Should dueling be allowed?

should dueling be allowed?

Attached: maxresdefault (2).jpg (1920x1080, 191K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbar_Fight
youtube.com/watch?v=BmZuvF9JSMc
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

yes, but only if both parties have a legal secondant as viable witnesses

reminder that most duels were not to the death, just to first blood

it was just a way to settle disagreements between men. Kind of like the civilized version of a brawl

It seems like a very anti-revolutionary policy for you guys - take disagreeable, short-tempered men willing to kill or be killed over a principle and halve their population.

I think it would be fine in a libertarian social order though.

Attached: 90[2].jpg (658x967, 132K)

>dueling
i beg the difference, today the left have victim-hood culture

What we call victimhood culture combines some aspects of honor and dignity. People in a victimhood culture are like the honorable in having a high sensitivity to slight. They’re quite touchy, and always vigilant for offenses. Insults are serious business, and even unintentional slights might provoke a severe conflict. But, as in a dignity culture, people generally eschew violent vengeance in favor of relying on some authority figure or other third party. They complain to the law, to the human resources department at their corporation, to the administration at their university, or — possibly as a strategy of getting attention from one of the former — to the public at large.

The combination of high sensitivity with dependence on others encourages people to emphasize or exaggerate the severity of offenses. There’s a corresponding tendency to emphasize one’s degree of victimization, one’s vulnerability to harm, and one’s need for assistance and protection. People who air grievances are likely to appeal to such concepts as disadvantage, marginality, or trauma, while casting the conflict as a matter of oppression.

The result is that this culture also emphasizes a particular source of moral worth: victimhood. Victim identities are deserving of special care and deference. Contrariwise, the privileged are morally suspect if not deserving of outright contempt. Privilege is to victimhood as cowardice is to honor.

We can see examples of honor cultures around the world and throughout history. They tend to have relatively high rates of violence, including such distinctive forms as dueling and feuding. Much of the premodern West can be understood as an honor culture. European elites used to preserve their honor by fighting duels to the death; in the US South, fatal duels continued up until the American Civil War.

honor culture is much much better

I agree with everything you said. I'd much prefer honor culture to one of victimhood and authority. I think it's being ground out or has already been extirpated in most Western peoples. Exceptions would probably be Eastern Europe and the American South. It's a shame to lose it - it seems fucking badass.

Attached: 1524792185952.jpg (1600x1200, 2.15M)

Yes

>fucking your sister
>culture

Probably not. It would just give jew lawyers from the splc more bullshit excuses for why their clients were good boys.

its been ground up since the state grows and grown and encompasses all expression of violence. it seeks to hold all monopoly on violence, and thanks to technological development it manages to achieve that

the thing is that with honor culture your moral status usually has to do with your own behavior rather than someone else’s. In a victimhood culture it’s instead your identity as a victim that gives you status. It’s not your own virtue at all, but someone else’s treatment of you, that makes you virtuous.

the figure of the victim is by definition is one of innocence, you have to relinquish all your violent capacity, your autonomy to authority to be regarded as "innocent" by that very same authority - the state

definitely

Yeah, but only with sabers or fists

the only people against dueling would lose a duel.

You're God damn right it should.

Attached: Yu-Gi-OH-1024x576.jpg (1024x576, 160K)

>I dont like that guy and hes weaker/worse shooter than me so I challenge him
Trash. Might as well just unlawufully kill the guy.

yes

Yes yes yes!

Swedish culture

Attached: 484184841.jpg (781x375, 108K)

I'm strongly for it.

Attached: Potofgreed.png (1000x1000, 996K)

YES.
First blood.
Chivalric codes.
Legal secondant as witness.

What better way to bring back honor in our society in place of the entitlements of dignity.

Sword duels would be better, that would test real skill. No chance of your sword jamming etc.

Attached: Captain Slicey.gif (523x396, 111K)

Fuckin this.

>should dueling be allowed?
no but lynching should be

Attached: 1532724877958.jpg (2048x1365, 302K)

Any lardass moron can shoot a gun. A real duel would use swords. Every aspect of the man would be put to test.

Just make it so you can't wear armor and you go for first bloods, executing someone is forbidden.

I’m from Minnesota and you can suck my cock.

is this how the settle who gets the last bowl of monkey soup over there?

Trial by combat should be. Imagine being a court-retained champion.

Real men do oil wrestling.

Attached: 1456257624934.jpg (300x295, 24K)

Things are so shit I can say "why not?".

Western society used to be a lot more focused on honour and shame, to the point where being "a man of his word" was a pretty high statement and being known as a person to break it pretty much branded you a piece of shit for life to polite society.

Nowadays it's not even looked at twice and everybody uses contracts or posts on Facebook about somebody who ripped them off and nobody cares.

Attached: 1512774597686.jpg (563x515, 27K)

>should dueling be allowed?

There's always time for dueling

Attached: hmmmm.gif (280x280, 669K)

I don't eat soup, try to ask your mother though, she loves to make your dad eat Jamal's cum soup straight out of her diseased vagina.

Yes we used to do it why not now?

Muh favorite duel
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbar_Fight

hmm i dunno
>Andrew Jackson
YES

Attached: 1515475988784m.jpg (1024x512, 105K)

>put death contracts to a referendum 2018

Yes.

Treat it as a standard contract (therefore denying access to minors and the invalid). Challenger defines to the death / first blood / etc, Target picks the weapons.

It should be mandatory.

I challenged Satan to a duel but that faggot pussied out.

Yes, in a coliseum and preferably for money and fame like it once was

To first blood, yes. To the death only if you are duelling the murderer or rapist of a relative.

