cock.
Not really. look at the Burr Hamilton duel. Hamilton fired first but missed. whereas burr kept his cool and was able to land an accurate hit.
not to mention its not the duel that resolve honor it is getting the other party to back down. Killing someone in a duel didn't prove anything since he was equally willing to stand behind his claim. The honor from a duel came from getting the other party to back down since it shows they were less willing to defend their word then you were.
That's why you have minutes and a month between the challenge and the duel. The minutes try to reach compromise and the month really makes most people think about their mortality.
More over if the government doesn't have the right to tell a woman how to manage an abortion it most certainly doesn't have the right to tell two consenting adults they can't shoot at each other.

Because regardless of the usage of swear words the person has refused a challenge to his honor. An unhonorable person's words mean nothing, or at least to someone who would propose a duel. No...a person who is not willing to a) murder another man or b) be murdered is not inherently unhonorable. Just rational.

No you don't have to retract to refuse the duel. But if you refuse the duel you give the challenger the ability to say " I challenged him on the issue and he refused to stand for it" thereby satisfying honor.
HE WOULDN'T LET ME SHOOT HIM! HE MUST BE LYING!

sorry. No. If you think he is being untruthful, sue him for libel or slander. Or get over the fact that he got you.
Honor is a bullshit system in comparison to law and social contract.
Not really. look at the Burr Hamilton duel. Hamilton fired first but missed. whereas burr kept his cool and was able to land an accurate hit.Wonderful. And this shows who was correct how?
not to mention its not the duel that resolve honor it is getting the other party to back down. Killing someone in a duel didn't prove anything since he was equally willing to stand behind his claim. The honor from a duel came from getting the other party to back down since it shows they were less willing to defend their word then you were. And a legal system for this is different how?
That's why you have minutes and a month between the challenge and the duel. The minutes try to reach compromise and the month really makes most people think about their mortality. No, that's why you have lawyers to negotiate, and if they can't, you sue.
More over if the government doesn't have the right to tell a woman how to manage an abortion it most certainly doesn't have the right to tell two consenting adults they can't shoot at each other.
Actually, considering manslaughter and murder are illegal, it does.

For what? What specific crimes are you better equipped to rule on than the local, state, or federal government? What does this permit that the legal system does not?
How does a culture of honor fit into a culture of law?
How does this not lead to blood feuds? Why are you allowed to "punish others as you see fit" without retribution from those who say "you're wrong"?

Any crime that I am a victim I have a more immediate knowledge of what should be done to the criminal as punishment.

A culture of honor would replace the culture of law. If blood feuds occur than the large family/clan or the family/clan with the best duelists would win.

Others can challenge me if they feel wronged, or just talk to me.



No...a person who is not willing to a) murder another man or b) be murdered is not inherently unhonorable. Just rational. A man should be willing to kill and die for what he believes in. Otherwise he is a coward who believes in nothing.


sorry. No. If you think he is being untruthful, sue him for libel or slander. Or get over the fact that he got you.
Honor is a bullshit system in comparison to law and social contract.

Why go through all the trouble and hassle and basically everyone's time when you can solve a problem when, or very soon after it occurs, with greater satisfaction?

A system on honor promotes self reliance, a praiseworthy trait.

No, that's why you have lawyers to negotiate, and if they can't, you sue.

Actually, considering manslaughter and murder are illegal, it does.[/QUOTE]

haha...I actually had this debate a few years back over Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson

So we leave the law to handle things like stealing and other actual crimes. Fair enough to leave that behind then.

As for other things, well...it isn't quite harmless. Logistically, many of these people who are dueling will have jobs, families, etc. Losing a member of society to a pointless feud is...well...pointless.

Moreover, even with a contract and consent, and even with a restriction on any actions taken beyond the initial duel, there would still be blood feuds.

You embarassed me. We duel. I win.
Your son approaches me and says "you killed my father. We shall duel".
I either consent, or refuse.
If I agree, there is yet another duel. If I lose, my son might come after your son. If I win, your wife may come after me. It becomes a pattern untill some one refuses.
If I refuse, your son is SOL. He is left with a dead father and absolutly no recourse. Unless he chooses to go outside of the law. I killed his father, so he will kill my son. And then, I must rely on the legal system to capture him. Of course, my son is dead, you're dead, and your son is in jail. Still seems a bit unbalanced, no?
Thus, we have blood feud.

This is taken almost directly from a case study out of Albania.

A great argument against duels to the death. What about duels to first blood or other non-fatal conditions (for example, the first one to cut the flower from his opponents shirt).

