Here you go:
I only spent ten minutes doing this, or else I would have made the pie on the left flipped around on the proper side of the hand.
20 Likes
From listening to podcasts about the musical Hamilton they do mention that duels rarely ended up escalating to the point of actually shooting someone, and when it did it wasn’t always fatal.
So, how is that murder, then? The problem I see with shootouts in the street is that because they aren’t formalized, non-participants can be accidentally injured or killed. But if a duel is in an isolated time and place, what moral high ground does anybody have to object? And what are the ethics of “protecting” those who refuse the protection of those who meddle in other’s affairs?
2 Likes
4 Likes
That is awesome and I want to do it.
1 Like
If it’s a winter event, on a snowboard pipe run, I’d watch it. Must be airborne to fire, GoPros on the pistol.
5 Likes
But musket-style, one-shot, paint-ball guns that somehow get that whoosh of black powder when they fire.
ETA: I think we could sell this to the X Games.
6 Likes
Yeah, politicians shouldn’t duel. But it belongs in the general criminal code, rather than the state constitution.
1 Like
Because they have taken human life illegally, in a deliberate and premeditated manner. That sounds like the definition of 1st degree murder to me. It wasn’t legal at the time either. I doubt it has been been legal at anytime since the judicial duel was eliminated as a means of litigation.
Oh, you mean why should it be considered murder? Because the person who is challenged is under a social compulsion and thus cannot give uncoerced consent; either they risk death or their social standing suffers certain death.
It has often been argued that the objective of the early American duel wasn’t to kill your opponent; that could have adverse social consequences even if you were never charged with anything. The objective was to force your opponent to back down without a fight, thus proving that you are the Better Man. For example, Abraham Lincoln was once challenged to a duel. By custom, the person who was challenged was allowed to choose the weapons. He wisely chose broadswords. His opponent wisely backed down as he didn’t want to face a 6’4" man who split logs for a living with broadswords. Thus, Lincoln won.
As a contrary example, the Burr-Hamilton duel killed Hamilton and ended Burr’s political career. Thus, no one really won.
11 Likes
Forbidding duelists to hold public office is what finally killed dueling. It gave people an excuse to refuse on the grounds that their duty to run for public office (purely for the good of the state/people/etc!) had to come before their personal honor. Naturally, such a restriction must obviously be part of the constitution.
6 Likes
Wow. Imagine the betting pool you could set up.
2 Likes
1 Like
You know, I was going to make a wiseassed comment, but in retrospect, fuck it. I’m on board with this.
It is literally the least insane thing I’ve heard from an elected official in the last month, so I’m just going to accept it as our new baseline for rational discourse.
8 Likes
If no one really won, I’d venture to say Hamilton lost worse.
9 Likes
Has anyone written a hit musical about Burr?
7 Likes
Begging the question that Burr is a major character in the play, it takes a rare man to sacrifice his life on the premise that 200 years hence he would be the subject of a popular entertainment. Dead is dead.
3 Likes
2 Likes
They should because he was waaaaaaay less of a prick than Hamilton (and I’m being absolutely serious). Have you read up on the shit Hamilton pulled and tried to pull in his life?
3 Likes
History is written by the bankers. /s, even though I love the musical
6 Likes
