Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Should dueling, a gentleman's fight that both agree to, be legal.

I think they should if both consent to it. Makes the world more exciting!
The government could make sure both sides agree by issuing dueling licenses, like a marriage license or something.

Call me barbaric, it'll boost my ego!
I of course would never duel, but other people aren't exactly peace and love.

_________________

I'm against it for the following reasons:

1. It is essentially taking justice out of the hands of the duly appointed law enforcement agencies who are responsible for keeping peace. It reeks of vindictive retribution.

2. It is the unnecessary taking of human life by individuals who are not under the authority to engage in such activities. While self-defense is most certainly a valid reason to take human life in an emergency situation, it is not valid in the case of an arranged situation like a duel.

3. There is risk to the lives of others. There's always the possibility that in the heat of battle a stray bullet could kill a bystander. Those in authority (i.e., law enforcement) are under obligation to prevent such risk to civilian population, so I seriously doubt that such a practice could ever be licensed.

Oddly enough, I don't find the idea of dueling barbaric, so much as I just find it to be an unnecessary waste of life. If we lived in a culture where adequate law enforcement was not available, and people lived by a code of honor (like in medieval times) it would make sense.

On the other hand, fencing with foils or paintball duels might serve as an adequate substitute.

_________________

Henry Clay dueled with pistols. It was something people did for many, many years. As long as both agree I don't think the law should do anything about duels.
I think banning duels is legislating morality.

_________________

So then we might as well let people commit suicide?

The government has to legislate some morality, imo. This is one of those cases.

Course, I'm just talking about deadly duels. Fencing is good.

Suicide shouldn't be banned. I mean it is people's bodies and all.

I F I WANT TO KILL MYSELF I CAN!

_________________

There are all sorts of ways to contest another person; under correctly prearranged circumstances you can fight them full contact with almost no legal repercussions. Honestly, I can't think of any situation where death is the only answer to a dispute where the authorities wouldn't be involved. Also, any right to duel would automatically include the right of refusal by the person challenged, so don't expect to bring unconvicted criminals to justice that way.

Basically, if someone kills a friend of yours, goes to trial and gets sprung on a technicality, what interest could he possibly have in dueling you? Unless he's sure he'd win and wants to kill you too...and again, get away with it? If you win, what assurance do you have that his family or gang associates won't come after you for retribution?

Dueling had its place in a more lawless time, but nowadays it's long obsolete.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

That seems to be your excuse a lot these days. Is it because, in your own argumentation for one type of legislated morality, you basically got shot completely down, and now it seems to be the only counter-argument you can argue these days?

Once again, I have to clarify a distinction you fail to make: when dealing with private behavior (i.e., what is entirely behind closed doors and does not effect other people), it is wrong to legislate morality for a number of reasons I will not elaborate on.

However, when dealing with public behavior, anything that involves two or more people and affects the public at large, then it is necessary that common morality be legislated for the sake of public peace. Dueling is just one of those things. The fact is, since it is a practice that by nature requires public observation (there must be witnesses there to insure fairness) and a public location, it in fact falls within the juris prudence of the public sphere. In other words, your "legislation of morality" is not adequate argumentation against it.

You claim that it doesn't affect anyone but the duel participants. You are wrong. Every friend or relative of the one who dies in a duel will be affected by it. And that's not even taking into account the risks to the witnesses and bystanders. All it would take is one duel to go against someone's expectations, and it would degenerate into a feud, or even full-scale war. So it is a matter of public safety, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not.

And in any case, your argumentation is moot anyway. Dueling is illegal, and until someone can demonstrate adequate necessity for legalizing it again, it will remain illegal. And I just don't think that anyone is ever going to concede that two human beings trying to kill each other is a necessary right.

_________________

Just do what I do... PAINTBALL DUEL!

_________________
WRSTLING IS NOT FAKE... Its scripted how would you feel having a 215 pound guy flipping in the air and landing on you?

Whatever. I see I will never get to you people.

