Gunfights and Duels?

Nasor said:
Okay...so what happens when the agent just says "You're a nut. I'm not going to duel with you. Get out of my office before I call the police."
Click to expand...

Then you're in absolutely the same situation as before the dueling laws were enacted ...nowhere, with no one to help you unless you pay a fortune in legal fees to ...MAYBE... get some legal restitution.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Then you're in absolutely the same situation as before the dueling laws were enacted ...nowhere, with no one to help you unless you pay a fortune in legal fees to ...MAYBE... get some legal restitution.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Baron Pandaemoni sure put a lot of effort getting/typing those rediculous snippets of history concerning "duelling", you gonna respond or just admit you was owned?
 
This town needs an enema! (And so do you, BM ...)

BM said:

I don't think there is such a thing as "civilized" society. And I think most human societies on Earth are prove of that!

I also question whether there's such a thing as "civilized" humans.
Click to expand...

Why does this opinion of yours strike me completely without any sense of surprise?

Look, Max, just because it's too hard for you to understand doesn't mean something doesn't exist. Truth is that time passes, and nothing was ever perfect inasmuch as there is no real perfection. In the meantime, you can either ignore it all, complain about it, or actually take part in the human endeavor, which has for thousands of years sought civility. Now, just because what the Christians, Muslim extremists, Democrats and Republicans, or even you consider civilized is complete and utter horsepucky doesn't mean civility doesn't exist.

See, think of that stupid old phrase, "You gotta earn my respect." I find this notion complete crap; it's a cheap slogan for petty minds. The truth is that people are human, and therefore are entitled to a certain amount of respect inasmuch as the human endeavor seeks civilization. So it's not a matter of "earning" respect. However, one may certainly forfeit respect by strenuously insisting against it. Take you, for instance, Max. Your conduct certainly doesn't warrant the respect I show you. But I'm not yet convinced that you're actually demanding the forfeit of any respect I show you. Rather, it's kind of like the suicidal. The simpleton might think, "Well, that's what he wanted," but permanent solutions to temporary and phantasmic issues--the general motivation of suicide--don't reflect a rational desire. Thus, when you tromp around here demanding that people treat you like so much shite on their shoes, it's rather hard to accommodate. If a mentally-ill person asked me to kick his teeth in, I wouldn't. If that basket case left me so few options that his teeth ended up shattered on the sidewalk, anyway, such is life. I would no more enjoy shattering the insane man's teeth than I would treating you as you deserve according to your demands.

For instance, this topic--duels. For all you talk about honor, you have none. The idea that someone would take the time to challenge you to a duel--as opposed, say, to doing a drive-by, or simply walking up behind you and putting a cap in yo' ass--suggests that they would be giving you far better than your integrity demands.

Now, no matter what kind of lowlife you choose to depict yourself as here at Sciforums, the thought that you deserve violence in response to your hatred is absurd. Though the world might be better off without you in the most basic consideration, the terms of your exit under violence presents a question far more complex (and important). After all, what's one hatemonger more or less? But violence only begets violence, and in the end licensing violence through precedent is a greater danger to civilization than any two-bit, semi-literate hatemonger spreading his empty gospel across an internet discussion forum.

The best we can hope is that you actually conduct yourself with greater decency and integrity in the real world. Given how unrealistic that hope seems, it still wouldn't make sense to attempt correction through violence.

In the first place, you're generally not worth it.

Secondly, it would be tragic if society's response to mental illness returned to idiotic violence.

I know it's hard for you to understand, BM, and that's why people take mercy on folks in your condition.

Your conscience needs an enema, BM.
 
BM said:

Then why didn't you stick to the topic? ...instead of spending so much time ranting about Baron Max?
Click to expand...

Discussions of the nature and possibility of civilization are certainly relevant to the discussion at hand.

And insofar as civility is concerned, you make an excellent case for examination.
 
Mod Hat - No.

Mod Hat - No. No, no, no, no, no.

Regarding a deleted post: While the effort is noted, the content is beyond the pale.

Can't have that sort of thing going on.
 
Some people have an unexplainable need to fight from time to time. Even if this means risking your health or your life. (Remember the movie "Fight Club"?) This is not the forum to discuss why some people have this need, all I can say is that as a fencer there is something inside of me that is satisfied after a bout. I know the chances I will be seriously injuried are slim, but I enjoy the opportunity to test myself, man-to-man against another. In Germany, students still fight Mensur duels, where parts of their bodies are exposed (cheeks and forehead, and in some cases the Mensur duels are fought bare chested). Wounds received in such duels are considered marks of honor, even in the 21 century. I met someone who was wounded in a Mensur. He wore his scar with honor and talked about the experience. I've never participated in such a duel, but I do wonder if I would have the courage to fight if the opportunity presented itself.

