• TootSweet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    166
    ·
    10 months ago

    If a senator’s honor is impugned by another senator to the point that it is beyond repair and in order for the offended senator to gain satisfaction, such senator may rectify the perceived insult to the senator’s honor by challenging the offending senator to a duel.

    The Republican who introduced this bill did so because his feelings were hurt. Wait, who are the snowflakes again?

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      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”.

      • OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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.