"It should be legal for two consenting adults to challenge each other to a duel and fight a Death Match." this was question 24 what do you think?
http://www.okcupid.com/politics that's the test if anybody's interested.... here's my result: You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (13% permissive) You are best described as a: Socialist You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (112, -138) modscore: (8, 48) raw: (1145) for that question i put that i disagree... simply because i put a lot of importance on life i guess... but it's a toughie because it's two consenting adults... i mean, if they're crazy and want to fight to the death then so be it?... lol i don't know... i'm conflicted.
Haha. No before the duel starts. Time for reconcilliation. Unless you mean this is some kinda of insane sport. I thought you were talking about dueling over a grudge.
Hell no. I love the idea of chivalry and all, but no. Ignorant ass people shouldn't be free to challenge people to fights to the death based on their honor. Real honor in law is trying to find a code of law to protect everyone. Now, if two people have enough reason to fight each other to the death, they can do it. They should be prepared to face the consequences, possible death and murder charges. If they still must fight to the death, I hope it's important enough for them to deal with the consequences. I still find the idea of a duel romantic. If I die young, I hope it's in a bare handed duel for somthing I believe in. But I hope I don't die young.
ahh okay... i wasn't sure what the hell the question meant honestly... i guess dueling works... i was just thinking insane sport myself... lol voluntary gladiators i guess...
On second thought pay-per-view would prolly televise the duels and pepsi would be a sponsor, so I change my answer to "no".
You are best described as a: Socialist You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. loc: (56, -169) modscore: (3, 39) raw: (536)
Yes, defenatly. People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they do not hurt other people by doing it, but if both people consent to a duel, then it should be done. Ofcourse, I do think that it should be monitored somehow, as the "cool-off" period that was suggested, and both opponents should be given the opportunity to chicken out without loosing too much face. You are a Social Liberal (80% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (10% permissive) You are best described as a: Socialist
You are a Social Liberal (63% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (30% permissive) You are best described as a: Democrat You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. This comes as no surprise, no wonder i hate bush so much.
You are a Social Liberal (76% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (88% permissive) You are best described as a: [size=+2]Libertarian [/size] You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.
You are a Social Liberal (68% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (26% permissive) You are best described as a: [size=+2]Democrat You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness. [/size]
in MA, you can't duel with water pistols guess ya gotta go for the real thing but yea, if both consent, then they should be able to duel each other.