I wonder, are you a fencer, Baron Max? Or a boxer? Or do you participate in any sport that might expose you to injury? Answer honestly, if you were challenged to a duel, pistols (where no particular skill is needed), where you and your opponent fired at the same time, and you could be killed, would you accept the challenge? And what causes would comply you to fight?
 
Civilise argument is usually best solution. Why fight at all? Worst comes to worst use your fist. Guns are for cowards or should be strictly for military for defensive purpose. Actually any fighting should be mainly used for last resort defensive purpose IMO. Sadly in the reality of the world that can't always be the case. Still I'm a believer of showing mercy to those I argue with and resort to more civilise verbal exchange. There are so many colourful ways to verbal shut someone up. If they want to get at me physically then they wouldn't stand a chance either. :p
 
I agree with you that civilized argument is usually the best solution, but sometimes the other party prefers to fight it out. I disagree with you that fists should be used. Then the winner will always be the better, stronger, or skilled fighter, like in medieval judicial duels. If one must fight then pistols are the best weapons. Pistols are not for cowards because it takes no particular skill to aim and shoot a pistol, but it takes a lot of nerve to do it when someone else is aiming at you, so all things being equal, with pistols the combatants are equally matched. And history has shown that the deadliest shot is not always the winner.

You say above that if someone wants to get physical with you they wouldn’t stand a chance, just my point, if you fight someone who does not have your skills or strength then it wouldn’t be a fair fight. You would be acting like a school yard bully. (And I don’t think you’re that type.) However, standing 20 or 30 paces from someone who is equally armed and who has as good a chance of shooting you as you do of shooting him is a fair, courageous way of settling things. Of course, every good history student knows that most duels never went beyond the preliminary stage because the seconds had the good sense of talking things out and arranging apologies. You would have made a good second, but would you have the courage to fight a duel?
 
^We obviously see eye to eye on some of my points. However I would prefer a sword duel over gun. Perhaps that's because I'm a pracitioner of kendo and iaido. Secondly maybe because I don't really endorse firearms for civilians. I also feel death by sword is so much more satisfying. Perhaps sword is a little much ne. Anyone for a spar in kendo?

You're right to say I'm not the type to start or even look for trouble, however I would not hesitate to chop/break someone's limbs off for even a moment if someone's threatening me in any way. Frankly it would be alot nicer if someone pays me for it. I really hate wasting energy unless it's hot sex with a gorgeous member of the opposite sex. To be honest I'd even the troublemaker a beer and tell them to calm down first and talk it out over a drink.

Courage to fight a duel? Well all I can say is it's not about courage but whether you want to be somebody's b****, or in life and death situation it's about whether you have the will to live or not. No will to live means no such thing as courage. IMO courage is but glorification of someone's will to continue living.
 
purebred said:
I agree with you that civilized argument is usually the best solution, but sometimes the other party prefers to fight it out. I disagree with you that fists should be used. Then the winner will always be the better, stronger, or skilled fighter, like in medieval judicial duels. If one must fight then pistols are the best weapons. Pistols are not for cowards because it takes no particular skill to aim and shoot a pistol, but it takes a lot of nerve to do it when someone else is aiming at you, so all things being equal, with pistols the combatants are equally matched. And history has shown that the deadliest shot is not always the winner.

You say above that if someone wants to get physical with you they wouldn’t stand a chance, just my point, if you fight someone who does not have your skills or strength then it wouldn’t be a fair fight. You would be acting like a school yard bully. (And I don’t think you’re that type.) However, standing 20 or 30 paces from someone who is equally armed and who has as good a chance of shooting you as you do of shooting him is a fair, courageous way of settling things. Of course, every good history student knows that most duels never went beyond the preliminary stage because the seconds had the good sense of talking things out and arranging apologies. You would have made a good second, but would you have the courage to fight a duel?
Click to expand...

Traditionally, the person who is challenged gets to pick the weapons used, hence you have to be rash enough not merely to challenge someone to a duel, but to accept that they will likely choose the form of combat which gives them the greatest chance of success.

