Reply to topic  [ 225 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 134: For Science! 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:53 am
Posts: 307
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
boldilocks wrote:
entity2636 wrote:
Which basically means they are viewed as inferior, unworthy, failed, weak, etc. which, to put it blunt, is (almost) subhuman if we throw political correctness, which I'm allergic to, out the window. I'd also call things their true names and use "primitive societies" rather than traditional, as the second can be ambiguous and misinterpreted.


I think you're suffering from liberal bias in your analysis. In human (at least western) society, men take (and have largely taken, historically speaking) second billing to women and children. That doesn't mean men are viewed as sub-human, it merely means that we save women and children first in times of disaster or difficulty and we structure our society around the furthering of our progeny, (which means we have historically placed men in positions of risk, leading to them bearing the brunt of hardship but also reaping great prestige). The Loroi warrior caste could in some sense be seen as the "men" in that society.


I don't see where my liberal bias is, but in my opinion, when someone is prohibited from doing certain activities, assigned certain activities and assigned a specific lifestyle without asking one's opinion by the government or another authority figure, I would call it oppression and discrimination. You are not prohibited by your government in engaging in any activity within the law that you feel like. That is not "suffering from liberal bias". And by the way, historically and up until rather recently women in the western world (and still very much so in the third world) were considered inferior to men in every aspect, incapable by nature of decision making, prohibited from owning property, run a business, vote, you name it, even not "having rights towards their own body". The men did protect them, take second billing in times of danger, but women were little more than property, in extreme cases treated as livestock. I think it is good that this is a thing of the past in large parts of the world and hopefully the rest will follow.

boldilocks wrote:
Further, if we are to "call things their true names", then there is not a single modern human nation (barring I suppose some indigenous island tribes) which is not a military dictatorship, as all human governments today rule ultimately through the force of their police state and army. The state apparatus may accept input in forms of democratic elections, much as a king or dictator may hear the pleas of his subjects, but the decisions and policies of the state are ultimately final and dictatorial.


This is just plain wrong. There is a huge difference between any given flavor of democracy (including parliamentary monarchy), "generic" dictatorship, a police state and a military dictatorship. None of the last three are found in the "civilised" western world.


Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:54 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:27 am
Posts: 263
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
Arioch wrote:
There is an important distinction between a dictatorship and a republic: in the former, the instruments of power serve the leader personally; in the latter, they serve the state. In the latter, the leadership can be changed by political means, but in the former, it can only really be changed by force.


Pinochet is an example where a military dictatorship allowed itself to be changed through political means. (And which arguably served the state/nation more than the leader personally.)


Thu Jun 14, 2018 2:49 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2820
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
boldilocks wrote:
Arioch wrote:
There is an important distinction between a dictatorship and a republic: in the former, the instruments of power serve the leader personally; in the latter, they serve the state. In the latter, the leadership can be changed by political means, but in the former, it can only really be changed by force.

Pinochet is an example where a military dictatorship allowed itself to be changed through political means. (And which arguably served the state/nation more than the leader personally.)

The key phrase here is "allowed itself" to be changed. Sure, and a republic can have its leadership changed by force, and there are governments which are some mixture of the two (was Britain's constitutional monarchy in 1776 a dictatorship or a republic? Discuss). And a dictatorship can be benign, and a republic can be oppressive. But the distinction is still a valid one. Just because a republic may use force to uphold its laws does not make it a dictatorship.

_________________
Outsider


Thu Jun 14, 2018 3:21 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:27 am
Posts: 263
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
Arioch wrote:
The key phrase here is "allowed itself" to be changed. Sure, and a republic can have its leadership changed by force, and there are governments which are some mixture of the two (was Britain's constitutional monarchy in 1776 a dictatorship or a republic? Discuss). And a dictatorship can be benign, and a republic can be oppressive. But the distinction is still a valid one. Just because a republic may use force to uphold its laws does not make it a dictatorship.


I'm saying the force of law in a republic or a monarchy is just as dictatorial as in a dictatorship. The distinctions we make on them are mainly in the form of it's "top".


Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:38 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2820
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
boldilocks wrote:
The distinctions we make on them are mainly in the form of it's "top".

That's because that's what the word "dictatorship" means: a government led by a single person or entity with absolute power. "Dictatorship" has nothing to do with the methods by which rule is enforced, or whether such rule is just.

_________________
Outsider


Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:45 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:27 am
Posts: 263
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
Arioch wrote:
boldilocks wrote:
The distinctions we make on them are mainly in the form of it's "top".

That's because that's what the word "dictatorship" means: a government led by a single person or entity with absolute power. "Dictatorship" has nothing to do with the methods by which rule is enforced, or whether such rule is just.


Sure, which is why if we're talking about "real names of things", there is no difference in how a republic wields its power or a dicatorship wields its power. It's absolutely ruled.


Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:26 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2820
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
boldilocks wrote:
Arioch wrote:
boldilocks wrote:
The distinctions we make on them are mainly in the form of it's "top".

That's because that's what the word "dictatorship" means: a government led by a single person or entity with absolute power. "Dictatorship" has nothing to do with the methods by which rule is enforced, or whether such rule is just.

Sure, which is why if we're talking about "real names of things", there is no difference in how a republic wields its power or a dicatorship wields its power. It's absolutely ruled.

I don't think anyone here has disagreed with that statement. In fact, I think I pretty much just said exactly the same thing. However, I do disagree with your statement that "there is not a single modern human nation (barring I suppose some indigenous island tribes) which is not a military dictatorship, as all human governments today rule ultimately through the force of their police state and army." Dictatorship is about who rules, not how.

_________________
Outsider


Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:37 pm
Profile WWW
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am
Posts: 980
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
For example, Trump (hopefully that word won't derail the discussion) cannot simply declare a new law is in place. He has some options like Executive Orders that give a certain amount of power, but he can't simply write a law stating that, for example, Planned Parenthood is to be shut down. In fact he can't even introduce a law to Congress IIRC, in order to do that he has to pass it off to a Congresscritter.

In a dictatorship he could simply re-write laws as he sees fit.

Of course there's varying levels of dictatorship, late-model Imperial Russia had a Duma that supposedly represented the people, but in the end the Czar could do as he wished. Is that a dictatorship? Well yes, but he gave a small amount of power to the Duma that technically could act against his wishes, until he made a different decision.


Thu Jun 14, 2018 10:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:53 am
Posts: 307
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
fredgiblet wrote:
Of course there's varying levels of dictatorship, late-model Imperial Russia had a Duma that supposedly represented the people, but in the end the Czar could do as he wished. Is that a dictatorship? Well yes, but he gave a small amount of power to the Duma that technically could act against his wishes, until he made a different decision.


Yes indeed, this is generally called an absolute monarchy or autocracy (which is how the Russian Empire back then referred to themselves). There may or may not be a form of parliament, but in the end it is the monarch-autocrat who decides single-handily what goes and what doesn't and can veto any decision or law coming from the parliament, but not vice versa. By extent, Czarist Russia could be called a military dictatorship because, and I'm writing this from memory and may miss some detail, the Czar was the supreme military leader of the army and all other aristocrats who made up his court and government were also actual army officers, not just in title.

Granted, the president of any republic or the monarch of a constitutional or parliamentary monarchy, democratic or otherwise, is also the supreme military leader, but the title is formal and every decision or law has to go through the parliament anyway.

A more modern military dictatorship would have a generalissimus, general or often a colonel as the head of state, e.g. Stalinist USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Spain of the same period, as well as Gaddafi's Egypt and numerous other African "republics", usually has a parliament, but it's members are either appointed from said general's closest military circle, are not democratically elected or if they are, they have very little if any influence on the state of things.


Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:21 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:27 am
Posts: 263
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
fredgiblet wrote:
In a dictatorship he could simply re-write laws as he sees fit.


In modern nations you don't need to re-write laws. You just enforce them differently (or in some cases simply don't enforce them) based on your biases.


Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:27 pm
Profile
Moderator

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:02 am
Posts: 980
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
boldilocks wrote:
In modern nations you don't need to re-write laws. You just enforce them differently (or in some cases simply don't enforce them) based on your biases.


Sometimes. Other times the laws don't exist yet or have been cancelled out by previous decisions.


Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:43 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:27 am
Posts: 263
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
entity2636 wrote:
I don't see where my liberal bias is, but in my opinion, when someone is prohibited from doing certain activities, assigned certain activities and assigned a specific lifestyle without asking one's opinion by the government or another authority figure, I would call it oppression and discrimination.


That's your liberal bias right there.

entity2636 wrote:
You are not prohibited by your government in engaging in any activity within the law that you feel like.


"Within the law" being a very important part of that statement. This applies to all possible governments.

entity2636 wrote:
That is not "suffering from liberal bias".


It very much is, I would say, though this next bit seems to be largely progressive bias rather than a liberal one. (Not that the two don't intersect at points.)

entity2636 wrote:
And by the way, historically and up until rather recently women in the western world (and still very much so in the third world) were considered inferior to men in every aspect, incapable by nature of decision making, prohibited from owning property, run a business, vote, you name it, even not "having rights towards their own body". The men did protect them, take second billing in times of danger, but women were little more than property, in extreme cases treated as livestock. I think it is good that this is a thing of the past in large parts of the world and hopefully the rest will follow.


In no point in western history have women been considered inferior to men in every aspect. I suppose you could say that male spartans considered women "inferior" and therefore only fit to run the government and industry while the "important" work of being in the army was for the men, but that's a strange definition of inferior.

Also, I'm not sure where women have been unable to own property or run businesses in western history, or where they were ever considered property/livestock in any way that men were not also considered property/livestock.

entity2636 wrote:
This is just plain wrong. There is a huge difference between any given flavor of democracy (including parliamentary monarchy), "generic" dictatorship, a police state and a military dictatorship. None of the last three are found in the "civilised" western world.


What is that "huge" difference? as far as I can tell so far it's only a superficial difference insofar as you have perhaps 1 person up top or maybe a council. In terms of what actually matters to the practice of power, that is, how a state intercedes with it's citizens, the method is identical. The decisions of the state will be obeyed, and are ultimately backed with military power.


Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:39 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:53 am
Posts: 307
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
boldilocks wrote:
In no point in western history have women been considered inferior to men in every aspect. I suppose you could say that male spartans considered women "inferior" and therefore only fit to run the government and industry while the "important" work of being in the army was for the men, but that's a strange definition of inferior.

Also, I'm not sure where women have been unable to own property or run businesses in western history, or where they were ever considered property/livestock in any way that men were not also considered property/livestock.


Alright not in ~every~ aspect, but in a lot of aspects, if you're into picking nits. Look no further than the USA, Great Britain and pretty much every other country at and before the turn of the 20th century. Ancient Sparta, however, is unique among the ancient states in how modern it was in regard to it's non-serf population and the rights they enjoyed, men and women alike.

In the rest of the world it was common practice for women to go uneducated and seen fit only for the "3 C's" - children, cooking, church. Nowadays this practice remains in underdeveloped 3rd world countries.

boldilocks wrote:
What is that "huge" difference?


In practice the difference and it's impact on the way people lead their daily lives is, in fact, huge.

To be very blunt, in the first (democracy and constitutional monarchy) you are free to live pretty much how you see fit, work where you want/can, say what you think, etc., pretty much anything short of stealing, killing others or violently opposing the government. And you can, if you so choose, criticize, influence (by voting) or become part of the government. Also, the state/government/president/king can not arbitrarily change laws, impose restrictions on the population and such.

In the rest your rights and freedoms are restricted in some or many ways with various degrees of consequences if you do not obey. You can not normally influence the government or become part of it, and even if you become part of it, you have to be in line. New laws and policies can be arbitrarily put in place by the head of state (usually a single person) and enforced against the will of the population by the use of force. Often times such regimes terrorize their population and use unwarranted and excessive force as means of scaring people into submission.


