Dueling

So dull-ish edges, flat tips and lots of flex in the blade?

because inevitably someone would unjustly be pressured into a duel, die, and a huge shitshow would ensure.

also why lose talented people over a bloody dickmeasuring contest? honestly just dumb as shit.

I always picture it in my head with proper rapiers, but that's just Renaissance nostalgia. Realistically this'd be much better.

Sign me up.

Swords-to-first-blood would be much less convenient than regular fist fights. Swords won't do nothing against a gunman, they can still be used to mass murder (there was that ISIS stabber recently), acting agressive without being punishment increases your odds of being agressive in the future, etc. There isn't really a good reason to bring fencing back to the mainstream, except maybe fashion.

You don't actually know anything about dueling, swords, stabbings or guns do you?
To start pistol duels were rarely to the death and were usually one shot and done even if no one was hit. Next is the fact that injuries inflicted by blades have a tendency to be pretty grievous, especially compared to bullet wounds. It also takes an extreme level of skill to be able to control your hits to only inflict minor injuries, especially in a real fight. It's also very hard to cut a guy instead of stabbing or slashing a guy. Even if you manage, tetanus, sepsis, gangrene, and just general infections are a bitch. Lastly duels are mutual affairs. Guy can just say no, and there's no duel.

It's still technically legal in the USA.

>dull-ish edges
Way to make it even worse idiot. Sharp blades make clean cuts at least which are easy to clean and stitch up. Dull blades rip and dear leaving far worse injuries which are much harder to patch and way more prone to infection.

Why do you hunger for a totalitarian state that does not "allow" what you don't like?

made for a nice meme

>acting agressive without being punishment increases your odds of being agressive in the future
Dueling is both disincentive and negative reinforcement for those inclined to act aggressively.
>here was that ISIS stabber recently
Wonder how that would've gone if everybody around him had swords.

>It also takes an extreme level of skill to be able to control your hits to only inflict minor injuries, especially in a real fight. It's also very hard to cut a guy instead of stabbing or slashing a guy.
How fortunate, then, that after the Great Dueling Revival, "Theory and Practice of Dueling" will be a mandatory school subject from grades K-12.
>Lastly duels are mutual affairs. Guy can just say no, and there's no duel.
And look like a pussy in front of his girlfriend? No. C'mon, man.

One person. The other has to accept less they look like a pussy.

>sword to first blood
Why does this meme exist? You do realize that first blood with rapiers = 100% chance of death?

Hermano Uruguayo....greetings from Canada paisano.

>"Theory and Practice of Dueling" will be a mandatory school subject from grades K-12.
So schools, which are generally struggling to have enough teachers as it is, are somehow going to provide fencing instructors for each and every student? Finesse is not really something you can teach a classroom at a time. Especially not to a bunch of uncoordinated kids.

Obviously not. People have this weird notion, probably from movies, that having a piece of steel shoved through your body only causes light injuries.

If it stabbed the guy in the chest yes.

While most duels were to incapacitation in practice they became duels to first blood

these are not rapier duels but epee duels

youtube.com/watch?v=uL9BWkN-Wcg

youtube.com/watch?v=e68nuAcSuWQ

>dueling with swords would make people more polite
Enjoy dying from "first blood" when some autist who spends all his NEETbux on fencing lessons shoves a montante through your gut while screaming "REEEEEE RAPIERS GET OUT" and shitting himself.

Society would also be full of the same swinging dicks who already start a fight over everything, except that they'd have the blessing of the law and a sword now.

>Wonder how that would've gone if everybody around him had swords.
Just give them guns for what it's worth. I'm not a gun nut, but really: in a world with guns you want to give people swords?

If you just want to hurt someone - you don't need arms. If you want to kill someone - there are guns. Swords are just unrealiable, you are more likely to kill someone by accident (compared to not using arms) and less likely to kill those you intend to kill (compared to guns).

You are just a romantic.

First off, no one was dueling with rapiers in even the 18th century. Secondly:

>Light scratch on the arm
>100% chance of death

What we should do is bring back epee fencing with the point d'arrêt to settle disputes.

The concept of religion was very intertwined with dueling. This is something many gloss over when discussing the topic. Supposedly the duelists had enough faith in a divine order that God would kill whomever was truly guilty. This is in reference to duels that were ordered to claim a verdict in a legal dispute, of course.

I believe in God and I am truly sorry we live in an atheist society because that level of faith is fucking awesome.

On the other hand, it would stop the intrinsically cowardly and obnoxious "just punch me bro, just punch me" bullshit that we have to deal with now.

>ISIS stabber
didn't a cop gun him down almost immediately after he started?
nobody died either IIRC.

