jump to last post 1-24 of 24 discussions (43 posts)

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

  1. Perspycacious profile image82
    Perspycaciousposted 5 years ago

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

  2. Attikos profile image79
    Attikosposted 5 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.

  3. Express10 profile image88
    Express10posted 5 years ago

    Male or female there are many people that seem to feel this way smile 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.

  4. Lions Den Media profile image60
    Lions Den Mediaposted 5 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.

    1. Joan King profile image75
      Joan Kingposted 5 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.

    2. Lions Den Media profile image60
      Lions Den Mediaposted 5 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.

    3. Perspycacious profile image82
      Perspycaciousposted 5 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.

    4. DS Duby profile image95
      DS Dubyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

    5. Lions Den Media profile image60
      Lions Den Mediaposted 5 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.

  5. Bretsuki profile image79
    Bretsukiposted 5 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."

    1. Perspycacious profile image82
      Perspycaciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

  6. Joan King profile image75
    Joan Kingposted 5 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.

    1. Perspycacious profile image82
      Perspycaciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

  7. Offer it up profile image59
    Offer it upposted 5 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?

    1. Perspycacious profile image82
      Perspycaciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

    2. Lions Den Media profile image60
      Lions Den Mediaposted 5 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)! smile)

    3. Attikos profile image79
      Attikosposted 5 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.

  8. Goody5 profile image75
    Goody5posted 5 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  smile

    1. Perspycacious profile image82
      Perspycaciousposted 5 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.

  9. Sherry Hewins profile image97
    Sherry Hewinsposted 5 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.

    1. Perspycacious profile image82
      Perspycaciousposted 5 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.

    2. Sherry Hewins profile image97
      Sherry Hewinsposted 5 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.

  10. tirelesstraveler profile image81
    tirelesstravelerposted 5 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.

    1. Perspycacious profile image82
      Perspycaciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

    2. tirelesstraveler profile image81
      tirelesstravelerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Great comment. LOL

  11. Ericdierker profile image57
    Ericdierkerposted 5 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.

    1. Perspycacious profile image82
      Perspycaciousposted 5 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?

  12. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 5 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.

    1. Perspycacious profile image82
      Perspycaciousposted 5 years agoin reply to this

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

    2. Attikos profile image79
      Attikosposted 5 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.

  13. rafken profile image78
    rafkenposted 5 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.

  14. James-wolve profile image78
    James-wolveposted 5 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.

  15. ZIa Ahmed khan profile image78
    ZIa Ahmed khanposted 5 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.

    1. christopheranton profile image76
      christopherantonposted 5 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.

  16. jose7polanco profile image74
    jose7polancoposted 5 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.

  17. NateB11 profile image95
    NateB11posted 5 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.

  18. Seeker7 profile image95
    Seeker7posted 5 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.

  19. BizVT34 profile image74
    BizVT34posted 5 years ago

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

  20. unvrso profile image90
    unvrsoposted 5 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.

  21. drantolic profile image50
    drantolicposted 5 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.

  22. profile image0
    huckelburyposted 5 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.

  23. Amethystraven profile image80
    Amethystravenposted 5 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.

  24. Admiral Murrah profile image73
    Admiral Murrahposted 5 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

 
working