Should dueling be made legal again in the west? Sort of edgy, but I don't see the issue with it...

because the average person cannot handle the responsibility of being able to challenge somebody to a duel.

the rationale of using it to bring back masculine ideals would be good if reinstating dueling was one of the final steps. the first step should not be that drastic.

Even the smartest of people do dumbass shit.

Duelling was actually always represed by higher authorities. In France, during the medieval times, it was the church and then the Kings who tried to stop tourneys. Later, Richelieu asked nobles who participated in duels to be found guilty of a crime.
When you lead a country, you do not want your elites to spend their days killing each other. The nobles were literrate members of societies who followed a high level of academic studies : They were meant to lead the country or armies during war. You don't want them dead because of a stupid question of honour.

Good idea, if you're so angry an edgy for muh honor then risk your life in a duel or stfu and carry on. Better option than the usual fist fight over pussy or other dumb shit.

I want judicial duels back
>got a legal dispute with your neighbor?
>challenge him to a judicial duel and ritually kill him with a sword
>problem solved

If one party challenges another to a duel, is the challenged party legally obligated to partake in the duel? What's the punishment for those who refuse a duel? What's to stop someone from going about challenging people to duels to take their shit? That was a common problem during Saga Age Iceland: men who were skilled at arms but lacking in scruples could get rich by challenging some pussy ass farmer to a duel: if the farmer fights he'll probably die, and you get his shit. If he refuses he's an outlaw, and you get his shit anyway. He could grab some tough motherfucker to fight for him, but who else is dumb or tough enough to challenge the dumbest, toughest dueler on the island?

If there's no obligation for the challenged party to partake in the duel, what's the point of the institution? How is this any different than giving someone the right to posthumously (or I guess pre-humously) waive a murder charge for whoever kills them and allowing for gentleman's agreements along the lines of "If this guy kills me don't arrest him because I said it's okay"

The former option definitely doesn't vibe with modern sensibilities: you shouldn't be able to take someone's shit just because you're better at fighting than they were. That's the sort of uncivilized snownigger mentality this board looks down on.

However, the second option is kind of pointless. If you have some sort of small claims case against a neighbor and they have a stronger case, you could challenge them to a duel to bypass a judgement entirely, but what's to keep them from refusing? They have the stronger case, they're better off just going through normal channels. What if they have a weaker case? Well, if your case is stronger, why would you challenge them to duel in the first place? Whatever your grievance is, it likely isn't worth getting killed or having the medical expenses that usually accompany getting injured in a sword fight or getting the shit kicked out of you.

Only if honor is a highly valued aspect of society. Wouldn't work in American culture, maybe Chinese? I know face is a big deal over there so that might work.

With legal and cultural support for the purpose of interpersonal agreements, and a set of codified precedents for the issuance, acceptance and rules of such, yes. Two grown adults should have legal right to agree to solve their disagreement through martial feat, with an impartial mediator to ensure that all terms are respected (IE, no outside interference, only agreed combat form, to submission/blood/KO/death). Never going to happen as a fully accepted act though.

That all said, I have done a good deal of research for the purpose of legal safety in the form of a reconstruction of a Schmiss or mensur duel a friend and I have been planing for some years. There is wiggle room, based on the inherent danger of sporting competition. Technically, two men could beat each other to death in the ring, and it could be argued an unfortunate accident of the sport, as long as no one presses charges. The state still can though, if they want to.

>tfw get fired from my job because two retards killed each other in the middle of the road over a fender bender making me late
Sounds shitty

>mensur

What if your not calling it a duel? at what point does that become a duel if your wearing safety equipment and abiding by some very narrow rules

You don't call it a duel. The concept of using live weapons tends to make the grey lines of legality fuzzy.

Mensur is technically totally legal.

Schopenhauer permanently BTFO'd the concept of duelling in his essay on knightly honour.

