Is it true that not so long ago calling a man a "liar" was ample cause for a due

1. 63

   Perspycaciousposted 11 years ago

   Is it true that not so long ago calling a man a "liar" was ample cause for a duel?

   replyreport
2. 83

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   Yes, and it's a shame duels are no longer in style. We'd be less burdened with manipulating politicians, grafting bureaucrats and scheming nonprofit staffers as they progressively killed off one another.

   replyreport
3. 86

   Express10posted 11 years ago

   Male or female there are many people that seem to feel this way I have seen people lying through their teeth and when called out on their behavior they choose to become belligerent and violent. So, for some, being called a liar even when it's true is still cause for a duel.

   replyreport
4. 60

   Lions Den Mediaposted 11 years ago

   True - and during that period there was a concern for one's honor and dignity in which lying was viewed as being dishonorable. During that period of time the issue was settled with pistols or fists. But today these lying scoundrels hide behind attorneys and the court. In fact, if one were to defend their honor from a lying scoundrel, the defender would be arrested, tried and most likely jailed.
   
   Obama to include many politicians, along with the main stream elite media and political pundits have proven to lack any sense of honor. In fact, a lie made by Obama which has been proven to be a lie are fearlessly restated over and over again without fear of being challenged by liberal pundits and the media. It is a most disgusting display of the decay of American society.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Joan Kingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Saying whatever it takes to get you elected can be tagged as lying especially when you change positions like the wind and hope that no one remembers your last position and it is common knowledge that Mitt Romney changes positions  exceeding well.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Lions Den Mediaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      JK - changing a position and lying are two wholly different things. Obama is a sociopathic liar. For example, He KNEW 4 Americans were killed by Al-Qaeda terrorists within 2 hours of the incident and continues to lie to America.

      replyreport
   3. 63

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Times change and with them even formerly correct answers have to change to the new realities.  Some realities remain with too little change.

      replyreport
   4. 82

      DS Dubyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      They're  both politicians therefore they're both liars save the political debates for the forums

      replyreport
   5. 60

      Lions Den Mediaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      DS Duby - not all politicians are dishonorable scoundrels seeking to exploit lies for personal gain. There are honorable, moral politicians acting on the basis of ethics, professionalism and principles.

      replyreport
5. 67

   Bretsukiposted 11 years ago

   Yes it is true.
   
   A gentleman's word was considered to be a bond. To break one's word or to make false claims was and still is seen as the lowest kind of behaviour.
   
   As my grandmother always said, :You can lock the door against a thief. But you can't lock your house against a liar."

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "Figures don't lie; but liars sure can figure!"  (A Grampa Winslow tale.)

      replyreport
6. 70

   Joan Kingposted 11 years ago

   Calling a man  or woman a liar is still cause today for a duel, however, instead of swords and knives, it is with our fists and sharp mouths. But there are other more important things in the world than being called a liar. It only hurts if you are called a liar and you feel exposed because you know deep down it is the truth and the truth is what hurts, not being called a liar. If you have not lied then the record will show it- so no need to get the swords sharpened. Duelling over the word "liar" is a direct result of feeling ashamed and caught red-handed, it has nothing to do with honour. Honourable people react with much more dignity.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Never lie and you won't have to remember what you said.

      replyreport
7. 59

   Offer it upposted 11 years ago

   I suppose if it worked for Alexander Hamilton, it should still be okay today. Although with all the silly regulations in Gov't, how would they ever pick a place to duel?

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We would still be okay with that, and later be protected as "an endangered species"!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Lions Den Mediaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Most likely the duelists would need to obtain a government permit and there would be regulations from the EPA in which being killed with a lead bullet would result in a $10,000 fine and 5 years in prison (that's for the dead guy)! )

      replyreport
   3. 83

      Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It didn't work out too well for Alexander. He lost the duel.
      
      I think you can go to the seedy nightclubs any Saturday night to see duels today, too. You may have to dodge bullets and knives since the duelists tend to be a bit tipsy, though.

      replyreport
8. 60

   Goody5posted 11 years ago

   Yes I can definitely see this happening. That one little word triggers off emotions in people, and makes them mad. Even today a person needs to think twice before making an accusation like this. Keep on hubbing 

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not only "needs to" but ought to .  Sad that even those who want to hold supreme power can't be more respectful.

      replyreport
9. 92

   Sherry Hewinsposted 11 years ago

   I can't believe how many people answering this question seem to think it's a good idea to shoot someone for name-calling. I suppose people might be more polite if that were the case.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There indeed used to be a time when people valued their honor highly.  Now they seem willing to barter it for gain.

      replyreport
   2. 92

      Sherry Hewinsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well I, for one, am glad it is not legal to duel. The person who won the duel wasn't necessarily the honorable party.