>light scratch on the arm
Rapier fighting doesn't play out like fifth grade light saber fights.

Both of those guys got nicked in the arm and still required medical attention. Even an epee if it hits you anywhere between your knees and your elbows can be fatal, and fuck getting stuck in the neck or head.
>shoves a montante through your gut
My biggest fear, and would be just about everyone's if this was a thing. Getting stabbed in the gut sucks, and being the easiest target would and does happen a lot.
This sums it up perfectly.

If some asshole was to kill my brother in a duel, I would hunt that person down and burn his house down.
It's silly to romanticize something that assures loss of life.

Easier to fix, yeah - but way more shallow.

swords, particularly slashing swords are far less likely to kill than a gun wound.

I would much rather be in a sword fight than a gun fight.

The point is that dueling legitimizes and gives order to disputes where violence would be used.
If some guy just ran up and shot your brother over a gambling dispute, then yeah you going and killing him makes some "sense" in terms of retribution. It's also how blood feuds get started.
However, if your brother and his enemy set up a duel over the gambling dispute, and the other guy won the duel, he has a legitimate grounds for being "in the right" and if you were to kill him in retribution you would be in the wrong in the eyes of society, especially considering the weight of honor attached to not only entering the duel but accepting the result.
Having duels as a framework for settling disputes disincentivizes continuing the violence outside of it.

He plowed into a crowd with his car first, then got out and started stabbing. Most injuries were from the car.

It looks great at the first sight, but it would give way to much social status to people who primarily focus on violence. These people are rarely the most useful members of society and rarelly have enough morals to use their superiority wisely.

>Be local fighting champion
>Act as total cunt without the fear of retribution

>looking stupid
>dying over something stupid
Gee I wonder what's worse

That's what guns are for
>indianajones.webm

Guns are dangerous

Ever had a severe arguement with somebody as a kid? It probably ended with you trying to beat up each other. It's the same thing but for adults. It's part of human nature to try to resolve conflicts with violence, so it figures society would create a codified form for it.

More like why was this ever outlawed.

Dueling is LITERALLY the perfect legal system.

Not as dangerous as swords.

Real niggas do real things.

DAS RITE

I CANT GET NO SATISFACTION

>What is a blood feud?

You can only post ITT if you've had a leader that's won AT LEAST one duel.

Let the "muh honor" gents shoot eachother so they can quit causing a fuss

You pussy

I'd love it if I could show up at political rallies and other places where there's hot-bloodedness and whip out a wrestling mat for people to challenge each other on.
So long as there's a good ref, risk of lasting injury is fairly low and its a great way to release aggression. I'd make up the costs of ref and mat with youtube views

This is legit a great idea, if handled professionally. I'm in.

>particularly slashing swords are far less likely to kill than a gun wound
Citation? Gunshot wounds have a lot lower chance of death than you think, we're talking barely in the double digits.

See this

Better question, why was it ever removed? Fix the growing population problem that easy.

>hole in your leg that hurts like hell and means it probably needs to be amputated
>fucking leg is cut off and you bleed out

Schopenhauer actually wrote a large essay on this subject and his argument was that duelling made society LESS civil. And he lived at a time when duelling was common so he knew what he was talking about.

The premise of the whole societal context of duelling is the antithesis of civility itself as it asserts that a rudeness can only be answered by even greater rudeness. Someone insults you and thus dishonours you, so you answer him with a greater insult, and so on - until one of the two sides decides that the only way to solve this dispute is through the duel, which is a rudeness in-itself. Keep in mind, people feel insulted very easily and someone who you were having a reasonable argument with might feel cornered by your superior argumentation and reasoning and decide to resort to insults - now being a man of honour you are suddenly forced to respond, either through a greater insult or by physically harming him.

Nothing about this is civil in the slightest, it is the epitome of barbarism. Not to mention: imagine this kind of person who got schooled by you in an argument, couldn't take it and decided to solve the rational dispute by violent means happens to be a better fencer than you - what then? Does being a better fencer make his side of the argument right? Under the logic of the duel, which is essentially the ordeal, the heavenly trial, he is - you were both armed in the same way, so it was god's will for him to win, thus he is right and you aren't. Not to mention: what about people who are disabled in some way are they supposed to take any insult?

Also, it's funny that you'd pick rapiers as your primary choice of duelling weapon when they were mainly weapons of war and personal self-defence. They were certainly also used for duelling purposes, but they're weapons more characteristic of a time period before the "duel" became what it is known for today.

There's distinctions between the lethality of the wounds caused and the effort and ability of the victim to resist. A huge gushing wound caused by a sword is more lethal, but that's harder to cause by a country mile.

Meanwhile the hole in your leg was caused by something that fragments on impact, and digs into your body.

