Dueling should be legal

Which one of us though?

This brings up a possible way to expand the sector: Choose Your Champion!

I wonder what Gregor Clegane is up to?

 

Under my plan, the necessity to have a writ by a magistrate would 1. allow for a sufficient cooling-off period that would allow one of both of the aggrieved parties to say “Never mind. I’ll walk the […]ing dog.”; 2. allow the judge to say, “You two need a divorce, not a duel. That judge is two floors up.”; and 3. the husband (or emotionally weaker member of the same-sex couple) to realize the futility of his (or her) position and walk the dog before it craps in his (or her) man cave.

 

Business matter. You have no standing. What you can have is a partnership …

 

I'm in. You guys owe me for the lasertag and fencing variation idea I offered up.

Done! I choose spoons as the weapon of choice!

 

Really? Who do you think is the best basketball player of all time? Who is better Florida 2006 or Florida 1996?

I think tailgates would take on a new element of excitement.

 

Sorry. No champions. Anyone unable to fight their own duels will have to decline. Otherwise, the trust-fund babies would challenge to a duel everyone who bumped into them in a night club. The essence of a duel is personal risk to settle a matter that cannot otherwise be settled under the law.

 

No deal. The organs, teeth, etc belong to the winner of the duel by right of conquest.

Counteroffer: you get first right of refusal to negotiate with the winner for monetizing his or her pillage.

But before you decide, let’s remember that few duels might actually result in death. A duel “to the death” could be negotiated in the rules, but many might just agree to offer quarter if asked. I don’t want you thinking there will be that many kidneys to sell off.

 

I'm all for gun nuts being allowed to duel.

 

You heard about the 95-year old couple who filed for divorce after 75 years of marriage, didn’t you. They went to court and the judge asked them why they were choosing to get divorced after 75 years. They said that they hated each other for the past 50 years. The judge asked why they waited so long to get divorced. They said that they wanted to wait until the children were dead.

 

And what would be the insurance implications for such consensual conduct? Would a family of a person having a million dollars of life insurance be compensated if that person is killed a duel he consented to be a part of? And if not, who is going to be responsible for the care and well being of that family now that the bread winner is deceased? I think that if people have provided for their families so that their families will not become a public charge to the rest of society, then they should have the option to consent to a duel.

Most of us cannot afford to die, or even take the risk of doing so, because of the impact it would have on our families especially without insurance coverage.

 

Fair point, but we'd be leaving a lot of money on the table

 

Cool I've got some rope in my garage I'm gonna lynch someone just to spite the too hot crowd.

 

Excellent questions that insurance companies are going to love to an$wer.

 

My wife knows I'm worth more to her dead than I am alive ..

 

I would say some of what you wrote would have to be considerations when negotiating a life insurance policy and when deciding whether or not to drop or pick up a gauntlet. How important is this grievance to both parties? As I said earlier, I think if such a matter were controlled and regulated, then there would be very few duels (almost none actually to the death), but people would have an outlet for truly severe personal grievances under the rare circumstances.

 

Same. I’m a pilot. So way, way, way more value dead.

 

I know this is off-topic, but are you familiar with the history of cha-ching?