      replyreport
10. 59

    tirelesstravelerposted 11 years ago

    Awe, the days when what you said was as good as a written contract.
    When consequences were high people were careful with their words. To call a person a liar was not an insult, but defamation of the integrity. It was libel and subject to legal action. Hence, the duel.   
    Whoever thought up the little ditty, Sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will never hurt me, was a liar.
    I knew that was a lie when I was in the second grade when my parents told me to ignore the kids who were making fun of me.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Now be careful.  Whoever made up that "little ditty" could be preparing to challenge you to a duel! ;-o)

       replyreport
    2. 59

       tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Great comment. LOL

       replyreport
11. 45

    Ericdierkerposted 11 years ago

    I thinki dueling is out of fashion. But most "fighting" words such as liar are pretty much made illegal in public. A word that is most likely to cause, does cause, and was intended to incite in another violence is generally not protected free speech.
    So while it may no longer justify a deadly duel it is in fact just cause for the resulting violence. It does in fact excuse violence in some cases. A reasonable butt whoopin could easily follow such fighting words and the speaker could be at fault.
    That of course is just my opine.
    Liar is also a per se example of defamation.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Now that both potentially "all powerful leader" candidates have defamed each other, what are we left with that we can respect?

       replyreport
12. 0

    Old Empresarioposted 11 years ago

    Any time a gentleman's honor was called into question by another gentleman, a duel was considered an honorable way to settle things. Dueling was for gentlemen, which was a label that once meant something entirely different than it does today. Also, you can still challenge someone to a duel if you want--you'll probably go to jail for murder or attempted murder though. Dueling has always been illegal, though that had rarely stopped people before. When people died as the result of a duel (not often) it was considered murder and the killer had to face trial if charges were brought against him  by the state. Duelists would often try to find legal loopholes to avoid recourse by dueling on little islets with no clear state affiliation. Sometimes they would duel across state boundary lines so that state jurisdiction would be murky.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       Perspycaciousposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Ahhh, those were the days when the term "sacred honor" really was.

       replyreport
    2. 83

       Attikosposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It is not the case that dueling was always illegal. It broke no law in most jurisdictions until well into the nineteenth century.

       replyreport
13. 78

    rafkenposted 11 years ago

    I am not too sure about that but I think so. It wasn't that long ago though, that calling a man a liar, was grounds to start impeachment.

    replyreport
14. 75

    James-wolveposted 11 years ago

    Call someone a liar is a long lasting slur, implying that they lie in all their dealings.Once a friend of mine told me that a co-worker told her boss that she made a mistake that was actually his mistake.Her boss called them  in and ask  them both -- the co-worker said she did it. she said "That is not true, I was working on......(something else)." His response "Are you calling me a liar?" So she found herself the bad guy for calling him a liar and he was in the clear even though it was proven that he made the mistakes and then lied about it. Even she did not want to admit that yes, she was calling him a liar.

    replyreport
15. 38

    ZIa Ahmed khanposted 11 years ago

    This is a cause of a fight and battle and even war today. All war are based on lies. The lies which are said millions times to look like truth. They are big liars.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       christopherantonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       There is a rule in Parliament that you are not allowed to call another member a liar. This is a survival from the era when you could be challenged to a duel for calling someone a liar. It stopped all the members from killing each other.

       replyreport
16. 80

    jose7polancoposted 11 years ago

    No, it was surely annoying but o on would fight over it. Of curse later on Revolvers and hand derringers changed that. Not useful for haunting or war, but yet amazing for increasing non sense violence. People loved revolvers and wanted to defend their honor, and having one around could arise disputes to more out of hand situations.

    replyreport
17. 88

    NateB11posted 11 years ago

    I agree with most the responses here. Some form of fighting or dueling was relatively common up till not that long ago (I don't know the history readily, but I have read up on it). And not just with swords or guns, but with brutal, down and dirty empty hand combat. I imagine it is a more direct and honest way to handle things. I can say this much: If I handled things with a duel, I wouldn't have half the problems I've had over the years.

    replyreport
18. 81

    Seeker7posted 11 years ago

    Yes absolutely! Any term that was used that would seem to put a slight on a man's honour would be reason enough to fight to the death. Also, I think if you questioned a man's courage or put his family name down, then this was also regarded as reasons to fight a duel.

    replyreport
19. 64

    BizVT34posted 11 years ago

    Yep and it certainly reduced the casual character assassination that is now so common.

    replyreport
20. 83

    unvrsoposted 11 years ago

    Yes, It was more healthy then than today. People didn´t have to repress their feelings and a couple of punches or a gunshot would fix the problem.
    
    Nowadays, people have to repress their emotions. I think that´s is the reason there are too many diseases stemming from an array of disfunctions in the body.

    replyreport
21. 40

    drantolicposted 11 years ago

    I think it still is. Now we just use words more than a gun. It is a shame, we would have far less politishion in America if we could still dual.

    replyreport
22. 0

    huckelburyposted 11 years ago

    Yes, but 150 years ago, any personal insult could result in two men meeting on the "field of honor." Things have changed, however, and now being called a liar is a mark of distinction, especially if one is running for public office.

    replyreport
23. 71

    Amethystravenposted 11 years ago

    I believe long a ago in a England, and in our good old USA calling someone a liar was cause for a duel.

    replyreport
24. 68

    Admiral Murrahposted 11 years ago

    A brief history of dueling with the emphasis on the Republic of Texas. Duels were common in the Republic of Texas with many of those in high office engaging in the practice of dueling. read more

    replyreport