Not The Onion

12387 readers

1590 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay

594

Missouri rule change would allow senators to challenge each other to a duel (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/nottheonion

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 53 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And what happens when the Democrat tells him to fuck off?

The first rule of dueling was that a challenge to duel between two gentleman could not generally be refused without the loss of face and honor

"lol" said the Democrat, "lmao".

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

In truth, there were several reasons that one could decline a duel without loss of honor. For example if the duel challenge was issued with obvious quarrelous intent.

Eg:

"You're a liar"

"No I'm not. What are you talking about?"

"Ah, so you deny being a liar?"

"Yes, wtf are you getting at?"

"Then by your denial, you accuse me of being a liar! This insult shall not stand. I demand satisfaction."

"Lol, fuck off"

Another case would be if one duelist was not of sufficient station to match the honor of their opponent. A freshly-minted bourgeoisie vs a nobleman, for example.

Lastly, duels might be turned down if it were obvious to all that that a significant skill mismatch were at play. For example, a military officer might not be allowed to duel a civilian with sabres. Guns, however, were generally considered more egalitarian.

[–] CheeseNoodle 2 points 10 months ago

To be fair only because pistols at the time were so innacurate that even the worlds best shot wouldn't have been able to garauntee a hit. Modern pistols would be a different story.