>You do realize that first blood with rapiers = 100% chance of death?
This isn't exactly true.

In German student fraternities it wasn't uncommon to duel with rapiers and later epees until the first half of the 19th century. Especially in Catholic fraternities it was common since they wouldn't leave the noticeable fencing scars that cutting weapons would since the Catholic church forbade duelling. A bleeding wound was deemed sufficient if the cross section of the blade could be recognised in it.

However, you're right that it was very dangerous - especially when during the mid 18th century smallswords became more popular which allowed for very fast parade/riposte style fencing opposed to the more controlled and defensive style of rapier fencing. The wounds that were deemed the most deadly were accidental lung perforations. By the mid 19th century thrusting weapons had been banned at most universities and cutting weapons were used instead.

Dueling to death was forbidden because too many stupid nobles, gents and other niggas got themselves killed over petty slights.

Just like in Star Wars, huh? :^D

the brits are fine then.

wellington, pitt the younger and george canning all fought duels (Canning lost his but it was the first time he ever fired a pistol so that was to be expected, he did 'win' the political fallout)

muh honor

duels are suppose to prevent that. That it's in an agreement that you can't say shit after the results.

Yeah but you could also win and look like a badass.

> fight to the death
That is literally how you drag people into a long running feuds. Look up the namesake of "draconian" and what his "draconian" laws were trying to stop.

Death rates in duels varied considerably over time and geographic area, but not so much for weapons, My guess it depends more on society if you fight nobly to the first blood or actually kill your opponent.
Here is a nice article about death rates in sword duels: hroarr.com/fencing-culture-duelling-and-violence/

the limbs being chopped off stuff y ou see in movies was the exception rather than the rule,

even in roman times Marius could show the crowd his torso, covered in scars from battle. Most cuts, unless they hit something vital they will not bleed out very quickly.

A bullet on the other hand leaves puncture wound, which for modern medicine was much harder to treat.

Neither is a guaranteed death but if I had to choose between being cut and having a bullet logged in my body I would go with a cut.

>polite if insulting someone = duel
Not if people do cheap and unethical shots that aren't permitted in the classical chauvinist image of duels, and get off with it because of witnesses
>swords can't be used to mass murder people
Yes they can. Especially if there's someone whose very pro efficient at it and has an efficient sword at killing unarmored people, which will happen if it becomes popular enough in society for people to actively train in fencing and combat with them and go out and buy non-meme swords. Only reason why there isn't as many mass killings today with swords is precisely because barely anyone trains in swordfighting anymore and those who do carry out sword attacks are often incompetent neckbeards with katanas.
>they're useful for self-defense in case of muggings
Chances are the mugger either has a gun, or is also armed with a sword and is in a position where he has an unfair advantage over you.

Beta males knowing they will always lose in duel but still can't keep their mouth shut.
Pretty much like the retard leftist today so they INFRINGE on other people rights

I would like to know as long as it would be an official thing requiring lawyers and it being done in front of a judge (the duel could also be of different degrees of lethality) it should be legalized again.

Because not every era had your ever so enlightened point of view, OP.
Faggot.

Damn, this thread is still going strong?

I wrote that post. Now, I genuinely do, with actual non-ironic desire, wish nonlethal dueling of some form was still widespread (not that that wish is ever going to be fulfilled), but I was being somewhat facetious with that post (and moreso with ).

OBVIOUSLY I'm painting an unduly rosy picture of dueling, exaggerating the benefits and seriously downplaying the risks. I sorta thought the shit about calling up the local Dueling Office and the last para about "you won't get killed ... probably" made that clear.

Am I completely joking? No. Am I sorta taking the piss (esp. in my descriptions of the particulars and how idyllic I'm trying to make it all sound)? Oh yeah.

I also take issue somewhat with your description of the rapier, which, although it obviously started its life as a military weapon was progressively refined for civilian use and dueling in particular, and frankly the line between the rapier and the small sword etc is somewhat arbitrary and depends on who's talking or writing -- but that's neither here nor there, as I'm not actually advocating for the return of rapiers.

>and if you were to kill him in retribution you would be in the wrong in the eyes of society,

Doesn't matter to NEET nihilistic troglodyte like me, who I will conceal my identity and burn down their house and rape their adolescent younger siblings and love ones for retribution.

>Having duels as a framework for settling disputes disincentivizes continuing the violence outside of it.

Not for people like me who don't care about disputing out of honor, but aiming a strike with the best chance and conclusion possible, which, for me, it would be stupid to let some other dude have a better chance of fending himself instead of attacking preemptively.

Do you really want to disrupt society by having duels that will eventually affect the love-ones of the fallen, such as possibly me, who will not care about social norms and go out and seek vengeance by assassinating them, burning down their house, and raping their family?