The whole concept of honour, the duel, and anything that surrounds it is nothing but barbarism for the reason as follows:

If I insult you then I don't make a fool of myself for name-calling as it would be the case in a civilised society but your honour would be hurt and YOU had to respond to me with an even greater insult in order to make ME the one whose honour is hurt up to the point where one of us runs out of insults to top the previous and had to challenge the other to a duel.

The foolishness of this and how poisonous this is to intellectual dispute should be obvious.

If you are smarter than me and have better arguments that I can't reply to, I could simply resort to name-calling and force you to respond with name-calling alike in order to not lose your reputation as a man of honour. Because that is what happens.

This. Not to mention a pointless duel could potentially lead to feuds between a Kings vassals.

Last thing you want is the two largest families in your realm starting a civil war.

No, Guns are power equalizers and i would never give a cunt whom i hate the chance to kill me too

>Duelling was actually always represed by higher authorities.
It depends on what we mean by "duel".

Judicial combat was a means to solve legal dispute in Nordic and Germanic countries well into the middle ages.

However, it should be considered that this was not a matter of personal honour but a matter of law. The accused could not simply challenge people randomly to fight. Only if, e.g. due to a lack of witnesses, there was no way to ascertain the truth, then heavenly judgement was meant to settle things. The belief was that if both men were equally armed, then god would be with the righteous.

Naturally, even in the middle ages people weren't fully convinced about this, resulting in many historical combat treatises dealing with how to win in judicial combat.

The serious duel for personal honour on the other hand has been looked down upon for the most part and condemned by clergy.

no, murder is not acceptable, the solving of civil disputes with death is not civilized

could you expand on that?

Pistols with only one round in the chamber and no magazine.

This

It's also illegal.

bumping still want an answer to this

Depending on where you are, "use of a deadly weapon", "intent to harm", etc, could be levied against you by the state. Its a legal quagmire.

>ywn see an IRL rapier battle to the death

>Dueling
>Deprive a family of their primary source of income, crippling the next generation of that family, and giving them a miserable existence for decades to come as they struggle for upward mobility

>sort of edgy
>but I don't see the issue with it

>Deprive young men of their fathers by way of petty rivalry, leaving them with mothers and sisters
> would reinforce masculine ideals

Its all in good fun!

As someone who, autisticlly, years ago got in to a spat with a fencer and ended fighting each other in the forest outside of town with sharpened double-wide epee's + "points", I can safely say that I am glad duelling is no longer a thing. I like my eyes.

>I am above irrational anger

barbaric this barbaric that islam islam
>What if we resolve our disputes by killing eachother? Sounds like a good idea

both

Well yeah if enough of them die, the rest of the gene pool will become resistant to it.

Flails and no armor.

Well, thinking that honor does not matter anymore because "IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR" only causes impotence. Giving people the oportunity to regain their honor is something that I see as vital for society.
But it would be difficult to not end in a vendetta domino effect since people do not inow hos to lose.

Nah, because it can abused to an extreme degree. I mean you can just cause people of stuff and if they deny it they are cowards and if they admit to it they have to fight to the death.

>talk shit, get shot

seems fair

In the modern setting people can talk a sorts of shit and get no repercussions. You can always turn down a duel as well, meaning nobody is forced to risk their life. It just makes big mouthed cowards shut the fuck up and get labeled as the cowards they are so that their trash talk is no longer taken seriously. Furthermore a duel is an equal contest between two men so even the weakest man can win against the strongest. John Colt made all men equal, as they say. So, it creates true sense of courage and strength, one based on the heart and not on muscles.

Seems a noble tradition to me

Children's card games

Duel wasn't always repressed

In the Assizes of Jerusalem(Laws of the Kingdom of Jerusalem), duel play an enormous part.

>genepool will become resistant to emotional outbursts

Dicks.

Any activity between consenting adults should be legal.

I openly advocate for the return of gladiatorial sport

I demand satisfaction sounds so gay lmao