Honour dueling should be reinstated as an acceptable social activity. Dueling would provide a much-needed restorative to our increasingly vulgar and reckless political landscape.A duel would be fought using either swords or pistols. As a practice, it would ultimately increase civility in society.
...
Dueling actually prevents violence.
(submitter note: this is not a troll post; I checked to make sure.)
32 comments
"Dueling actually prevents violence."
Do you not know how dueling works, or are you thinking of dueling with nerf guns?
@ #2055649
"....or are you thinking of dueling with nerf guns?"
Ah yes, the old "Handbags at ten paces". That brings back memories.... :-)
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
PS: Could you please explain, Rochambeau, how re-introducing a decidedly violent activity would...prevent violence? Let alone restore your supposedly "vulgar and reckless political landscape"? Enquiring minds would like to know.
I'd say beating each others with swords or punching holes with bullets is pretty vulgar.
As a practice, it would ultimately increase lack of respect for human life.
Dueling IS violence.
I like it, I even got some scars to prove it. It`s not an acceptable idea of civil discourse, merely a fun and improving hobby.
@Anon-e-moose
The most you`d ever get from him in a dueling society would be a recourse note from his auntie-doctor, informing you that mr. such-and-such regretfully cannot take part in the duel on account of severe bullshit and lack of spine. This is how they worked out through your Britain.
Dueling, generally being limited to hot-headed young men, would at least rid us of the most troublesome portion of our society. (Yes, snark, in case you don't recognize that!)
@Pink Jackboots
This is just dark souls, another thing which like living requires too much effort for these dumbfucks!
@Quasirodent
I`m actually with you on this one. As long as you can only initiate such a party once both sides fully conciously agree they preffer to use their blood instead of words. And nobody gets to use it to bully or threaten another.
While we're at it, let's bring back horse drawn farm equipment, blood-letting as a valid medical treatment, and slavery.
This reminds me of a practice which is local to where I sometimes work, and indeed am working tomorrow (Thursday). In Gypsy communities, disputes are frequently settled by bare-knuckle fist fighting, which is usually done in a field. The fight starts near the centre of the field so that one of the fighters cannot be driven back against the wall or fence, and thus the watching crowd moves with the fight, giving the fighters space and stepping in on the rare instance where one of the participants goes too far. When the fight is done, it is the usual practice for everyone involved to go off down the pub and have a pint together.
I have no particular opinion on this matter, but this sort of thing can by its very existence only be applicable in communities beyond the reach of the law. Much in the way that the Sicilian Cosa Nostra was not always criminal and indeed was for several centuries the only effective authority due to the isolation of Sicily. Likewise, the Gypsy community's members are constantly travelling from place to place and often have no official record with national authorities at all. Thus if duelling was ever 'an acceptable social activity', then the law must have been very weak at that place or time.
I'm not looking forward to tomorrow, BTW.
Sure, as a champion fencer i would gladly duel this dumbfuck.
You think the current crop of politicians who avoid their constituants and only talk to business interests would actually show up to a duel?
Really? The potential to kill your fellow person just because you're pissy over something makes society more civil?
As a fencer and someone that occasionally goes to the range, I guess you wouldn't be offending me, then, right?
I dunno. On the one hand maybe, just maybe people will opt for a face-to-face murder if there's some kind of formal legality to it instead of drive-by shootings and mail bombs which have collateral damage. On the other: that clearly does jack-all to reduce murderous tendencies and makes killing people over a difference of opinion or even failing to kowtow a societal expectation which will in all likelihood increase the number of people willing to kill one another over minor annoyances. And give an avenue for malicious social climbers to goad people they don't like into murdering each other.
And the way you phrase it you seem to think people should do it for fun.
PS: I'm just now reminded of the following from Mel Brooks' "Robin Hood: Men in Tights":
Sheriff of Rottingham: [taking off his leather glove and slapping Robin with it] I challenge you to a duel.
Robin Hood: [picking an iron gauntlet up from the dinner table and smacking Rottingham across the face with it, knocking him down] I accept!
Truly a classic.... :-)
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