So, I've stated my arguments and you disagree. Actually nobody agrees.

You know what? It doesn't matter if it will affect others because it's the person who duels life. It is their property. If they want to gamble it away it's fine by me and I think that people should be able to gamble away anything they own (I wouldn't do it, but well, some people aren't me).

_________________

And as usual, you fail to appreciate the distinction between public life and private life. It may be their life, but what if their brother decides to seek revenge? What if a stray bullet hits an innocent bystander? You fail to recognize that that person's death - as well as the public risks involved - will effect others in an averse way, in which case your argumentation fails to merit any consideration. It's not just that your argument fails to convince us, it's that your entire approach to reasoning these topics is skewed to start with.

But here's the concept you never seem to get through your skull: what people do in private most likely shouldn't be legislated. However, once they're behavior presents itself in the public sphere, it will be regulated by common law. Period. End of story. Our society has deemed dueling to be dangerous to the public, barbaric, and entirely unnecessary.

Besides, you once admitted yourself that there should be laws regarding public safety. I've already demonstrated two ways in which dueling risks public safety: (1) violence as a result of duels degenerating into feuds, and (2) risks to innocent bystanders.

_________________

So did Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. And look where it got them. One's political career was dead and the other was literally dead.

_________________

IT'S TIME TO D-D-D-DUEL!


Now that thats out of my system, I have to say that dueling implies a certain "might makes right" mentality, which would gradually reduce us to barbarism if let loose. It's the opposite of everything King Arthur worked for when he founded America.

_________________
Sincerely,

Vitruvian Zeno

And that, Wes, is the moral impetus behind the banning of dueling. In essence, dueling essentially says, "Screw rational, civil, and orderly resolution to problems. Let's just kill each other." It promotes a violent mentality which would actually threaten public safety by completely undermining our nation's concept of civil justice.

So, Wes, just so we're clear, here's the basic reasons why you're wrong:

1. It promotes violence, and undermines both civil justice and public safety.

2. It is a public behavior, and public behavior does in fact fall under the governance of civil law.

3. There is no demonstrable necessity to allow it.

_________________

I'm for duels, provided the weapons are inflatable, and make highly amusing squeaky noises.

Seriously, though, I think that, if legal, duels could turn into snap-judgement affairs, then to say "no" once you cooled down would be viewed as cowardly. Seeing as how we already have problems with tempers and too-quick judgements, I'd prefer a legal system where a fair trial is common practice.

EDIT: This is merely a hypothetical example. I agree with all that has been said about barbaric-ness, but decided to look at it slightly differently.

_________________

It's an opinion, they aren't wrong or right... Of course that is just my opinion...

A:Have it in a place where only the duelers can get hurt.
B:It's the duelers life, if they want to do the stupid thing and bypass civil justice that's their problem, and it should be legal.


It's a private person's life, to do as they wish with.


Show me the necessity to allow most of our modern conveniences, toys, movies. There is no real "necessity" to have them, but we do.

_________________

TV & the Internet actually make a positive contribution to society by allowing information to reach the masses. Dueling just eliminates a taxpayer or two at a time.

By their own consent.

_________________

But without impartial observers, how do you propose to keep the duel fair? Without impartial observers, there would be nothing to prevent a "duel" from becoming outright murder.


But as I have already demonstrated, it ISN'T just their lives. There are three specific public dangers to dueling:

1. It undermines our legal system by promoting mindless violence and revenge over due process and rational legal discourse. The "If you don't agree with somebody, just kill them" mentality.

2. It poses a danger to public safety due to the likelihood of duels resulting in feuds when friends and family continue to seek revenge for the deaths caused by dueling. In other words, without some legal impetus for it to stop, the violence will escalate.

3. It poses a direct danger to bystanders (and as already stated above, you cannot have a true duel without impartial observers, so the danger is real).

It has already been determined that the public risks posed by dueling far outweigh any "freedom" gained by allowing it. Either you're not paying attention to the arguments, or you're choosing to ignore facts that refute your position. Which is it?


