Gunfights and Duels?

How about a nice game of Uno?

PICK UP FOUR MWAHAHAHA

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it dueling does not make anything right or wrong. And it was never intended for that purpose. The intent of the duel is for personal honor, personal satisfaction, in a disagreement of a personal nature.

Yeah, but as it is now, people can make vile accusations about others and hide behind the ideals of "Freedom of Speech" ...which is wrong, and was not what freedom of speech is meant to be.

Perhaps some of those who make such personal, vile accusations should be afraid, perhaps we'd have less bullshit and a more productive, factual news media.

And don't you find it interesting that the very same freedom of speech that you so admirably support was given to you, won by a form of duel?

That would not and could not be considered a personal duel! For one thing, they'd have to challenge the entire government over something like Iraq ...how could you call that personal?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I completely disagree. What we would get is a bunch of people challenging the newsmedia to duels whenever they read anything with which the challenger disagreed, factual or otherwise. If the papers reported that Scooter Libby lied to investigators, duel. Clinton had sex in the oval office? Duel. W's administration insinuated that Iraq had connections to 9/11 and/or had nuclear weapons? Duel. Harriet Miers does not have the legal cache of past Supreme Court nominees? Duel.

It used to be said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. We've moved past that, now we are each entitled to our own facts as well, and I see no reason to believe that people who passionately believe in "Fact A" will not challenge people who believe the contrary.

No fact would be printable, for fear that it might offend someone, and lead to challenges.

I find this sentence inscrutable. You seem to be saying that freedom of speech only exists because of duels, which is factually inaccurate. I can think of no duels ever fought in defense of freedom of speech (unless you want to continue the assertion that all wars are duels write large, a fairly easily dismissible and facile assertion).

It would be one person who dislikes the policy against one man, the President, who is personally responsible for making that policy the objective of the United States (ever hear of "the buck stops here?"). How DARE you try to tell them that their cause for dueling isn't "good enough." Who put you in charge? If the challenger thinks it's cause enough, then it is,right? Man, you really have control issues. Everything has to be the way you want or else you swoop in and vomit forth your namby-pamby wimpy liberal cowardice all over everyone.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, I'm convinced. We shouldn't let two consenting adults do anything that might be harmful to either or both of them. And that should include any and all sports, racing cars, sex (might get AIDS), ....nothing. Consent should be minutely examined by all in the society and agreed to by all of the people before it's accepted as approved action.

Yep, I'm convinced. Thanks, Pandaemoni,

Baron Max

 

To Buffalo Roam, I asked you to give me reasons why you would fight a duel. You replied: The Honor of My God, The Honor of My Name, The Honor of My Family, The Honor of My Word, and The Honor of My Country. I give you 3 out of 5. In asking for reasons why you would fight a duel I said you couldn’t claim country or flag. You also made a surreal statement that you would fight for the honor of your god. What religion do you practice? The God of Judeo-Christian creed does not need, nor want anyone to fight for him. As Christ said, His kingdom is not of this world. People who would fight for their god are usually the ones who plow airplanes into buildings.

However, I do respect your other 3 reasons. I especially like fighting for the honor of your family, but I would like to remind you of a cautionary tale, Alexander Hamilton fought for the honor of his name and the honor of his word and he was killed, and left his wife and children destitute. So, if you have a family I recommend that you make provision for them before issuing or accepting a challenge. I respect you for at least answering my challenge.

One last note, you seem to have a problem with liberals. While the topic of this thread is dueling not politics, I would like you remind you that liberals, not conservatives made this country great. Washington, Adams, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts were the liberals of their time. And you will find just as many liberals in the trenches fighting for their country as conservatives. If this country is in a mess today, it is because the conservatives have had a free hand for the last 6 years, but that will soon end. President Hillary will make it all better!

 

That's a mighty nice straw man you have there. That has never been my argument.

My argument is . . . you know what, nevermind. I've differentiated my argument from the simplified nonsense you are trying to characterize it as in several threads already. You are either incapable of grasping the difference or you prefer to pretend your incapable. If you want to try again, though, look for the threads where I talk about why I am okay with men choosing to fight when there is no coercion.

 

Ok, I think that gunfights/duels can be a good way to solve problems, but ONLY if both sides agree to it and it is done in fair conditions. If one man turns down the request, and the other still kills him, then that is murder

however, if it is a legit issue, and both sides agree, I think it should defintely be allowed

 

^ If so I would carry around a paper for any challengers to sign that all their belongings, accounts and all should go to me if they are to die by my hand. That would be pretty sweet. Hmmm... I wonder if their gf and wifey would count!?...

 

thats dishonorable, but yes it would be 'rewarding'