YES PLEASE
YES PLEASE
You're viewing a single thread.
Dueling is a net gain for every society that allows it. It removes half of the people chuddy enough to duel
Is this a joke? Dueling is the complete repudiation of justice. Instead of right or wrong being determined in a courtroom, are you seriously proposing that right or wrong be determined by whoever has better hand-eye coordination? Advocating for dueling as a mechanism to resolve disputes is actually ableist. Are disabled people simply supposed to lose every single conflict?
It removes half of the people chuddy enough to duel
Apologies for my crude language, but this makes zero fucking sense. When you challenge someone to a duel, you are not politely asking them for a duel, you are slapping them in the fucking face. Yes, hold on, let me just allow this jackass to slap me in the fucking face and bully me around.
When you reject a duel, you lose face. This is how dueling works. Dueling is not a matter of being "chuddy enough to duel", dueling is a matter of protecting your dignity.
We already have a mechanism for determining who is right or wrong in a dispute. They're called courts, and even though they aren't perfect, they are infinitely better at providing justice than the complete repudiation of justice that dueling is.
Dueling should stay illegal.
This bill is solely about dueling in the Missouri State Senate, and is only backed by Republicans. If Republicans in Missouri want to shoot each other, I wholeheartedly encourage them to do so. Dueling in this case is not about "justice" or "right/wrong" but about the subhuman pondscum that becomes Republican state senators being too fucking angry to do useful politics and instead resort to slapfights against each other.
Is this a joke?
Pretty obviously, yes
[four paragraph effortpost]
This can also be answered by the answer to your first question.
A neo-Nazi slaps an antifascist activist in the face and challenges him to a duel. Would it be "chuddy" for the activist to accept?
It would be pretty stupid, so I guess, yeah?
It would be pretty stupid, so I guess, yeah?
"Chuddy" is not a synonym for stupid. An offended parent challenges a schoolteacher to a duel by insulting him and slapping him in the face, because the schoolteacher gave his kid a bad mark. In a fit of rage, the schoolteacher accepts the duel, loses the duel, and dies. The offended parent is not arrested, because it was a duel, and winning a duel is not murder. Was the schoolteacher "chuddy"?
being prone fits of rage lasting long enough for you to agree, arrange and fight in a duel seems like a chuddy trait to me
Consider the alternative where the school teacher doesn't accept and nothing happens to them. That fit of rage is doing a lot of lifting. "Get away from me, maniac" should be all you need for face and dignity. I don't know where this idea that slapping someone being permissable because they say the magic words of offering a duel comes from.
I don't know where this idea that slapping someone being permissable because they say the magic words of offering a duel comes from.
I agree that it's absolutely ridiculous in a modern context where dueling has died as an institution, but historically for one to refuse a duel from a person of equal or greater social standing than them would ruin one's reputation.
When you challenge someone to a duel, you are not politely asking them for a duel, you are slapping them in the fucking face. Yes, hold on, let me just allow this jackass to slap me in the fucking face and bully me around.
When you reject a duel, you lose face. This is how dueling works. Dueling is not a matter of being "chuddy enough to duel", dueling is a matter of protecting your dignity.
Being willing to kill someone because they disrespected you, to save face, or protect your dignity seems very chuddy to me.
Dueling for senators
Its dueling for them... it's not mandatory for prisoners and school teachers to do shit like that
Let these politicians go... let them tarry... let them sink or let them swim, they don't give a damn for us so why should we for them?
We already have a mechanism for determining who is right or wrong in a dispute. They're called courts
Courts are for whether what they did was illegal. Your partner doesn't have to break the law to be worthy of divorce. I think you are off base in the assertion this has anything to do with justice. Contract disputes don't need duels, traffic violations don't need duels, victims of violence and robbery don't need duels. Imagine if you cheated in a duel and the plaintiff had to duel you because of it.
Dueling is a stupid game for stupid prizes. If you duel over an attractive person or because the moderate wing of fascism is annoying then your play for dignity is the subject of my ridicule. Dueling for disputes about the color of cages in amerikkka is funny. The congress of a fascist state catabolizing itself is good actually.
Dueling is a stupid game for stupid prizes. If you duel over an attractive person or because the moderate wing of fascism is annoying then your play for dignity is the subject of my ridicule.
It's my opinion that people should not be allowed to play stupid games where the only rewards are stupid prizes. The winner of the duel should go to jail, and the loser of the duel should go to jail, after going to the hospital.
I agree with you on your other points.
I would argue that the prohibition of vices is ineffective. There are plenty of drugs without upside including alcohol. No history of prohibition was ever anything but a giant waste of money that created organized crime. Gambling is so simple that you'd get casinos popping up everywhere. There's also a secret, sinister third one about sex.
Would society be better off without it? Sure. Would the prevalence increase with legality? Sure (maybe because I think it was just for senators or something?). Would I be torn up if Missouri decided it was a dumb idea? No. My point? It would be funny if it happened - doubly so if it was just for congresspeople.
I would argue that the prohibition of dueling has been highly effectively, given how the practice is virtually extinct today.
The prohibition of dueling in particular is highly effective because dueling is no longer seen as an aristocratic practice but rather as a barbarity of the past. Today, nobody gains any honor from winning a duel. When William Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in their duel 200 years ago, it ended his political career, because by then dueling had already lost its prestige.
When you challenge someone to a duel, you are not politely asking them for a duel, you are slapping them in the fucking face.
good post