Is it true that not so long ago calling a man a "liar" was ample cause for a duel?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Times change and with them even formerly correct answers have to change to the new realities. Some realities remain with too little change.
They're both politicians therefore they're both liars save the political debates for the forums
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.
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."
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.
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?
We would still be okay with that, and later be protected as "an endangered species"!
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)! )
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.
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
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.
There indeed used to be a time when people valued their honor highly. Now they seem willing to barter it for gain.
Well I, for one, am glad it is not legal to duel. The person who won the duel wasn't necessarily the honorable party.
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.
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.
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.
Ahhh, those were the days when the term "sacred honor" really was.
It is not the case that dueling was always illegal. It broke no law in most jurisdictions until well into the nineteenth century.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yep and it certainly reduced the casual character assassination that is now so common.
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.
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.
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.
I believe long a ago in a England, and in our good old USA calling someone a liar was cause for a duel.
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
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
Bloomberg was right. Trump is a con man. The question is which will you prefer? A con man or a liar?It is odd that this election cycle has given us two flawed candidates. You have the former mayor of NYC calling Trump a con man, yet he endorse the DNC hand picked Hillary Clinton - a proven liar....
by marinealways24 13 years ago
With all of the political hidden agenda, we never truly know what politicians have our best interest in mind. Should all politicians be required to take lie detector tests before and during office?
by Dennis L. Page 8 years ago
Is Romney a bold face liar when he claims Obama's federal spending is unprecedented?The facts are as follows: Reagan '82 - 85 federal spending was 8.7 and 86 - 89 4.9. Bush I 5.4 and Bush II 7.3 - 8.2. Clinton was 3.2 - 3.9 and Obama 1.4 on government spending. Without talking about...
by lupine 8 years ago
Is it still considered "cheating" in a relationship, if you tell your partner?Some people go out and "cheat" and they tell their spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend, openly they are doing it. Does that make it not cheating if they are not doing it behind their back?
by tbHistorian 8 years ago
Why do politicians like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbi Wasserman Schultz and those of theAdministration continue to deny the damages resulting from the ACA (obamacare). My cost for healthcare has gone up 400% and my neighbor just informed me his went up 500% and now requires a $12,000...
by rafken 10 years ago
Do you think the Maya so called doomsday prediction on 21 Dec 2012 is true? .If so where is the big party going to be on the 20th?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|