Fencing duels would be more honorable

>giving a murderer a chance of restoring his honor through duel.

Nah, certain crimes deserve mob lynchings

It should be encouraged. Detroit will be clean of niggers in 3 years.

Why would you duel a murderer? He deserves no honor. You hunt him down and kill him like a dog and display his corpse for all to see.

dueling hasn't gone anywhere its just not as popular as it once was.

yes

murderers hang
all duel to death
that's how you create a polite society

>duelling the murderer or rapist of a relative.
kill yourself

Yes! We need to end the lawsuit culture in the US, how many kike lawyers are going to put their life on the line for a case instead of just someone else's money?

Of course not, some fag can call you on duel, because you just looked at his gf's ass

yes. we all die, so if you want to agree to shoot at each other to reach that end so be it. basedboys and boomers think they'll live forever.

you have to accept the duel, retard.

It's Pushkin 2.0

Attached: Pushkin.jpg (275x183, 5K)

>achmed rapes and murders your sister
>challenge him to a duel as is custom
>he kills you too
Wow great idea user!

Attached: 3C62B2BD-E33E-4F43-BB1F-4C0CE33C8779.jpg (604x531, 74K)

You can decline, and he can't do shit. A duel needs to be accepted by both sides.

If I don't accept it - I'll be ashamed, so you have to accept it every fucking time, do you realize you won't last long?

Yes trial by combat should also be allowed

You will be ashamed into not being a pervert
it's literally what modern society needs

Brazilian culture had lots of duel up to recently among the agricultural/military upper class.

Once you're a faggot, the badass leader of your village may take offence and challenge achmed to a duel.

Nobility isn't just a word, you know...
Funny how you sport a somewhat aristocratic flag and vomit that shit...

i will add that others will see your shame and take notice

Attached: honor.png (690x594, 279K)

Is that Evgeny Onegin??

yes, to either death or yield

Attached: lawful good duel.gif (250x140, 2.92M)

Between coloured people and jews, yes

fpbp

jokes on you both of my parents are dead and my dad is the one who cheated

this

Attached: 56b83edfe7624.jpg (900x506, 51K)

No it's origin are based in retarded nigger tier logic that if a man wins a duel, then it's because the gods were on his side, not because of strength, skill or dumb luck.

A man accuses another of a crime? Let them duel! The gods will make the innocent man prevail!

yes, but not with modern pistols, i think it would solve many problems, and you'd see people be way more civil toward one another, lest they be beaten to a fucking pulp

Hmm,...now who shoots each other these days over an insult? Oh, right, NIGGERS!

Yes, it exerts a civilizing effect by making people watch their acid tongues.
Lincoln's anonymous trolling career was ended overnight by the threat of a duel.

with the invention of smartphones we could had legal agreements that are live streamed to internet.

>defending the weak guy
get strong if you dont want to be weak. weak men have it coming.

Fuck the rule of law then. Mad Max it is.

yes, both parties must sign a consent waiver in front of witnesses, maybe a county clerk or something.
then when you and i run into each other at a rally we can settle this shit old school 1v1

Interracial dueling only

Yes, except replace it with pokemon battles.

Yes, it was banned in the UK for stupid reasons. (it was decimating the population of potential generals) - but it served an important function, that of defending people's reputations and forcing people to put up or shut up, the result is a mire of a society where nobody is ever called out for anything and everyone has grown weak and fat.

only if the players can use 1911's

and you see this as a good thing?
your people are literally driven by their emotions.
your people are too easy to manipulate which is why your real enemy (the bankers) has convinced you that working class americans are your enemy

Fucking absolutely. Have a waiver signed by both parties under a notary with specified agreements and have at it.

The invention of the sword and spear was the same cowardice that invented the gun: barenaked wrestling to the death it is, then.

Yes ! Should be televised !

Attached: B4F0399B-438A-4098-B6B3-E20DA2AEF39D.jpg (224x225, 19K)

You can marry your half-sister here (unless they changed the law last couple of years).

The rule of law tends to protect the scum more than the average citzenry now. Bring back open carry and dueling!

Yes, but it won't come back soon because non whites have no honor. Just look at how niggers can't even have basic fights one on one, they always bring their hood rats with them

You are at level of niggers beating each other with clubs it seems. Weak man could crack coded messages of enemy or help develop nuclear bomb. More usefull thst hundreds of macho boys that are sent into machine gun fire.

Yes

>directly addressing the person and/or argument
no, we should allow a third party, such as government, to conduct our entire lives

You can larp as much as you want, pale ass motherfuckers as we are all gonna get rid of you soon.... Just wait.

Attached: 4634348384836.jpg (682x1023, 48K)

I think it should be with full auto shotguns.

I'd watch that.

Kek

Or canon with cannister.
youtube.com/watch?v=BmZuvF9JSMc

A nigger who can hold his gun straight, that's a first.

Yes, the inability of resolving disputes has led to massive social tension and leads to the formation of gangs and gang violence.

Not only should it be legal, it should carry legal weight. I.E., if a magazine writes something offensive about you, you should be able to challenge that writer or their editor to a duel. If they refuse, they have de-facto admitted that they were in the wrong and must issue an apology and a correction. If their claims left no room for error or retraction, then they would HAVE to fight to the death. We'd do it with modern revolvers.

In short, a journalist doxxes you? He now has to fight you to the death. A journalist slanders you? He now has to fight you to the death. A Jew tries to swindle you? He has to fight you to the death. We would win this exchange handily.

Only if we can choose the manner of the duel, assuming both parties agree. If I and another man want to brawl to first death, why can't we? Have a cooling off period maybe so people don't just fight at a bar and then claim it was a proper duel.