Except that it's not private at all. It's an act carried out in public. As demonstrated above, in order for a duel to be fair, there must be impartial observers. Their involvement makes the event a public one, not a private one. Your argument is therefore invalid.

Once again, you fail to address the issue that, what a person does in public does in fact fall under public legislation. Simply resorting to your mantra that it's "private" does not diminish the fact that it is a public act. Wes, seriously. If you expect me to take your arguments seriously, then please demonstrate some actual rationale, rather than resorting to relying on such unjustifiable mantras and such.


Irrelevant argument. Movies and such don't generally present a direct risk to people's lives. Dueling does. Your comparison fails.

To be honest, Wes, you're reasoning in this whole matter is entirely unsound. If we followed your logic, then we might as well not have laws at all. Driving 100mph through a school zone? Why not? It's your vehicle, and it's your foot on the accelerator. On one hand, I'm glad you see the impracticality of trying to enforce morality in people's private lives. On the other hand, you go way too far in the opposite direction, and in the process completely fail to recognize the distinction between private and public. The position you are espousing is not libertarianism, but straight up idiocy.

But if you insist on being the champion for this idiotic cause, I would suggest that you do so, not on this forum, where it is clear that you have no support for it, but in our country's legal system. Good luck finding any supporters there, either. Until then, the people of our nation have basically said they don't want it, and therefore it is illegal. Get over it.

_________________

I am completely against dueling. If a human life is at stake, then it should not be legal. All life is sacred and should only be a casualty of time.

I bet you didn't expect that from me. It appears the Deadman has morals.

_________________

All of you: I think it should be legal. I'm not going to go out and try to make it legal because:
A)People would think I'm just really weird, and...
B) It doesn't matter that much, it's more utopian than reality, like anarchy.

I'd vote for it if there was a bid for it to be legalized, but it's not too much of a pressing issue to me. I just want your input, thankfully I have it. I thank all of you. But I maintain:
Your life is your property and that is my basis for not caring about, and kind of supporting, it's legalization. I would never duel my self, I'm not that Neanderthalistic, but some people are and it's their right to settle disputes as the way want as long as everyone is willing.

_________________

Because you have not carefully thought out the consequences of such a proposition. If you did vote for it, you would be wrong to do so. Many reasons have already been presented as to why it would be wrong, but you choose to ignore them.


And yet, as usual, you fail to recognize the dangers it poses to others. Once again, you demonstrate your inability to reasonably examine all the consequences of your position, and as a result, support a position that has no rational basis, and is completely unsound.


Once again you fail to acknowledge that, since it is a public behavior, it does in fact fall under public jurisdiction. We have a legal system in place for settling disputes. Allowing dueling would essentially replace rational legal discourse with mindless violence. If we did not have adequate legal discourse - such as was the case during earlier periods of our history - it might be a viable alternative. But as it stands, it is not. Therefore, I fail to see how any rational human being can support your position. Let us just say that I am glad that less rational people - such as yourself - are such a small minority that it poses no immediate danger to our legal system at this time.


Yes, you have our input. But I do not comprehend why you would request it if, once our input has completely demolished the rationale behind your proposition, you fail to incorporate it or, for that matter, even consider it. Your position is untenable, clear and simple.

_________________

I totally see where you are coming from, but there are ways to make duels safe for everyone that is involved, except for the duelers of course.

They could use swords instead of firearms. People could even play a game of checkers, loser shoots themself in the head. All this seems barbaric, yes, but it is the people's life to do as they wish. That is my entire reason behind it. You have your reasons and I understand that too.

I can see we will never get through to each other though.

_________________

But that's your problem, Wes. You're basing your assessment of this issue entirely on one criterion. It is for that reason that your position is so skewed: you do not take into account (or for that matter, even acknowledge that there are) other criteria regarding this issue.

Let me see if I can explain it to you in a way you would understand: your philosophy recently seems to be entirely centered on a belief in individual freedom. And to some degree, I would say that individual freedom is an important concept that needs to be preserved. But it is not the only basis for which public policy must be set. Individual freedom is not everything.

