chuff

Yes, the OP said he was referring only to lethal duels, the intent being to kill the other person. I use the following "quote" BBcodes only to show what I gathered from the poster's posts, not actual quotes. Sure. But it's not coercive force when entered into voluntarily. It's merely a wager one can choose for or against. The social (or emotional or whatever other) penalties cast on the duel participant by the society around her are, I would argue, unsound. But they are irrelevant to the decision of whether the voluntary agreement/contract (whichever it is) should be allowed individuals by government to be entered into. Whether the contract is specified or not or we detail the entire 'Robert's Rules of Dueling' (in both volumes ) on this thread, I was thinking that the question is whether it should ever even be considered in the legal process, i.e., whether it should be legal. At this point, after having read the entire thread, I see it this way: If you have the right to end your life, I would think you have the right to wager it. When one agrees to a duel, she wagers her life for the other participant's. The point to this wager, I thought, is the desire not to be living along with the other person at the same time. 'One of us must die.' To me, it's more similar to a non-drafted soldier than a boxer. In some sense it involves trying one's hand at killing another person who is also trying to kill the first; not being willing to live while the other person is alive. I have yet to understand any of the arguments against its legality.

I occasionally play Nexuiz. Nickname: Chuff <3s Ayn Rand.

This may be valid sub-atomic research, but does this really affect interpersonal relationships, human nature, or the rights of man? If not, I say it doesn't come close to removing a single brick in the wall that's objectivist reasoning..

I'm sorry, who observed this part?

He probably got it from them, too..

I think I liked Jefferson for good reasons.

I can't believe no one has mentioned the more recent Star Wars movies! "Only the Sith work in absolutes."

So how can I make this known, so that people can know about it and see the truth of it? Too often I hear "Why do you love him?" "Because he's my cousin." Or "Why do you deserve that?" "Because I'm a girl!" And they would be ready to admit that neither they nor their cousin deserves a jail sentence just for those reasons. I would really like to see this implemented and for that I need to be able to, although I don't like this word, disseminate it well.

I could use some help in defining and laying out this system I'm thinking of... if it hasn't been already. What I have are the ideas. What I need are a sufficient way of expressing them and quality proof. I'll try to be terse. It is wrong to make a prejudicial decision about someone based merely on one or a combination of these facts: a certain race a certain gender a certain age in a certain family For example, a person does not deserve to be thrown in jail or ostracized as already a criminal merely because he is, say, black. A person's job application does not deserve to be disregarded simply because the applicant is, say, a woman. A person does not deserve to be derided or criticized just because he or she is over 65. And Romeo does not deserve to be scorned or thought less of because he is a Montague. So, in short, what I'm saying is nothing new: that what people cannot change about themselves holds no moral content/no content that can be judged. Thus other examples would be a person born with a physical or mental handicap, or born in Latvia as opposed to somewhere else (being specific to birthplace and not place of living). It is not right to hold against someone an attribute they cannot change, or, It is not right to hold contempt for someone due to an attribute he cannot change. What I propose and attempt with all my focus to practice is, neither is it right to hold regard for someone due to an attribute he cannot change! So for the same reason that it is wrong to act or speak detrimentally toward someone due to one of these traits, it is wrong to honor them for any of them. So the examples for the other side of this (which no one seems to care about practicing) could go something like this: For example, a person does not deserve to be elected to office or given better chances at a job or a college scholarship merely because he is, say, black. A person's job application does not deserve to be regarded especially simply because the applicant is, say, a woman. Neither does an individual deserve special treatment, such as preferential treatment in company, or holding a door for someone, or caring for their well-being, simply because the individual happens to be female. A person does not deserve to be praised or respected just because he or she is over 65. And your uncle does not deserve your defense or your love because he is your uncle. In essence, what I'm saying is, no human is anything (bad OR good) because he is: a certain race a certain gender a certain age in a certain family born in a certain place born in a certain status Even shorter, my proposition is that nothing in the above list is ever a good reason for anything about a person. Why is only half of this practiced or considered true, and how can I describe my views on this? Is anyone with me on this one?

A similar thing happens to me, you're not alone. Although I do think that when my father passes I'll cry a bit more than you've stated you did for yours. And at the end of such movies as Valkyrie, I cried. And the end of The Watchmen got me choked up as well. Secret Window is one where I was very upset the dog died. There are definitely others but I can't think of them at the moment. Plus I agree with most of the above statements that I read through.. Dogs such as the ones in The Watchmen & the ones in Resident Evil (2?) & similar movies, I was glad died. So it all has to do with attachment, I suppose.