Fri Jun 15, 2018 5:55 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:27 am
Posts: 263
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
entity2636 wrote:
Alright not in ~every~ aspect, but in a lot of aspects, if you're into picking nits. Look no further than the USA, Great Britain and pretty much every other country at and before the turn of the 20th century. Ancient Sparta, however, is unique among the ancient states in how modern it was in regard to it's non-serf population and the rights they enjoyed, men and women alike.
In the rest of the world it was common practice for women to go uneducated and seen fit only for the "3 C's" - children, cooking, church. Nowadays this practice remains in underdeveloped 3rd world countries.


Women were able to run businesses and own property in both the US, great britain and the rest of europe for the most part as well throughout the 18th and 19th century, and were certainly not considered property or livestock, so not sure what you're referring to.

As for going uneducated, that was the standard for everyone.

entity2636 wrote:
In practice the difference and it's impact on the way people lead their daily lives is, in fact, huge.

To be very blunt, in the first (democracy and constitutional monarchy) you are free to live pretty much how you see fit, work where you want/can, say what you think, etc., pretty much anything short of stealing, killing others or violently opposing the government.


This is also true in dictatorship. As long as you operate within the cultural and political mainstream and aren't breaking laws you're more or less free to operate with impunity in any society, dictatorial or otherwise.

entity2636 wrote:
And you can, if you so choose, criticize, influence (by voting) or become part of the government. Also, the state/government/president/king can not arbitrarily change laws, impose restrictions on the population and such.


This is not so different from dictatorships, either. Dictators can be influenced by their citizens, and you can become part of the council of a dictator just as you can join a political party in a republic or a democracy. As for not being able to act arbitrarily, a dictator cannot simply act in any manner he wishes or he'll be overthrown. There is large lee-way for state operation in terms of "arbitrariness" in both dictatorships and democracies.

entity2636 wrote:
In the rest your rights and freedoms are restricted in some or many ways with various degrees of consequences if you do not obey. You can not normally influence the government or become part of it, and even if you become part of it, you have to be in line.

New laws and policies can be arbitrarily put in place by the head of state (usually a single person) and enforced against the will of the population by the use of force. Often times such regimes terrorize their population and use unwarranted and excessive force as means of scaring people into submission.


This is just as applicable to a republic or democracy as a dictatorship. Laws and policies cannot be "arbitrarily" put in place in any systems, it depends entirely on the law, but they can and will be enforced against the will of the population by the use of force. Democratic or otherwise. Mainly because there is no such thing as a "will of the population". And the use of political, social and military force is a mainstay of modern societies, it's why we have police forces and also why we keep each-other in line socially. It's why companies like twitter or facebook have hate-speech enforcements clauses in its ToS. In order to 'oppress' those whose opinions are unacceptable according to the overall social norms.


Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:35 pm
Posts: 1167
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
hi hi

As loath as I am to touch this with a ten foot pole, I should point out that the notion of "Women and Children First," is a decidedly Victorian idea. It first came about in 1852, when the HMS Birkenhead sank, and the only other notable time it was invoked was with the Titanic in 1912.

A study by Mikael Elinder and Oscar Erixson, University of Sweden reviewed maritime disasters between 1852 and 2011, and discovered that in every other case besides the Birkenhead and the Titanic, the rule of disaster was "Every Man For Himself." With survival rates of 37% for men, 27% for women, and 15% for children.

Also, every Abrahamic religious book, and plenty of others too (the Brahmanic Vedas come to mind as well), contains passages requiring women to be subservient and secondary to men.

In 1881, France grants women the right to own bank accounts. In 1886, that is extended to married women as well. The USA waits until the 1960s. The UK does not grant this right until 1975.

In the USA, it wasn't until 1974, with the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, that single, widowed, or divorced women were able to apply for credit, regardless of income, without bringing along a man to cosign.

Nobody here really thinks that when Genghis Khan raped and pillaged his way across Asia, he spared women because he was deeply concerned with their inalienable human rights, do they?


Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:45 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:27 pm
Posts: 393
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
icekatze wrote:
Nobody here really thinks that when Genghis Khan raped and pillaged his way across Asia, he spared women because he was deeply concerned with their inalienable human rights, do they?

Now I want to see Outsider with Genghis Khan instead of Jardin.


Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:06 am
Profile

Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 2:14 am
Posts: 734
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
boldilocks wrote:
entity2636 wrote:
And by the way, historically and up until rather recently women in the western world (and still very much so in the third world) were considered inferior to men in every aspect, incapable by nature of decision making, prohibited from owning property, run a business, vote, you name it, even not "having rights towards their own body". The men did protect them, take second billing in times of danger, but women were little more than property, in extreme cases treated as livestock. I think it is good that this is a thing of the past in large parts of the world and hopefully the rest will follow.


In no point in western history have women been considered inferior to men in every aspect. I suppose you could say that male spartans considered women "inferior" and therefore only fit to run the government and industry while the "important" work of being in the army was for the men, but that's a strange definition of inferior.

Also, I'm not sure where women have been unable to own property or run businesses in western history, or where they were ever considered property/livestock in any way that men were not also considered property/livestock.
Until recently (1958), married women in (the federal republic of [western]) Germany needed their husband's permission to work, and he could give a notice for her work without her agreement, and it was binding.
Until late in the middle ages, women in Germany were not allowed to own grounds, thus could not inherit the hous of their late husband. The grounds were inherited to the sons(and sons only!), and usually the oldest son had to take the responsibility for his mother as well. (some cities had laws allowing "free women" to inherit from their husband without a caretaker, but the "free" was very limited. Often required that no son was born to her husband yet (neither by her or by a previous woman), and that she herself was born within this city and a full citizen of this city (e.g. Bad Reichenhall had this, still valid around 1730, likely also later). Otherwise her son, or one of his previous sons, or one of his brothers, or nephews, inherited, and she became dependent on his goodwill to be allowed to stay in the house, to spend money, whatever....
If the heir was mean, he just shoved her off into a cloister. With a gift of money, these cloisters became rich...

Where do you think this does not imply women were not treated equal?

_________________
Vote for Outsider on TWC: Image
charred steppes, borders of territories: page 59,
jump-map of local stars: page 121, larger map in Loroi: page 118,
System view Leido Crossroads: page 123


Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:41 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:27 am
Posts: 263
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
icekatze wrote:
Nobody here really thinks that when Genghis Khan raped and pillaged his way across Asia, he spared women because he was deeply concerned with their inalienable human rights, do they?


I don't think anyone would accuse Genghis Khan of being overly concerned with human rights.


Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:48 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:27 am
Posts: 263
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
Krulle wrote:
Where do you think this does not imply women were not treated equal?


I think it is interesting how you have spun a yarn of vicious treatment of women (mainly conjectural) only to end with this bizarre accusation "how dare you stand and say that women have not been treated unequally", when I have made no statement of the sort. I think this is another modern bias where you are thinking of inheritance laws in terms of modern ideas of individual persons rather than continuous multi-generational dynasties, and are basing your story of total female oppression at the hands of dastardly men on that skewed view.

Your view of women in history requires women to have been docile cows, and men to be inexplicably cruel, until around the mid-20th century.

I also find your conception of cloisters as some place where you ship the old bag off to once you take over the farm to be rather simplistic, considering they were some of the most prestigious, wealthy and politically connected organizations in medieval europe, institutions that had the ears of emperors and popes, and had to be exclusively headed by women. (That is, as long as a cloister allowed women, men could not head them.)


Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:48 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:53 am
Posts: 307
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
boldilocks wrote:
Your view of women in history requires women to have been docile cows, and men to be inexplicably cruel, until around the mid-20th century


History itself proves that that was indeed the case, but not by choice of said women. It was the norm back then, a norm that was put into every child's mind from day one. And as a woman you could not protest your condition because you had virtually no rights and no judicial protection. Punishment for not serving husband often involved corporeal punishment (beating, mutilation, stoning, burning on the stake or trial by drowning if you were labeled a witch, etc.) and it took until the 20th century for someone to ask - hold on, this isn't really right, is it? Those born in slavery can't grasp the concept of freedom and quite often can't even grasp the concept of slavery.