IMO, though, dueling is not about "courage." Most duelists were young men, and many young men tend to be more foolhardy and aggressive than courageous. Also, I don't think I would describe threatening another man with death simply because
  • he has the affections of the girl who rejected you,
  • he likes the poetry of Ariosto more than Dante,
  • he didn't praise your artwork sufficiently highly,
  • he looked at you funny,
  • he was a witness against you in court,
  • just for the hell of it because you feel like fighting or
  • many of the other pointless reasons to fight I already listed
as "courageous" in any case, without qualification. "Courage" sounds too much like a virtue. Putting aside your instinct for self-preservation without good cause and with express intent of seriously harming another seems to me what the word "audacity" was meant for. Dueling, in that sense, is less virtuous than drag racing, where at least you are not "hoping" to physically injure your opponent. (I would say that going into a duel with the express intent of aiming your pistol in the air, giving the other side the opportunity to satisfy his honor, at the risk of your life, but without intending to pose any real risk to his is courageous.)

Again, though, I think it is important not to overly romanticize the practice. It was not a now-lost source of stability or a proving ground for the better qualities of honorable men. It was, if anything, destabilizing and all too often simply pointless. It wasn't banned because rulers and legislators in the past were ill-informed or just plain dumb, if anything they had a better perspective on its societal effects than we do. Too many aggressive idiots were abusing the privilege of dueling for dubious or spurious reasons, and many men, especially young men, were (and likely still are) too susceptible to the cry of "coward!" to walk away from a fight, however pointless and counter-productive it may be.
 
Pandaemoni said:
IMO, though, dueling is not about "courage." Most duelists were young men, and many young men tend to be more foolhardy and aggressive than courageous.
Click to expand...

So, ....because you don't like it, you're willing to pass laws against it and force others to do as you want? If it's agreeable to both parties, if it's consentual adults, why should you want to stand in their way?

Will you allow me to pass laws against homosexual sex and same-sex marriage in the same way???? ...just because I don't like it and don't think it's a good thing for others?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
So, ....because you don't like it, you're willing to pass laws against it and force others to do as you want? If it's agreeable to both parties, if it's consentual adults, why should you want to stand in their way?
Click to expand...

Again, gay marriage. "f it's consentual [sic] adults, why should you want to stand in their way?" Except, in that case, no one gets killed.

And that's the rub.

First, as I pointed out above, the issue of "consent" is a thorny one in the case of dueling. To start, a lot of duels were more hormone driven expressions of jealousy than matters of honor, and some were considerably less than that (the 17th century nobleman from Naples who dueled over whether Dante was the better poet than Ariosto—yet had never read the works of either—entered into about 20 duels, killing a dozen men, over that argument). If you challenge someone to a duel because of a flash of adrenaline, you weren't allowed to simply "take it back." On the flip side, the man challenged didn't necessarily want to fight (especially not over a poetry debate with a mass murderer), they just wanted to avoid the consequences of refusing to fight, which is a different thing.

If there were a way to avoid the compulsion to fight when you'd prefer not to, I would not care, personally. I don't see how one ensures that though, given human nature. It's too easy to get angry and act rashly, and then be trapped and unable to escape your own foolishness.

That all too human tendency to make rash and suboptimal decisions is precisely the reason that Jason bound himself to the mast (and his men plugged their ears). Jason voluntarily limited his own freedom to avoid making a stupid decision (drowning himself), because he knew that under the circumstances he was facing his judgment would not be trustworthy. That is a fine reason to limit freedom of choice, especially when the consequences are so dire as death. (Whereas, in the case of homosexual marriage, the consequences are that other people are having fun that you wish they weren't having...not so dire at all).

If it could be shown that dueling was a stable system that was used only after careful deliberation by truly consenting participants, great....but that is not the actual history of dueling. The actual history of dueling was so grim, wasteful and ridiculous, that society turned against it. You've not shown any reason to believe that history isn't a good guide to the wisdom of dueling, and history is pretty clear. In fact, you seem to be advocating the expansion of dueling....not limiting it to the aristocracy, as it once as, but to letting everyone do it. That seems like a recipe for taking all the foolishness and costs it imposed on society in the past and magnifying them.

Again, though, if you merely want to compete against a rival, there are plenty of perfectly legal means of doing so, you just aren't allowed to purposefully kill them. Why is killing them so important to you? How does that recover your honor? More to the point, for the more likely scenario, how does that convince the girl who rejected you that she should reconsider?
 
Last edited:
People, can we forget about the history of the duel, the logic of the duel, or the romance of the duel, and focus on what we like to talk about the most in America – the right to fight a duel. Suppose that two men, over the age of maturity, but under the age of senility, for whatever reason, decide that they want to settle all the animosity between them in a duel. For the sake of the Second Amendment, let’s say they want to fight a pistol duel. They have no families, no one depends on them, and they’ve agreed to fight in a remote place where no one else can get hurt. Do they have an inalienable right to duel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top