Gunfights and Duels?

[James R]

Baron Max:

But ye're all for legalizing drugs so the same family member can suck on drugs, get high and leave the same family to require someone else to support?? Hmm.

If you really want to know the reason I'm for legalising some drugs, we can have another thread on that. But please don't try to put words in my mouth.

I think we have enough members in society to fill the ranks of the army, don't you?

It's getting harder and harder to find volunteers. If people have a death wish, what better way to satisfy it than to send them to Iraq, say, so they can duel their hearts out with insurgents?

I can understand wimps and sissy-boys not wanting to duel or fight, that's easy. Wimps and sissy-boys always want others to protect them.

You don't need to be a wimp to avoid being brainless.

A fair duel has nothing to do with physical strength. A duel does, however, have something to do with the strength of ones convictions.

Historically, that's false. Duels had more to do with silly notions of offended "honour". Many duels were fought over the same kinds of things that bar fights start over today - looking at somebody the "wrong way", accidentally brushing past them as you go to get your next beer, etc.

Xev, we ain't searching for truth or right or wrong or moral or........... It's for personal satisfaction. The way things are now, there's no legal way to get PERSONAL satisfaction.

Poor frustrated Baron Max. He can't get no satisfaction.

 

[pjdude1219]

simple these things can not be regulated enough to be fair therefore they do not make a decent system for justice.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why do you need to shoot people to get personal satisfaction?

 

[madanthonywayne]

This may have something to do with duels falling out of favor in the US:

That scumbag Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton, a great man and one of our founding fathers.

I'm pretty much with you on this issue, Baron. But I wonder how differently things would have gone if Hamilton had won that duel.

 

[pjdude1219]

you relize hamilton cheated but the hair trigger he had made his gun go off early

 

[madanthonywayne]

you realize hamilton cheated but the hair trigger he had made his gun go off early

No, I didn't know that. Can you post a source on that?

 

[James R]

madanthonywayne:

I think you'll find that duels were already illegal at the time that duel was fought.

 

[pjdude1219]

No, I didn't know that. Can you post a source on that?

i'd love to but i believe i saw it on the history channel i'll loook for a reliable source to prove it and if and when i find it i'll post it

 

[Baron Max]

I think you'll find that duels were already illegal at the time that duel was fought.

James, I'd sure hoped that you would have been in full support of something that involved two consenting adults. I'm getting the odd feeling that you're against duels ...which is between two consenting adults. If so, can you explain your position?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

Whatever happened to those honorable ways of settling personal differences and disagreements? Why has it become illegal, or immoral or unethical?

Because people got hooked on the idea of civilization. A prerequisite to civilization is civility.

Besides, take people like Preston "Bully" Brooks and Zell Miller as examples. Right there we see two (in)famous instances when the "honorable" way of settling differences was invoked by people who were factually wrong, ethically ignorant, and morally paradoxical. Brooks beat Sumner because the latter trampled the honor of South Carolina by opposing slavery and rejecting its justifications. Miller challenged Chris Matthews to a duel because the latter trampled the Georgia politician's honor by calling him out on blatant lies.

As such, why not include drive-by shootings as an "honorable" way of settling differences? If "the sum'bitch had it comin'" is an honorable justification for murder, what does the formality of a duel have to do with it?

 

[Baron Max]

Because people got hooked on the idea of civilization. A prerequisite to civilization is civility.

Civility? Ya' mean where crime is rampant in our societies? Where drugs and prostitution thrive? Where people are killed everyday for nothing? Where one nation goes to war against another nation? Where the people of one nation fight and kill the other people of that same nation? That kind of ....civility???

Besides, take people like Preston "Bully" Brooks and Zell Miller as examples. ...

I have no idea what you're trying to say by that example. But you, of all people, should know that one lousy example proves nothing!

As such, why not include drive-by shootings as an "honorable" way of settling differences? If "the sum'bitch had it comin'" is an honorable justification for murder, what does the formality of a duel have to do with it?