If dueling is done correctly it should be legal.
By correctly I mean with minutes appointed by both parties.
a period of 30 days between the challenge and the duel with the minutes of both parties attempting to work out a compromise.

The duel should be conducted at 20 to 30 paces with smooth bore pistols and half powder charges.

You had me up till here. Duels should be fought with rapier or small swords until first blood.

No...a person who is not willing to a) murder another man or b) be murdered is not inherently unhonorable. Just rational.

dueling is not murder both poeple know what they are getting into. As the intent must be to kill. in dueling the intent resolve dispute of honor.
HE WOULDN'T LET ME SHOOT HIM! HE MUST BE LYING!

I suppose explaining honor is a bit too much for you.

sorry. No. If you think he is being untruthful, sue him for libel or slander. Or get over the fact that he got you.
You sir have sucked your father's cock since the age of 5 until present. let me know how a law suit goes in that regard.

Honor is a bullshit system in comparison to law and social contract.
Wonderful. And this shows who was correct how?

And the government has the right to be involved in a private matter between two adults how ???
no part of the Constitution says two adults can not be standing at a points where pieces of lead happen to be coming at them.

And a legal system for this is different how?
No, that's why you have lawyers to negotiate, and if they can't, you sue.
Actually, considering manslaughter and murder are illegal, it does.

The only difference between a duel and the legal system is two adults did not have to resort to courts and law suits to resolve their differences. Instead they resorted to something they are voluntary members of, the field of Honor.
Manslaughter is not a crime in itself it needs to be connected with another crime such as DUI. That's why their is misdemeanor manslaughter where the crime your engaged in was a misdemeanor.
As for murder the fact the other party is armed and aiming at you makes this Self defense.

You had me up till here. Duels should be fought with rapier or small swords until first blood.

I think almost any hand to hand weapon would be fine. Duelists should fight face to face. They should be close enough to taste their opponents blood on the air.

Personally I'd prefer larger weapons, but those would probably be reserved for duels to the death.

You had me up till here. Duels should be fought with rapier or small swords until first blood.

its more i am not a sword expert so a sword expert needs to write the rules for sword dueling. Pistols on the other hand i am familiar with.
though Calvary sabers no.

its more i am not a sword expert so a sword expert needs to write the rules for sword dueling. Pistols on the other hand i am familiar with.
though Calvary sabers no.

Why even involve weapons, I enjoy a good fight as much as the next guy, plus the possibility of you killing the guy probably goes down a bit. There's plenty of times I wished I could have fought someone, assuming they agreed, without fearing legal reprisal.

Why even involve weapons, I enjoy a good fight as much as the next guy, plus the possibility of you killing the guy probably goes down a bit. There's plenty of times I wished I could have fought someone, assuming they agreed, without fearing legal reprisal.

True. And then you get to use the word "Fisticuffs," which is awesome.

Why even involve weapons, I enjoy a good fight as much as the next guy, plus the possibility of you killing the guy probably goes down a bit. There's plenty of times I wished I could have fought someone, assuming they agreed, without fearing legal reprisal.

A large variety of fighting is legal with hands. from boxing to MMA.

And the government has the right to be involved in a private matter between two adults how ???

When it's clearly in violation of the law.

When it's clearly in violation of the law.

Actually it is not clearly against the law. 30 states do not have laws against dueling.


More over what business of yours or the government what me and another man consent to. Don't oppress me you Honorphobe.

Actually it is not clearly against the law. 30 states do not have laws against dueling.

More over what business of yours or the government what me and another man consent to. Don't oppress me you Honorphobe.

That's not how it works. Just because there is no specific statue does not mean there is no law; the nature of common law is such that judicial decisions can apply to situations where there is not necessarily a set law. Even so, any case that attempted to legalize dueling on that basis would definitely end up struck down by a federal court, making the entire issue irrelevant.

sure why not if not lethal there have been times when i wanted to call out a chap and demand satisfaction

sure why not if not lethal there have been times when i wanted to call out a chap and demand satisfaction

Yeah, I don't care if people want to settle things with a fight...sometimes, that's the only way assholes learn a good lesson about leaving others alone. It's when killing is involved that I take issue.

As far as I know, dueling is illegal.

Should it be? After all, it is consensual, even if one of the people involved might die. If legalized, though, there could be widespread abuse of such, with people who had committed murder claiming that it was a duel.

Still, if both of the people involved consent to take part, why exactly should it be illegal?

I'm not arguing that it should be legalized, btw, I'm just interested in this conundrum and in hearing NSG's thoughts on the matter.


