The Glade 4.0

People fight each other to the death on a regular basis, not in a duel type setting though. I see no reason to legalize or encourage the practice. These days people would find a way to use it to legalize murder.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Isn't war "consenting adults fighting each other to the death" anyway?

I suppose at a base level. However just because x is allowed in some cases doesn't mean it should be in all cases.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Thought experiment!

Alan and Bob are daredevils in the vein of Evel Knievel. Being very competitive with one another, their respective acts keep getting more and more dangerous. Alan's announces his next planned show, in which he will be performing a stunt where he has a 1 in 3 chance of dying. Not to be outdone, Bob announces a new stunt which has a 2 out of 3 chance of him dying. Should this be allowed?

Change of scenario: Alan and Bob are no longer daredevils but cage fighters, and they are going to be pitted against one another next Sunday SUNDAY SUNDAY in a death match. Alan has the physical advantage; the bookies all think he's twice as likely to win as Bob. Assume they're right. So by participating in this event, Alan stands a 1 in 3 chance of dying. Bob, meanwhile stands a 2 in 3 chance of dying. Should this be allowed?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

In the latter, one must die and death is the goal. Not so in the former. Both should be permitted.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

that ignores the reality of professional armies fighting conscripts.

Again I think there is a big difference between someone has to die and someone might die. You can take as stupid of a risk as you want, so long as you aren't harming others in the process. When you get to the point where death is certain, I go back to my original argument.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Or a draft.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

All that shows is that adults fighting to the death is perfectly legal and acceptable, even if both parties don't consent to the fight. I'm not sure that war is really your best example, for either side of the argument, but hey, let's go with it.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Wars have nothing to do with the issue. Wars are between two different societies, separated as nations, city-states, or whatever political division applies to the circumstances and time period. The consent of one side hardly matters to the other in prosecuting the war effort.

The issue at hand is about people fighting with or without the sanction of the society they happen to be in (Even if they're citizens of two different ones, they obviously cannot be in both at the same time and fight).

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."