Dueling Anyone?

I think if we made dueling to the death ok, alot of "gangsta" types would use it as a convenient way to fight rival gangs... Which would, IMO, be wrong. Fighting to the death over "turf" that you don't even own... :barf:

On the other hand, we might see a decrease in the overall population of violent gangsters -- which is A-ok by me! (Them killing eachother in a controlled environment as opposed to them killing eachother on a street where innocents might be hurt.)

Wolfe.
 
In the same vein, Trial By Combat is still on the books in Texas. Not sure about dueling specifically, but TBC is part of common law, and was never taken off. So, any of you Texans get a traffic ticket, ask the judge for Trial By Combat. As an aside, we still have hanging as a punishment for horse thievery as well. What a country...err, state!
 
What you geniuses are advocating is that as long as I'm faster than you are, I can talk about your mother, your business, and your integrity all I want to.
Click to expand...

And Mr. Genius, how would you KNOW if you were faster until the actual duel? You can THINK you are faster, but you may be wrong. So therefore, if you THINK you were faster you could do so (the quote above) but you WILL run into someone that is faster then you sooner or later.

Wayne
 
Give the cowards no place to hide

+1, USP45!!

As I said earlier, here is the crux of the matter:
Today, @--holes are protected by the law, which promotes torrents of behavior worthy of a first-class @-- kicking.
Click to expand...

The law protects obnoxious, belligerent @--holes from getting what they deserve - beaten to a bloody pulp. They know this. Rather than making "society" more civil, it has the opposite effect. You can see and hear it literally every day.

Instead of providing @--holes a safe haven from which to operate, our "society" needs some process that will put a stop to obnoxious, belligerent self-centered behavoir.

Back in "the old days," men generally kept their cakeholes shut and minded their manners, knowing that if they did not, their disrespect would be paid for with their own blood.
Click to expand...
If this were true today, you can bet we would live in a much more respectful society. The foul-mouthed cowards and road-ragers we must now endure would not have the law to hide behind.
 
And Mr. Genius, how would you KNOW if you were faster until the actual duel? You can THINK you are faster, but you may be wrong
Click to expand...
Yeah. Exactly.

So if you don't KNOW that you're faster than I am, you would be well advised to sit there quietly, and let me discuss your mother.

Or defame you.

Or ruin your business.

Nope, our way is better. Dueling, as clearly demonstrated here, is for fools.
 
So if you don't KNOW that you're faster than I am, you would be well advised to sit there quietly, and let me discuss your mother.
Click to expand...

This depends on one's values.

Some people WOULD risk their lives to address such a 'grievance'. Others wouldn't. You may call me a fool - but as a rule, my life is my life is my life.
 
So if you don't KNOW that you're faster than I am, you would be well advised to sit there quietly, and let me discuss your mother.
Click to expand...

Nope, I would fight that person like a man would fight the coward that felt it was their place to defame, badmouth, and otherwise just be a troll upon the earth.

And I would practice, practice, practice.

The way it's done now is that said troll badmouths a person and gets away with it by law. The person that was on the receiving end could do nothing except take it.

So therefore, these trolls knowing this, will continue to do so. And if the other person puts the troll where they belong, on the ground with a good butt whippin' (or a little round ball), then the actual victim goes to prison while the troll continues to walk the street.

Yeah, sounds like we have it really good now days, shut up and take the abuse, or else.

There is no more honor among people it seems today. And when you want to bring back the days where honor was held in high regard by using the methods that they had at the time.

Now, we're just taught that your right to free speech trumps my right to kick your butt if you:

discuss my mother.

Or defame you.

Or ruin your business.
Click to expand...

So, how is our way today much more better than theirs?

Wayne
 
Some people WOULD risk their lives to address such a 'grievance'. Others wouldn't. You may call me a fool - but as a rule, my life is my life is my life.
Click to expand...
Nope, I would fight that person like a man would fight the coward that felt it was their place to defame, badmouth, and otherwise just be a troll upon the earth.
Click to expand...
Well, once...

So, how is our way today much more better than theirs?
Click to expand...
Recourse. Of course. At least, there is recourse for those of us who are aware of what they are, when and how to use them...

For the rest of you, there's the Fight Club, or dueling, or drive-bys.

Win or loose, I can use my methods again the next day. Your method stops working the first time you loose.

Have fun.
 
You're confusing two points, Jammer Six.

"Should dueling be legal?"

and

"Is it wise to engage in it?"

are entirely separate points.
 
Well, once...
Click to expand...

For a man you never met (me), you seem to think that you know my skills level more than I :confused:

Pray tell friend, how is it that your insight upon my dueling skills enables you to comment as you have?

Have we dueled before, in another life perhaps?

Until it is legal, I shant challenge you to a duel for the dishonor that you have placed upon my person Sir. :p

Courts, the new American way. Sue this, sue that, let's all sue and let them protect us from ourselves as well as those that wish to bully us :rolleyes: .

Wayne

*Paragraph 4 is a joke, don't have a hissy fit over it okay.
 
I'm not sure where you got the idea that we're friends.

You're confusing two points, Jammer Six.
Click to expand...
No, actually, I'm not.

My contention is that it's for fools, whether it's legal or not.

If your rationalization of the validity of an action depends on legality, you have my sympathy.
 
I'm not sure where you got the idea that we're friends.
Click to expand...

You are not from the South are you. It was actually an insult if you really need to know, as you have shown that you didn't.

And you've failed to address my point, as I was hoping that you would. I ask again, friend, how do you know of my skills upon the matter?

My contention is that it's for fools, whether it's legal or not.
Click to expand...

And that, friend, is where you have your opinion, as I have mine. Neither is incorrect as neither is correct, just a simple difference of thought, neither being foolish.

Your thoughts are yours, they aren't right, nor wrong, as ours is of the same.

Wayne
 
Well, that makes my point...
Click to expand...

... is just another way of saying, I don't know how to respond so I'll just call another member a fool and leave :rolleyes: .

Or are you saying that all from the South, are fools?

Either way, it doesn't matter. Enjoyed talking with you. The more I get to speak with others, the more I learn.

Thank you Friend (said without insult this time).

Wayne
 
Sometimes a duel would be more efficient

When de Tocqueville<sp> visited the USA he was told by an Alabama lawyer that it was then difficult to convict anyone of murder...because most defendants alleged that it was a case of 'self-defense' - a defense of their 'honor.' When you hear about 'homicide rates' going up - it's important to remember that it is often just the way they are counted! I once worked in a jail and I sometimes wondered if dueling might in fact be a better way of allowing certain criminal elements settle their disputes ie. might as well let them formally shoot each other than to channel it into drive-by's...
It might also cure(until people soon figured a way around it) certain nasty cases of libelous backstabbing politics ie. one's boss might think twice about 'nastily writing up someone'..if he had to think about it sparking a 'duel'. Oh well, I guess swords are out of fashion too. I'd like to wear a nice ivory-handled dress sword to dinner...but alas it draws too much negative attention... :cool:
 
ie. one's boss might think twice about 'nastily writing up someone'..if he had to think about it sparking a 'duel'.
Click to expand...
Nope. Not if he was a good shot, and careful to hire those who aren't.

So far, not much thought involved in any of these theories.

:rolleyes:
 
In most traditions, it is the offended [person who challenges] who chooses the weapon.

Also, this is detracting from the main question:

"Should dueling be legal?"

As opposed to "Is dueling a good idea?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top