America should legalize the duel.

I perfectly understand what duels are about.

Who said anything about gladiatorial combat? Limiting it to melee weapons makes sure the violence is personal and also ensures that people won't challenge someone to a duel for frivoless bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Murdering someone because the stepped on your proverbial sneaker is ridiculous. Duels should be a way of ensuring that irreversible differences can be managed without hurting people that aren't involved.

 

I say again, get therapy.

If that is duel worthy, then you have a disconnect with reality somewhere.

 

One-shot pistol? Sure...a cut-down 10-gauge shotgun loaded with a charge of buckshot sounds good to me!

 

My wife says duels should be limited to rocket launchers at 5 paces.

"That way both idiots get killed."

 

Now you see, were duels legal you might challenge my disagreement with transgender studies for 3rd graders in a more sophisticated manner to avoid me challenging you to a duel for questioning my sanity.

Elevated discourse.

 

Sure...why not?

As long as both people agree to it.

People should be able to do whatever they wish so long as no one who does not voluntarily take part is not negatively affected.

That includes duels, drugs, suicide and anything else.

Where did people get the ridiculous notion that I cannot do what ever I wish with my life?

Must be all those years of doing whatever people tell them to do.

 

I'm actually not totally against this. It's interesting that you would post this now, too. I had already been thinking about this very topic for a few days after it was prompted elsewhere by a completely unrelated source.

You're insulting nature here, not man. Violence is nature's way of solving problems. I actually think one of modern western society's biggest problems is its lack of respect for natural laws and processes. It is very big on trying to outlaw all aspects of nature that it deems cumbersome or unpleasant without understanding why they are necessary. The fact that so many people today view solving problems with violence as silly is a testament to our overall moral collapse and collective weakening both mentally and physically.

A duel satisfies the primal animal instinct toward violence but does so within the format of civilized human behavior (as opposed to a street fight or gang violence). It is probably the most naturally healthy way for human beings to solve a serious dispute.

 

Or I could argue that your untreated mental illness makes you legally incompetent and unable to legally call for a duel.

Plus, I would refuse to duel someone who lacks their full mental faculties.

 

That's fantastic - funniest thing I have read in some time. Can you imagine if modern day politicians were willing to risk their lives for what they "stand for?" No lobbyists, financial motivation, favors to grant...just plain old "this is what I stand for and I will fight to the death to protect it."
I am guessing that no modern day candidates would consider the option but good thought. It certainly would put a bit more power behind their words, and the flip floppers may re-consider their candidacy's.

 

I would be at a disadvantage because I don't think I could shoot someone in cold blood. I would probably deliberately miss and then my opponent would shoot me and I would die.

And what has been proven by my death?

 

As one that holds that laws ought to be derived from natural rights, I'd have to disagree with you. The right to life cannot be aliened; you cannot contract to have someone else kill you as he cannot rightly own or rent your life and therefore cannot be the means to deliberately end it.

 

What makes it silly when two people solve problems with violence, but not silly when two people vote to have someone else solve problems with violence?

 

What you described sounds more like murder than losing a duel.

 

If a man dies during a duel, the crime of murder has been committed. Consent is not a defense to murder. Do you think we should change the murder laws?

 

I'm all for dueling.

There will certianly be a lot more dead liberals that's for sure so I'm all for it.

As many times these degenerate lefties dishonor others they'll be mass graves already.

Sure, let's duel the sons of (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es out of existence!

 

Interesting. I do not view your post as a joke. but in the internet age, how do you get them not to weazel out of the duel. as a matter of fact I clearly remember when these super verbally abusive people appeared on earth: it was exactly when I the internet land showed up: they spout their crap in the safety of internet.

Question: so lets say someone offends you on the street, and you offer them a duel. does he have a right to refuse?

 

BTW, for our politicians and analysts on television it should be MANDATORY IMO

 

Wouldn't rational discourse, or an agreement to disagree, or not allowing one's honor to be contingent on the opinions or statements of others in the first place be healthier and more natural?

A duel isn't really natural. There are a whole bunch of rules and customs and artificial aspects to it. Natural is waiting until someone walks past the right hill and rolling a huge boulder down on top of them. Or just punching them in the face.

I do get where the idea comes from. Back in the day, in an argument about ... I forget what ... comicbooks or maybe pro-wrestling? ... a really annoying guy called me a pedophile so I was like, "Y'know what, let's just meet so I can punch you in the face." This was not really my finest hour. It was pretty foolish of me.

 

The only version of a duel I'd like to see is through the internet. Every keyboard, computer chair, moniter and webcam should have poison tipped spikes on them, and whenever someone makes an a-- of themselves on the internet, they can be struck down by others roaming around the same forum. At least give it a vote. Once 10 people with dubbed "common sense" choose that someones statement is worthless and stupid, they feel the permanent sting they deserve.

This forum would be a quite place, thats for sure.

 

Duel? Say what now?

 

I like this "Dual" idea, it will certainly improve the mortuary industry.

 

I think that would work, but only if one of the ten is randomly spiked in the process. It's easy enough to gang up when you are certain not be harmed by it.


Do they have to be killer spikes?

 

Sorry, this is a little off-topic, but this talk brings this to mind. Anyone remember it?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno"]Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight - YouTube[/ame]

 

This is funnier than hell. Not that I agree, but it is absolutely hilarious.

 

Where do we draw the line on these hypothetical duels? You're still allowed to vote for whomever you want without having to fight, right?

Do the duels cross gender lines? What about age?

Back in the day when Oprah said something on her TV show that hurt the beef industry, and they sued her -- should they have challenged her to a duel instead?