ig: captain__crackr

It seems like dueling is archaic and pointlessly violent but the straight, ugly answer is: it's hard to say. Violence is a bad thing, most of the time. The potential of violence can be a good thing, as long as the violence itself is extremely rare. No one wants a full-scale war, but if a couple of health insurance executives were held physically accountable for their decisions to deny care, it'd be a good thing for this country, because health insurance companies would start operating in a different way.

Dueling can be an equalizer. If someone gets too haughty, you can (by challenging him to a contest putting both your life and his at risk) make the statement that he is no better than you. If he declines, it shows that he doesn't stand by whatever slight he made against your reputation. You recover fully, and he looks like a fool and doesn't smear your reputation anymore.

Dueling can also solve one of Corporate America's ugliest (and hardest to otherwise solve) internal problems: passive aggression. Passive-aggressive people can gain a lot of undeserved influence using deceptive tactics to ingratiate themselves to those in power. They talk behind peoples' backs, hurt reputations and careers, and little can be done about them because others fear them enough to protect them. If they had to stand behind what they said with their lives, however, they'd get away with a lot less.

One advantage of duels, when it comes to public reputation, is that they simplify. Unless you cower, you either recover your reputation, or you die. The reason it is toxic to your career to disparage a former employer is that 95% of people are too lazy and thick skulled to hear out a case with any complexity in it (and, even if you're dead right, your adversary will inject complexity and it's impossible to get away without a bruised reputation) and the world at large will conclude you were somehow at fault or toxic. Because people are thick skulled reputation matters more than substance in the social world, and reputations are established by simple presentations, not complex cases. Duels are pretty simple. They provide a narrative that humans, as disappointingly limited as they are, can get. Bad things said about you at work blocking your transfer? Back-channel smear making it hard for you to find clients? Dueling is a way to really stand behind your reputation. It shows that you'll risk death to protect it. And you should. One job is probably not worth putting your life on the line, but ultimately, if you might lose your reputation fully (taking your career and most relationships with it, throwing you into poverty, turning the world against you) challenging someone to a duel can be a last resort

 

(a second is a friend and both parties bring one to assure a honorable and properly conducted duel)

2.No duels were to be fought on Sunday, on a day of a Festival, or near a place of public worship.

3.A gentleman, who valued his own reputation, would not fight a duel with, nor act as a Second to, a person who aggravated and increased discord or violence by striking someone with his fist, a stick, or a glove or called the person a liar, coward, or any other irritating name.

4.The Second was to be “a ‘man who was not passion’s slave,'” and no gentleman was to accept the position of a Second, “without first receiving from his friend, a written statement of the case upon his honor.”

5.When “bosom friends, fathers of large, or unprovided families, or very inexperienced youths … were to fight, the Seconds were to … be doubly justified in their solicitude for reconciliation".

6.A Principal was not to “wear light coloured clothing, ruffles, military decorations, or any other … attractive object, upon which the eye of his antagonist could … rest,” as it could affect the outcome of the duel.

7.The time and place were to be as convenient as possible to surgical assistance and to the combatants. The Royal Code of Honor noted that “special precaution should invariable be used, to prevent … carrying wounded gentlemen over walls, ditches, gates, stiles, or hedges; or too great a distance to a dwelling.”

8.The parties were to salute each other upon meeting “offering this evidence of civilization.”As there were always unexpected advantages — the terrain or light — advantages were to be “decided by the toss of three, five, or seven coins … carefully shaken in a hat,” and the challenged party was entitled to the first toss, the challenger to the second, and so on until the advantages were decided.

9.No gentleman was allowed to wear spectacles unless they used them on public streets.

10.There was to be at least 10 yards distance between the combatants.

11.The Seconds were to present pistols to Principals and the pistols were not to be cocked before delivery.

12.The combatants were to present and fire together without resting on their aim at the agreed upon signal.

13.After each discharge the Seconds were to “mutually and zealously attempt a reconciliation.”

14.Each combatant would fire one shot and if neither was hit but the challenger satisfied, the duel was declared over. However, if the challenger was unsatisfied, the duel continued. But no more than three exchanges of fire were allowed, as to exchange more shots was considered barbaric.

15.The offended party determined what conclusion was acceptable and there were three possible outcomes: 1) first blood (the duel ended when one combatant was wounded); 2) the duel continued until one combatant was physically unable to proceed; or 3) death, a combatant was fatally wounded.

16.Neither the Principal nor the Second were to abandon an injured gentlemen “without … securing for him a proper conveyance from the field.”

17.After the duel was over, the Seconds were to remind friends and relatives of the combatants, that the slightest indiscretion could renew the breach and Principals were also to abstain from conversation upon the subject so as not to reopen closed wounds.


This petition is directed to Primeminister Justin Trudeau as he controls the house and can pass the required legislation to make this a reality.