As a practical matter, Duelling is difficult to administrate or adjudicate-regardless of the statements of witnesses, there is a doubt that the dead dueller actually intended to fight at all-consider the debates over Raymond Burr's shooting of Alexander Hamilton as a great example of what's wrong with 'legalized' duelling. There will always be those who insist the shoot-ee was NOT intending to fire at the shoot-er. Removing guns for something like swords doesn't help this, either-it simply makes those less athletic types more vulnerable to intimidation, or death-by-violent-means, because a knife, sword, etc. etc. requires strength or dexterity to use, as well as dedicated skill.

In civilised societies with honour codes, first these are limited to classes: a squire can't challenge a knight, a plebian cannot challenge a gentleman, men can't challenge women, adults; youth cannot challenge elders, citizens cannot challenge state officials etc; second non lethal violence is involved. Duelling (and blood feud) persist in cultures with - as previously observed - weak central governments - and I would add strong class or caste cultures. The corollary of reintroducing or perpetuating duelling is to stimulate or reinforce caste or class structures. No thanks.

As a practical matter, Duelling is difficult to administrate or adjudicate-regardless of the statements of witnesses, there is a doubt that the dead dueller actually intended to fight at all-consider the debates over Raymond Burr's shooting of Alexander Hamilton as a great example of what's wrong with 'legalized' duelling. There will always be those who insist the shoot-ee was NOT intending to fire at the shoot-er. Removing guns for something like swords doesn't help this, either-it simply makes those less athletic types more vulnerable to intimidation, or death-by-violent-means, because a knife, sword, etc. etc. requires strength or dexterity to use, as well as dedicated skill.

Don't you mean Aaron Burr?

As a practical matter, Duelling is difficult to administrate or adjudicate-regardless of the statements of witnesses, there is a doubt that the dead dueller actually intended to fight at all-consider the debates over Raymond Burr's shooting of Alexander Hamilton as a great example of what's wrong with 'legalized' duelling. There will always be those who insist the shoot-ee was NOT intending to fire at the shoot-er. Removing guns for something like swords doesn't help this, either-it simply makes those less athletic types more vulnerable to intimidation, or death-by-violent-means, because a knife, sword, etc. etc. requires strength or dexterity to use, as well as dedicated skill.
Ooh, happy memories of my first semester...

In order to administer a duel each dualist would have a seconder, both of which tended to be fairly neutral, which was only possible because dueling was an extremely ritualised procedure. In Hamilton and Burr's time, very few people actually shot to kill, hence why either Hamilton or Burr (I can't remember which) shot above the other's head.

On the other hand, you're right, I would not want the legal system to recognise a system where one party could coerce the other into a form of dispute resolution where strength, forness or marksmanship take the place of law.

My other worry is what kind of precident this would set for society at large. Under our legal system of courts and juries, while far from being perfect, one is expected to obey the law or contracts and if you don't a court issues some form of correction or justice. Thus, people obey the law, or at least know they should obey the law. If we had a legal system where outcomes could be based on something other than whether the law was broken or not, what incentive is there to obey the law - especially for those naturally good at dueling?

Should be illegal. There's no need for society to encourage killing or outdated concepts of honor.

As far as I know, dueling is illegal.

Should it be? After all, it is consensual, even if one of the people involved might die. If legalized, though, there could be widespread abuse of such, with people who had committed murder claiming that it was a duel.

Still, if both of the people involved consent to take part, why exactly should it be illegal?

I'm not arguing that it should be legalized, btw, I'm just interested in this conundrum and in hearing NSG's thoughts on the matter.

I think you have answerde you own question with this:

'...people who had committed murder claiming that it was a duel'

Only if I can duel with a lightsaber.

HAH! I just checked Illinois' laws, and there is nothing regarding dueling. I think I will duel my roommate, and before I do so, I will call the cops and tell them I am dueling, so that way it won't be considered murder or battery or something.I can't see that working.

I can't see that working.

Yes, hence me deleting my post. Stupid idea. :(

Yes, hence me deleting my post. Stupid idea. :(

No, it's an awesome idea. You should totally do it.

I think you have answerde you own question with this:

'...people who had committed murder claiming that it was a duel'

That's a problem only if duels are illegal and unregulated.
Regulate a duel and both parties sign a contract that is notarized.
More over legalizing a duel allows safety checks that would lower the risk to life and limb such as attending physicians, and a means to evacuate people to the hospital. Along with assuring that both parties have insurance to cover the expenses.