Did you convienently overlook my term "consent" or "agreement"?? A duel can't be fought without the free consent of both parties.

Your "over the top" exaggeration is foolish ...it's something that Baron Max might resort to ...and you know how you hate it when HE does that?!

Baron Max

 

[mountainhare]

tiassa:

Because people got hooked on the idea of civilization. A prerequisite to civilization is civility

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I agree with Baron Max on this one. The above comment is full of shit.

Added to which, duels can be quite civil. Haven't you ever read 'The Three Musketeers'?

Usually the people who are against duels are the ones who know that their ass would get handed to them in one on one combat.

However, I disagree with GUN duels. As they say on 'Enter the Dragon', any retard can pull a trigger... it's no measure of skill or endurance. One lucky shot, and the better man is wiped out of the gene pool (eg. Alexander Hamilton). Or at least one who may have survived had they dueled with swords.

On the other hand, sword duels are a true test of endurance, agility and skill. Two consenting individuals should be allowed to engage in a duel of sabres until the death, IMHO. Or until one side receives a suitable apology. There would be no 'line cutters' or 'loud mouths' in society if they knew that they could get challenged to a duel.

Outlawing ritualized, consensual combat is just another way in which the law imposes unnatural expectations upon society.

 

[Pandaemoni]

Outlawing ritualized, consensual combat is just another way in which the law imposes unnatural expectations upon society.

We don't, completely; you are still free to consensually fight (so long as you do not disturb the peace and you are reasonably certain that the fight will not lead to fatalities). One form of it is called "boxing," and there is no restriction on who may engage in it. Feel free to challenge people to get in the ring, just not free to threaten them with death.

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

James, I'd sure hoped that you would have been in full support of something that involved two consenting adults. I'm getting the odd feeling that you're against duels ...which is between two consenting adults. If so, can you explain your position?

Actually, I'm not against duels, per se. What I worry about is their side-effects on other members of society not directly involved, and on society as a whole. Moreover, I don't think a society is that condones dueling behaviour on insignificant pretexts is a particularly enlightened one.

But my main problem with duelling is that it isn't a fair test of the claims that led to the duel in the first place. It isn't a just resolution to a dispute. The outcome is either random (as was mostly ensured by the rules of the duel when duelling was less rare), or it depends on the duelling skill of the combatants. Either way, who is wrong or right in the dispute doesn't come into it. Thus, it is a childish way to resolve disputes.



mountainhare:

Usually the people who are against duels are the ones who know that their ass would get handed to them in one on one combat.

No. The ones who are against duels are the ones who use their brains to think, rather than their penises.

However, I disagree with GUN duels. As they say on 'Enter the Dragon', any retard can pull a trigger... it's no measure of skill or endurance. One lucky shot, and the better man is wiped out of the gene pool (eg. Alexander Hamilton). Or at least one who may have survived had they dueled with swords.

A few points here:

1. Interestingly, gun duels were invented precisely in order to remove the physical advantage one duellist invariably had over the other. (Think about why that might have been done...)

2. The "better man" may not be the better duellist. Consider.

3. Historically, the rules for sword duels varied, as did the rules for gun duels. Some sword duels were fought to the first wound. Others were fought to the death. I recently read a book about the last judicially-sanctioned duel in France, which took place in the late 1300s. The combatants in that duel were locked into a public arena with high walls, and the duel was to continue until one of them was dead - with the king of France and the general public looking on for their entertainment, and one of the duellists' wives to be immediately hung too, if her husband lost the duel.

Outlawing ritualized, consensual combat is just another way in which the law imposes unnatural expectations upon society.

Not at all. The law is there to resolve disputes among individuals impartially.

 

[Tiassa]

I have no idea what you're trying to say by that example. But you, of all people, should know that one lousy example proves nothing!

