Search results

  1. Any medieval cavalry carry their polearm on back like this pic?

    Matt Easton's recent take on the topic...
    I think it would be interesting to mod this somehow, dropping and carrying automatically
    on the go, without having to look around and manually pick up some of the bigger weapons

    Notwithstanding:

    large_DI_2014_3263.jpg
    Of course, Matt is speaking of infantry with weapons on their backs. For cavalry it would have been a lot more practical. And I must say, the Bannerlord image at the 0:49 mark in that video... The weapon on the back is not nearly as bad as that axe slung from the belt, head down.
  2. Gekokujo: Bugs and Suggestions

    Innocent Flower said:
    Easy Minor suggestion: Mino raincoats. Would make such a difference.
    Aren't these already in the game? Granted, I haven't played this mod in ages so I could be wrong, but I seem to recall their presence...
  3. question why nodachi have no stabbing?

    We know it was common to wire-wrap the lower bit of the nodachi's blade, to create a ricasso. This suggests half-swording, and personally I have edited these swords to use the spear animation in the thrust.
  4. Raiders | In Development Viking videogame

    Harkon Haakonson said:
    Sure, but I'm inclined to agree with Brute. This sort of game benefits so much from singleplayer sandbox.
    Quite so. I also think that any sort of non-modern first person fighting game is more niche. Most who like multiplayer first person shooters tend to prefer, well, shooters. There's not a big enough gamer base, I think, for there to be a medieval-ish equivalent of Counterstrike, in terms of popularity. And then there are the subcategories: some like knights but not vikings or samurai; some like samurai but the others not so much, and then there's Romans, Spartans, pirates and what have you. And then, within each of these subcategories, you have those who prefer singleplayer, and those who prefer multi. M&B is great because the mods allow it to cater to all of the above. War of the Roses went belly-up pretty fast, and Chivalry isn't doing too great either. So I have to agree that single-player is much more important to these games than multiplayer.
  5. Reformed Christians?

    Harmi said:
    It takes so much time to answer all of this, that I think I don't have it now. At least not before Christmas. Anyways, happy holidays everyone and be good to each other. :smile:
    I know, it quickly becomes overwhelming. And I have no doubt that this is every bit as busy a time for you as it is for me, so I haven't even dared to read your entire response yet (if I start reading, I often find myself unable to refrain from answering, and that's usually a very time consuming affair). I'll get to it, by and by. But for now, happy holidays to you as well :party:
  6. Feminism

    Almalexia said:
    Kissaki said:
    I'm curious about your reaction. If I had mentioned that sometimes kids would get into physical fights, you wouldn't bat an eye. But a pat on the bum, man, that's messed up.
    That's not even a question, much less a personal one. I wrote that as an observation. If you thought I was prying, I'm sorry, that was not my intention.


    Only other thread I've seen you in is the Religion thread, bud. Oh, and that other one where LL left and then you decided to berate us on thinking the forum has changed even though you only come on here once a year.
    I see. So from those three threads, only one of which has anything remotely to do with politics, you thought you saw some sort of pattern? Of course, you exclude the majority of my activity, which is not in the off-topic section. But it's only the off-topic section which counts, right?
    Also, you might just be a tad hyper-sensitive if you think I "berated" anyone for thinking the forum had changed, when what I did was asking an honest question about how it had changed. I never even criticised anyone there, much less berated them.


    Anyways, I dont make a habit of wasting my time with intransigent internet arguments that go nowhere anymore, so y'all have fun.
    Liar, liar, pants on fire. There was no such argument until you went out of your way to create one.

    ...Because I was bemused that he went to some school where just about everyone was apparently copping a feel on the reg?
    See, I never said anything of the kind. In fact, I specifically said that that was not the case. Look it: "If you think I ran around groping all the girls, you're wrong. No one did that. But you put teenage boys and teenage girls together for, well, the entirety of their teens, some unwanted contact is going to happen."