Same is the case with the loroi and their education system, only it's pretty much industrialized - children are brought up by state caretakers, assessed by state specialists, sorted into a caste and telepathically educated (implanted with knowledge or basically programmed) according to that caste's needs and requirements and nothing more and nothing less.


Fri Jun 15, 2018 10:41 am
Profile

Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:27 am
Posts: 263
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
entity2636 wrote:
boldilocks wrote:
Your view of women in history requires women to have been docile cows, and men to be inexplicably cruel, until around the mid-20th century


History itself proves that that was indeed the case, but not by choice of said women.


History proves the exact opposite.

entity2636 wrote:
It was the norm back then, a norm that was put into every child's mind from day one.


Nope. Casual violence was a norm, but casual violence against women by men as opposed to causal violence against men by men or against men by women or against women by women was not particularly a norm.

entity2636 wrote:
And as a woman you could not protest your condition because you had virtually no rights and no judicial protection.


As a woman you could protest your condition as much as anyone else could protest their position and had virtually the same rights and largely superior judicial protection. (As in some cases husbands would be liable for the crimes of their wives.)

entity2636 wrote:
Punishment for not serving husband often involved corporeal punishment (beating, mutilation, stoning, burning on the stake or trial by drowning if you were labeled a witch, etc.)


In what medieval european region was refusal to "serve" your husband punished by "drowning because you're a witch"? I am not aware of mutilation, stoning or burning at the stake being a legal punishment anywhere in europe. And beatings were not punishment reserved exclusively for women, but indeed dished out to men (husbands of adulterous women would be bound, put back to front on an ass, and paraded through town while townspeople beat him with sticks, in some jurisdictions, for example) and children as well, so this is hardly indicative of female oppression so much as a cavalier attitude towards instructive violence overall.

entity2636 wrote:
and it took until the 20th century for someone to ask - hold on, this isn't really right, is it? Those born in slavery can't grasp the concept of freedom and quite often can't even grasp the concept of slavery.


Ask any slave in history if they're aware that they're a slave, and I expect the answers will be far more unambiguous than you're implying.


Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:36 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:09 pm
Posts: 19
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
I am not a mod, nor do I intend to pretend to be one; I do however think that this discussion, robust and interesting as it has been thus far, should probably transition to a separate thread, as the original intent has been lost in the organic development of the subject.

Cheers on the disagreement; unless I missed something it seems like things have remained quite civil, which is refreshing.


Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:58 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:57 pm
Posts: 66
Location: Denial
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
Indeed, funny how these things happen. Been a while since a thread got this derailed though. :lol:


Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:36 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:19 pm
Posts: 2820
Location: San Jose, CA
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
The individual page discussion threads have a limited lifespan, so I'm inclined to let them run off-topic, within reason.

_________________
Outsider


Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:47 am
Profile WWW

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:53 am
Posts: 307
Post Re: Page 134: For Science!
boldilocks wrote:
In what medieval european region was refusal to "serve" your husband punished by "drowning because you're a witch"? I am not aware of mutilation, stoning or burning at the stake being a legal punishment anywhere in europe.


I admit that these two last examples of punishment are not directly relevant for not serving the husband, rather I listed them as general forms of excessive corporeal punishment for women for what we see now as benign and unimportant things. I wrote that one late, tired and in a hurry and in retrospect it could be seen as incorrect examples. One would be labeled a witch if a woman was self educated in sciences deemed heretical by the church, practiced traditional medicine, was unmarried, had an unpleasant character or was a pain in the @ss of someone important, etc.

But Corpsman, Username and Arioch are right, this has derailed far enough and I will stop it right here.

@Arioch - best way of pulling the attention away from derailing a thread is to drop something fresh for the readers to take apart, like a new teaser frame of the next page ;) Got anything new and shiny for us, or shall we wait until Monday (hopefully) for the next page?


Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:45 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 225 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.