https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2F2024%2Fjan%2F26%2Fmissouri-republican-dueling-statehouse

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/26/missouri-republican-dueling-statehouse

let-them-fight lets-fucking-go

Show

  • WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]
    ·
    10 months ago

    We already have a mechanism for determining who is right or wrong in a dispute. They're called courts

    Courts are for whether what they did was illegal. Your partner doesn't have to break the law to be worthy of divorce. I think you are off base in the assertion this has anything to do with justice. Contract disputes don't need duels, traffic violations don't need duels, victims of violence and robbery don't need duels. Imagine if you cheated in a duel and the plaintiff had to duel you because of it.

    Dueling is a stupid game for stupid prizes. If you duel over an attractive person or because the moderate wing of fascism is annoying then your play for dignity is the subject of my ridicule. Dueling for disputes about the color of cages in amerikkka is funny. The congress of a fascist state catabolizing itself is good actually.

    • wopazoo [he/him]
      ·
      10 months ago

      Dueling is a stupid game for stupid prizes. If you duel over an attractive person or because the moderate wing of fascism is annoying then your play for dignity is the subject of my ridicule.

      It's my opinion that people should not be allowed to play stupid games where the only rewards are stupid prizes. The winner of the duel should go to jail, and the loser of the duel should go to jail, after going to the hospital.

      I agree with you on your other points.

      • WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]
        ·
        10 months ago

        I would argue that the prohibition of vices is ineffective. There are plenty of drugs without upside including alcohol. No history of prohibition was ever anything but a giant waste of money that created organized crime. Gambling is so simple that you'd get casinos popping up everywhere. There's also a secret, sinister third one about sex.

        Would society be better off without it? Sure. Would the prevalence increase with legality? Sure (maybe because I think it was just for senators or something?). Would I be torn up if Missouri decided it was a dumb idea? No. My point? It would be funny if it happened - doubly so if it was just for congresspeople.

        • wopazoo [he/him]
          ·
          10 months ago

          I would argue that the prohibition of dueling has been highly effectively, given how the practice is virtually extinct today.

          The prohibition of dueling in particular is highly effective because dueling is no longer seen as an aristocratic practice but rather as a barbarity of the past. Today, nobody gains any honor from winning a duel. When William Burr shot and killed Alexander Hamilton in their duel 200 years ago, it ended his political career, because by then dueling had already lost its prestige.