    So did it happen regularly? No. Did it happen in the span of an adolescent's seven years of being a teen? You betcha. And if you try to tell me that sort of thing never went on in your school, I simply won't believe you. Maybe you didn't see it personally, but summa summarum, it's virtually impossible that it hasn't happened, and lots of times at that.
  7. Gekokujo: Bugs and Suggestions

    vetiarvind said:
    I was a samurai for a lord and got captured and escaped. However, my status shows as "prisoner of <xyz> clan". Also, there's occassionally an event that says "player was released from captivity" along with a bunch of other lords where my money balance gets reset to 0. I'm running the latest non-daimyo version of Gekokujo. Nice mod, but this is just 50th in-game day and this bug is kind of apparent.
    This is a bug with the Freelancer mod, which is part of Gekokujo. The only way to avoid it is to save often, and reload if you happen to be captured after losing a battle.
  8. Feminism

    Almalexia said:
    He asked me a personal question and I told him he wasnt ever going to be successful in changing my mind on a subjective point through internet discussions. Please grow up faster dude, good lord. You're killin me.
    You mean you asked me a personal question. I never asked anything personal of you.
    What I asked you was to explain what you were referring to, and to explain where you felt that I was projecting. Clearly that, too, was projection on your part.
  9. Feminism

    Almalexia said:
    Mostly because you are the kind of person who only comes onto off-topic to debate one (maybe two or three) political topics alone, aka the lowliest humans alive. I make an exception for Magorian because he's kind of alright otherwise.  :razz:
    I do believe this is the first time I have discussed this particular topic on this forum, so you just pulled that out of your rear end.


    Find another hobby. I've been there and done that and you will never convince anyone. Stop putting down other people's traumas to get over your own while you are at it.
    I didn't mean to offend you. But it is clear that I have, seeing as you intend to offend me - instead of discussing the topic.
  10. Reformed Christians?

    Harmi said:
    Well, we don't have free will, either. We have the freedom of choice, sure, but we invariably choose our actions based on our personality. And we do not choose our personality. Our personalities are formed by outside influences.
    If you really think that's the case, then you waste your time here, because you believe that the whole conversation is hard-coded into us and nothing is going to change.
    I never said anything about anything being "hard-coded". Just the opposite, actually: I said our personalities are constantly being formed, even as we speak, something which would be quite impossible if anything were hard coded. The software parallel works well, though: you can mod a lot of things in M&B, for example, but you can't mod anything which has been hard coded. If we return to the human brain, the "hard coding" is in the brain capacity itself, as well as hormone levels. But even these will change in the course of a lifetime - not just as a matter of growth (and decay), but also what sort of activity the brain is exposed (or subjected) to.


    Btw. I don't think personality either is hard coded. We seem to be one kind of personalities, but it can also change. There are examples where shy and introvert people can transform to be leaders etc. But I think people use the idea of "everything I do is just what DNA tells me to do" thing is just a way to try to hide the conscience that tells them that they are in fact doing things that they know are wrong.
    I never said or suggested that everything is just DNA telling you what to do. Again, I said just about the opposite: personalities are molded, formed and shaped throughout our lives, yet our DNA remains the same. In the "nature vs. nurture" dichotomy, nurture is the bigger part of the equation.


    Yes, within our programming. I have the option to go and rape a porcupine, but I'm not gonna. I am going to do what I want to do instead. But I never chose what to want. Think about it, if people could choose what to want, there'd be virtually no infidelity. Because I dare say that most, if not all of those who are unfaithful would rather be without the desire to stray. I haven't cheated myself, but I'd be lying if I tried to claim that my girlfriend is the sole focus of my fantasies. If I could choose, I'd choose to want only her, and I'd choose to want her as badly as in the beginning of our relationship. But choosing desires is impossible. I am free to act on my personality - or my programming, if you will - just like any computer. Just like a computer is programmed to react certain ways to certain inputs, so are we conditioned to react certain ways to certain inputs. After all, what is upbringing, if not programming?

    Yes, and we would all have that choice if we were all like Enok. More knowledge doesn't deprive us of choice, it makes our choices more informed.
    Now, this is important. Love is not desiring. Instead, Love is a decision.
    Love is not a decision, it's an emotion. You decide whom to love no more than you decide what foods to like. You can acquire a taste for certain foods (and indeed, certain people), and you can tire of them. These are not decisions. If they were, there'd be no divorce rates as people would never fall out of love - nor start to be irritated over little things the other person does. Familial ties tend to be stronger than those of normal friendship, but we don't choose that, either.