That's a problem only if duels are illegal and unregulated.
Regulate a duel and both parties sign a contract that is notarized.
More over legalizing a duel allows safety checks that would lower the risk to life and limb such as attending physicians, and a means to evacuate people to the hospital. Along with assuring that both parties have insurance to cover the expenses.

Ummm there does seem to be summit in that.

That's a problem only if duels are illegal and unregulated.
Regulate a duel and both parties sign a contract that is notarized.
More over legalizing a duel allows safety checks that would lower the risk to life and limb such as attending physicians, and a means to evacuate people to the hospital. Along with assuring that both parties have insurance to cover the expenses.But then you'd still be encouraging silly codes of honor.

But then you'd still be encouraging silly codes of honor.

silly or not Honor is a personal matter to which the state should not be involved.

silly or not Honor is a personal matter to which the state should not be involved.Depends. If the silly code of honor is used as an excuse to commit crimes, such as duelling or murdering your daughter for being "a slut", then the state should most definitely get involved.

Depends. If the silly code of honor is used as an excuse to commit crimes, such as duelling or murdering your daughter for being "a slut", then the state should most definitely get involved.

I doubt anyone's daughter consents to being murdered.
A duel is consented to by both parties.
And Dueling itself is not a crime.

I doubt anyone's daughter consents to being murdered.
A duel is consented to by both parties.
And Dueling itself is not a crime.Dueling is not a crime? I'd like to see a source for that.

Dueling is not a crime? I'd like to see a source for that.

in the US it is not a crime in 30 states.

a duel can be conducted with wiffle ball bats/ water guns or any number of other implements. The duel itself is not illegal. Now discharging a weapon in city limits may be depending on jurisdiction.

in the US it is not a crime in 30 states.

a duel can be conducted with wiffle ball bats/ water guns or any number of other implements. The duel itself is not illegal. Now discharging a weapon in city limits may be depending on jurisdiction.Interestingly enough, using weapons to solve a disagreement remains illegal in the US.

I doubt anyone's daughter consents to being murdered.
A duel is consented to by both parties.
And Dueling itself is not a crime.

Yet the point he was making was that so called 'Honour Killings' do go on and that this is certianly one of those personal honour matters that the state should be involved with. I belive it was in answer to this:

'silly or not Honor is a personal matter to which the state should not be involved.'

Yet the point he was making was that so called 'Honour Killings' do go on and that this is certianly one of those personal honour matters that the state should be involved with. I belive it was in answer to this:

'silly or not Honor is a personal matter to which the state should not be involved.'

This has been a successful if short thread. My goal was seeing actual reasons not to allow dueling besides my general feeling of "Hmmm... probably a bad idea." And several very good reasons have been brought up.

Banjos at dawn! :wink:

Banjos at dawn! :wink:

damn... I only got a Ukulele... :(

Banjos at dawn! :wink:
Why not a race? A riverboat race?

I would also endorse formal roshambo duels. *nod*

I would also endorse formal roshambo duels. *nod*

Roshambo?

I only endorse duels naked, with a wet towel as a weapon

I only endorse duels naked, with a wet towel as a weapon

And with a predominantly female audience to witness it all.

I vote for Pineapples at ten paces! Rings or Chunks? :D

And with a predominantly female audience to witness it all.

Indeed. Also to serve a judges. It's hard to smash to death someone with a wet towel. Yet, a true hit can be telling, specially between the legs.

Indeed. Also to serve a judges. It's hard to smash to death someone with a wet towel. Yet, a true hit can be telling, specially between the legs.

Yes, and a trained eye will be needed. Nay, a few trained eyes will be needed in that situation.:D

Roshambo?

Roshambo (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=roshambo)

:p

Roshambo (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=roshambo)

:p

:eek:

Lol!!

:eek:

Lol!!

I pity the fool going up against LG and his Testies of Steel! :D

“Los honorables senadores Salvador Allende y Raúl Rettig -por apreciaciones divergentes y algunos insultos- se fueron a las manos en el hemiciclo. Intervinieron sus colegas Eduardo Frei y Radomiro Tomic, y nada pasó. Sin embargo, Rettig se consideró ofendido y desafió a duelo a Allende; vinieron los padrinos; surgió la gestión conciliadora del presidente del Senado, Fernando Alessandri, y no hubo arreglo. Ambos senadores llegaron al campo del honor, se dispararon el balazo reglamentario a veinticinco pasos y afortunadamente resultaron ilesos. Ampliamente fotografiado y divulgado fue este duelo entre dos destacados políticos -Allende es candidato a la Presidencia de la República-, que podía tener graves consecuencias. ¿Que no se reconciliaron? ¿Que se demostraron ambos como unos bravos? Esto no tiene importancia ante el hecho cierto y macizo que nada soluciona ni puede solucionar un duelo. Si uno de los dos contendores hubiera muerto al otro, ¿se habría sentido vengado y satisfecho al dejar un hogar desamparado y su nombre mancillado para siempre?"