Because you will get caught instantly you retard, that's why despite all the wrongs being done today keyboard warriors like you don't do shit.

Getting caught won't unreverse their deaths by me, rejuvenate their burnt down house, or unrape their virgin sister/brother or wife / girlfriend / mother.

>don't do shit
You don't know that precisely because society has put these restrictions in place to keep people like me undisturbed to prevent further ruckus from happening. Go ahead and legalize it, you nigger-faggot, then do it to my brother, and see what happens.

To avoid rich people settling their disputes with armies.

So you could defend your honor (not many people do that these days) and besides, you could kill someone who you don't like or of they insult you. Andrew Jackson did it for fun and he killed and injured alot of people.

Refusing a duel was social death.

I always assumed it was a convinient way for idiots to recover from an iceburn.

>Be a king/ruling body.
>Have Stuff
>Have tough slabs o meat to protect stuff from other ruling bodies
>Sometimes not enough stuff to eat
>Slabs o meat eat each other for the stuff
>So long as enough slabs leftover for next big 'not enough stuff', s'allright

Seriously though, when your sovereign power depends on fighting men; fighting men is what you will get whether you order them to or not.

As a species worldwide we literally bred them for the purpose. And a little murder escaping justice (so long as they are an elite member of your society and the victim is less valuable) resolves an otherwise expensive and divisive debate that could have threatened your rule.

Never take responsibility is the first rule of ancient rulership by force. The modern push towards enacting the opposite of this rule is still a work in progress.

There is no way this degree of edge is being displayed unironically.

Please

It should come back because dueling is really a form of MAD, or mutually assured destruction. Just imagine how polite and cordial everybody was to each other when a single insult could either land them at the end of a pistol or if they refuse the duel, intense mockery from the community.

I only display it on the internet because normies in real life won't get it. No, I'm being serious. Consider me edgy, but we're in a discussion about should whether dueling should come back on Veeky Forums, and the whole entire defence from you is about 'honor' which I can't imagine you being anyone but a fedora wearing neckbeard behind a computer. From my perspective, you're the edgy cunt. I'm serious about the raping their adolescent siblings and love ones part, although I probably won't personally enjoy it, but see it as something that needs to be done for their penance; and I probably won't burn down their house--both because that will take a lot of effort that isn't worth it in this modern day and age with how insurances can cover such diasters now and they're no longer as life-hardening for survivors and more investigated because of that, but also because I don't want to be burning down the houses of the innocents.

Itd mostly be a defence to retards who cant handle the banter.
>Retards need a way to defend themselves

That is so fucking awesome that I can´t even begin to describe it.

Kind of like that math genius from 18-century france. Poor fellow, Almost elevated our knowledge of 4th level calc, but got tricked into a duel over pussy.

"Banter" is really just a socially acceptable way to be a shitty person anyways.

>The real use of Jokes or Humour is in quite a different direction, and it is specially promising among the English who take their “sense of humour” so seriously that a deficiency in this sense is almost the only deficiency at which they feel shame. Humour is for them the all-consoling and (mark this) the all-excusing, grace of life. Hence it is invaluable as a means of destroying shame. If a man simply lets others pay for him, he is “mean”; if he boasts of it in a jocular manner and twits his fellows with having been scored off, he is no longer “mean” but a comical fellow. Mere cowardice is shameful; cowardice boasted of with humorous exaggerations and grotesque gestures can passed off as funny. Cruelty is shameful-unless the cruel man can represent it as a practical joke. A thousand bawdy, or even blasphemous, jokes do not help towards a man’s damnation so much as his discovery that almost anything he wants to do can be done, not only without the disapproval but with the admiration of his fellows, if only it can get itself treated as a Joke.

Sure it allows it. You just have to back up your argument with your guts(literally).

Galois did very little work on analysis you absolute pleb.

Jose Batlle y Odoñez, an uruguayan president even killed a journalist in a pistol duel
There were cases where the second men settled an arrangement in private and both duelists shoot into the air, that led to discredit the dueling thing

Why it isnt now is the real question. Sometimes issues of honor have to end in death, just how it goes m8

Oh no don't burn their house down just rape them instead. Honestly if you feel the need to rape an innocent person because your brother is shit at dueling than go right ahead and kill yourself. Not joking in the slightest, you are a scrouge on society and think you are cool by letting go of any decency and self control but that is infact weakness.

wish we still had sword duels, it was a manly mans thing

Because honor cultures were better than dignity cultures, and far better than whatever we have now.

>implying any self respecting fencer would use a montante in a 1 on 1 duel

youtube.com/watch?v=Oxsol6J1HLU

victimhood culture characterized by a need to appeal to a third party