I'm not surprised that you can't figure it out. One person's "honor", as you have so aptly demonstrated, is the rest of society's "bullshit". Dueling and killing over bullshit is a waste of time.

And besides, Baron, if you're not smart enough to figure out that Brooks and Miller equal two examples, you need to learn both to read and count.

A note to Mountainhare

Smart, dude. Yeah. Reality, right? So you answer with fiction? Tell you what: When people show critical thinking skills suggesting that they can figure out the difference between honor and bullshit, there might be a point to reinstating duels. However, challenging someone to a duel because they caught you in a massive lie intended to affect the entire body social of the nation--as with Zell Miller--is simply not honorable.

Seriously: Explain to me, please, how challenging someone to a duel for the "offense" of nailing you to the wall when you are consciously attempting to con a large number of people is "honorable".

 

[mountainhare]

tiassa:

The 'Three Musketeers' comment was tongue in cheek. Trust someone as pedantic as you not to pick up a joke.

 

[Baron Max]

Baron Max: Actually, I'm not against duels, per se. What I worry about is their side-effects on other members of society not directly involved, and on society as a whole.

Geez, James, thanks ...I can use that exact comment for my arguments against homosexuality and homo marriage. Thanks!!

As to a duel's effect on society ....like what??

But my main problem with duelling is that it isn't a fair test of the claims that led to the duel in the first place. It isn't a just resolution to a dispute.

Yeah, and exactly the same thing is true with court cases. A court does NOT resolve the original dispute, it's only a judge's or jury's opinion ...which doesn't resolve a single thing between the two people. And worse, a court case can cause lots of money and lots of time and lots of effort ...and still not resolve the dispute.

Either way, who is wrong or right in the dispute doesn't come into it. Thus, it is a childish way to resolve disputes.

I agree, the dispute is not resolved. But there is personal satisfaction to be gained ...which almost always not the case with court trials. Win or lose, the two have not even come close to resolving the case, but some personal satisfaction is better than nothing ...which is often the case in court trials. Thus, courts and judges are a childish and expensive way to resolve disputes ...and seldom resolve the dispute anyway.

Not at all. The law is there to resolve disputes among individuals impartially.

No, James, that's not the case at all! As you well know, a dispute between two people can't simply be resolved by some jerk in black robes laying down the law!! In fact, in some cases, it only makes matters worse ...and without any avenue for personal satisfaction.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Dueling and killing over bullshit is a waste of time.

Sounds like a personal opinion. But I have a different opinion.

I would also remind you, if you don't know, that court cases are also a major waste of time and money ...much, much more than a simple duel.

Baron Max

 

[James R]

Baron Max:

Geez, James, thanks ...I can use that exact comment for my arguments against homosexuality and homo marriage.

It would be a much better argument than the ones you've tried running on that topic so far.

Thanks!!

No worries.

As to a duel's effect on society ....like what??

I think I alluded to the people left behind earlier. Also, the culture of duelling is an unhealthy and unproductive one, as can be seen from the history of duelling.

Yeah, and exactly the same thing is true with court cases. A court does NOT resolve the original dispute, it's only a judge's or jury's opinion...

Wrong on both counts. Court cases do resolve disputes. And they are not matters of the opinions of the judge and jury. Decisions are based on the law and the facts.

I agree, the dispute is not resolved. But there is personal satisfaction to be gained ...which almost always not the case with court trials.

Almost always, eh?

Got any evidence at all for that sweeping generalisation?

I thought not.

 

[Baron Max]

Court cases do resolve disputes. And they are not matters of the opinions of the judge and jury. Decisions are based on the law and the facts.

I think we're missing the idea of "personal" disputes or "personal" insults ...which the courts will have little or nothing to do with. And there's no way to resolve such disputes. Although in some cases, driveby shootings occur for that very reason. Hence, personal duels would help resolve the "personal" disputes ...which courts can't resolve.

Baron Max