What a coincidence...

I vote for Pineapples at ten paces! Rings or Chunks? :D

Full... unpeeled... with crowns! :D

“Los honorables senadores Salvador Allende y Raúl Rettig -por apreciaciones divergentes y algunos insultos- se fueron a las manos en el hemiciclo. Intervinieron sus colegas Eduardo Frei y Radomiro Tomic, y nada pasó. Sin embargo, Rettig se consideró ofendido y desafió a duelo a Allende; vinieron los padrinos; surgió la gestión conciliadora del presidente del Senado, Fernando Alessandri, y no hubo arreglo. Ambos senadores llegaron al campo del honor, se dispararon el balazo reglamentario a veinticinco pasos y afortunadamente resultaron ilesos. Ampliamente fotografiado y divulgado fue este duelo entre dos destacados políticos -Allende es candidato a la Presidencia de la República-, que podía tener graves consecuencias. ¿Que no se reconciliaron? ¿Que se demostraron ambos como unos bravos? Esto no tiene importancia ante el hecho cierto y macizo que nada soluciona ni puede solucionar un duelo. Si uno de los dos contendores hubiera muerto al otro, ¿se habría sentido vengado y satisfecho al dejar un hogar desamparado y su nombre mancillado para siempre?"


What a coincidence...

Show that to TAI.

I pity the fool going up against LG and his Testies of Steel! :D

Wouldn't it be amusing if it turned out they were made of pie... :D

As far as I know, dueling is illegal.

Should it be? After all, it is consensual, even if one of the people involved might die. If legalized, though, there could be widespread abuse of such, with people who had committed murder claiming that it was a duel.

Still, if both of the people involved consent to take part, why exactly should it be illegal?

I'm not arguing that it should be legalized, btw, I'm just interested in this conundrum and in hearing NSG's thoughts on the matter.

The problem with duelling is that it creates an envirmonement where a lot of really decent first rate people get killed or hurt. Only cowards do not duel. Honorable people duel and their population dwindles. I have no problem with people duking it out over honor but duelling is just too much.

The problem with duelling is that it creates an envirmonement where a lot of really decent first rate people get killed or hurt. Only cowards do not duel. Honorable people duel and their population dwindles. I have no problem with people duking it out over honor but duelling is just too much.

you can decline a duel and stay honorable.
Augustus declined to duel Mark Anthony and still went on to become the emperor of Rome. (a good idea too Mark Anthony was a solider Augustus was not.)
And several others. refusing to duel does not immediately remove honor.

you can decline a duel and stay honorable.
Augustus declined to duel Mark Anthony and still went on to become the emperor of Rome. (a good idea too Mark Anthony was a solider Augustus was not.)
And several others. refusing to duel does not immediately remove honor.

Yeah it does. Resolving a disagreement outside of a duel is fine and good but not duelling upon an absolute demand at the end of the discussion is cowardice.

you can decline a duel and stay honorable.
Augustus declined to duel Mark Anthony and still went on to become the emperor of Rome. (a good idea too Mark Anthony was a solider Augustus was not.)
And several others. refusing to duel does not immediately remove honor.
Handled cleverly, you could manage duels so that it mostly removes "undesirable" young men from society, for whatever definition of undesirable you have. Word it right and pitch it right, and you might manage to channel some gang violence into legally sanctioned dueling grounds.

But on the whole, dueling has not been helpful, and I think its contribution to the morality of society is a net negative no matter how you sell it. As a mathematics graduate student, I must always point to the example of Galois. Look him up, if you would.

Handled cleverly, you could manage duels so that it mostly removes "undesirable" young men from society, for whatever definition of undesirable you have. Word it right and pitch it right, and you might manage to channel some gang violence into legally sanctioned dueling grounds.

But on the whole, dueling has not been helpful, and I think its contribution to the morality of society is a net negative no matter how you sell it. As a mathematics graduate student, I must always point to the example of Galois. Look him up, if you would.

Society does not own his ideas, It is his life to throw away as he wills it.
More over considering his political activities at the time seems like he was bound to be killed in one way or another.