In fact, one key concept in our heritage is the notion of the sanctity of human life. When Jefferson penned the words, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," you must take note that "life" is the very first word there. Among the founding fathers, and even up until recent times, human life itself has been considered sacred. It is only within recent times that this concept has come under sharp criticism from certain sectors of our society. And yet it is still a very important concept.

But here's the thing: liberty cannot exist in any environment where respect for human life is not the norm. After all, how can you enjoy liberty if you're dead? At this point, I am not directly addressing whether individuals should have the right to throw away their lives if they choose, but rather pointing out that life itself is a foundational concept for the notion of liberty. Remove life, and there can be no liberty. In the same way, remove the respect for human life, and there can be no assurance of liberty.

Public security is another factor. In fact, the term "happiness" as it it used there is not speaking of pleasure, per se, but of a good life with some assurance of security and peace. It's very similar to the Hebrew term shalom, which doesn't mean complete absence of trouble, but rather a sense of well-being. Think Maslow's Heirarchy here. In other words, we have a right to live in a safe, secure, and peaceful environment. And the only way that we can have assurance of that is if there are laws in place to restrict certain public behaviors that threaten safety, security, and peace.

Now, our form of government attempts as best it can to secure liberty for all individuals. But the fact is, in order for it to work properly, there must be laws in place that restrict certain freedoms. This is the simple pragmatics of the way society must function. The goal of our governmental system is to try to achieve, as best as possible, a good balance between freedom and security. It means that absolute freedom cannot exist, but it does mean that freedom can exist to the greatest possible degree that does not in turn lead to utter chaos. Absolute security cannot exist (actually, it never can in any society), but at least we can have some measure of it and still be able to enjoy a certain measure of freedom.

So, while your position upholds liberty, it completely undermines both the respect for human life upon which the concept of liberty is founded, as well as the safety, security, and peace that are necessary for us to live in.

My point is, Wes, that your approach to this topic is based completely on one angle, to the utter neglect of other Very Important Factors. And just let me say, that is a very irresponsible way to conduct politics, and - for that matter - life. You would be wise if, instead of always adopting a completely one-sided approach to things, if you did take the time to look at them from all angles, and at least to consider other factors before making your stand. In this case, I feel you have not, but are rather hinging everything upon a single criterion, rather than recognizing the necessity for other criteria.

Among the ones I listed (and even they are not a complete list - there are others), this isn't even the most important. Liberty cannot thrive where respect for human life is not the norm. So even while your position would seem to promote freedom, in reality, it undermines the very foundational concept upon which freedom is based: respect for human life.

_________________

No. But then there's a lot more important things wrong with American laws that need to get fixed first. You know, like rigging elections, invading countries on a fabricated pretexts, torturing people, war profiteering, and so on. Little things that should be illegal be apparently aren't.

_________________

Sarge, do you actually want to discuss dueling, or are you just trolling again?

_________________

I personally think dueling should be required in any civil dispute.




Well, not really. Dueling is stupid. This isn't the 15th century anymore. We have, you know, laws and courts and stuff now. I think use those.

_________________
beep beep I'm a Jeep

Actually, I'm beginning to think that Sarge is actually a hardcore conservative, trolling to the left to make it seem less appealing by how poorly he portrays it.

Anyway.

Wes, doesn't the definition of libertarianism imply "unless you don't hurt anyone else" which is bypassed by dueling in definition?

_________________

One reason I disagree with dueling (as well as euthanasia and other things), is that a person can use it to get away with murder.

"Bwave! Did you kill Teff?!?!?!"

"We were dueling."

"OK NVM MAH BAD!!!"
Also:

You love trying to steer the topic away, dont you? Failed, though.

_________________

I think it should. There's a couple people I'd like to deck in the face but I'd get arrested for.

_________________

The deal with Dueling, though, is that that other person would have to agree/have equal chances to deck YOU in the face.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.