    We all have our limitations and our lust, we, in fact, have huge limitations. It's a huge part of human nature, but you can decide to stay with your gf and go against things you know as wrong, even when those things seem to be very attractive.
    But you can't choose what to feel. You can choose to stay, but if it makes you feel too miserable, you won't choose to stay. We all choose either the perceived greater good, or the perceived lesser evil. Without fail.


    Book of Enok is not part of the Bible.
    What I referred to is from Genesis, not the book of Enok. There in those books is much something that is an only human tradition, even when the Bible is quoting a few sentences from it, it doesn't make the whole book to be a truth. You can read it, but it cannot be sacred in the same way as the Bible itself is.  "Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away." Gen. 5:23-24



    They did not know what death was at the time. This is a minor flaw in the story, but a significant one if you take it at face value.

    Also, even if they did know what death was, they still would have no concept of "wrong". So they could not possibly know it was wrong to disobey. And if we would apply this to a real life scenario:

    Let's say you have a young son, a 3-year old. You're doing some gardening, and you have a bottle of weed killer with you. Your 3-year old looks on. Then you get up to fetch something, leaving the opened bottle of weed killer behind. You tell your 3-year old, "don't drink that, it's bad for you." Now, who would be to blame if your 3-year old took a sip? Adam and Eve may have been created with fully grown bodies, but they were blank templates. They had no experiences, no knowledge - only their innate human curiosity. They would have been like children, wanting to find out things for themselves.
    How do you know what they knew? I believe they knew. They didn't know how to kill etc. They just had huge gaps in their knowledge of good and evil.
    They had no knowledge of good and evil. The Bible tells us so. Which means that this:


    They knew that God said them to not do something and it was all they understood about the issue. They knew it is wrong to do against God's will,
    ...is false. They knew God had told them not to eat of the tree, but they could not possibly know it was "wrong" to do so. And their nudity proves this: "They were naked, but they were not ashamed." They knew they were naked, but they did not know they were supposed to think it was wrong to be naked. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge allowed them to know good from evil, or right from wrong if you will. There are no exceptions or caveats mentioned. The tree is what allowed them to have a basic concept of right and wrong.


    so they were with their knowledge obviously very innocent and the whole cruelty of things and possibilities to harm everyone else was hit to their faces after that fruit.
    It would have been perfectly able for them to commit any sort of sin, without it being sinful for them - because they would not have known those things were wrong.


    The kid knows that it's bad for him to drink from the bottle. It's enough for someone at that age. We learn things by testing them or hearing someone who has tested or knows better. Let's say, you know that fire burns. You don't necessarily need to burn yourself to be able to know that. Most people who have had bad experiences with candles, but not everyone. Not everybody also needs to do "jump from a cliff" to see if it's a good or bad idea. Also, we have a very good warning system build in our bodies. You can just smell the toxic liquid and only from a few molecules, you know that it will not be going to be good for drinking.
    You mix children's mentality with that of adults here. Kids want to test out things for themselves; it is not enough for them to hear from others that something is bad. My sister once had to have her stomach pumped because she drank weed killer. She was probably no more than 2 at the time. Probably no more than a sip, but she was rushed to the ER just in case.


    Metaphors are not usually explained. Just like jokes are not usually explained: the explanation kind of kills it.
    No, not just like everyone else. Each culture defines good and evil its own way.
    I'm not going to argue about this, because we cannot for sure say if something is being a metaphor. I just cannot see the evidence that it has to be exactly this metaphor.
    The story has all the hallmarks of fable. Talking animals, a story that explains why we have such and such nature... It all fits. Besides, you don't really think the snake eats dust, do you?

    You can lead from the story multiple different metaphors or you can take it historically, or anything. Literally, thousands of alternative meanings and the authors probably had in their mind none of those.
    There aren't really all that many possible interpretations. A handful in total, I'd say, and it's rather impossible that the authors had in mind none of them.

    I think everyone has a basic knowledge of good and evil.
    Everyone - except psychopaths - have empathy, in greater or lesser extent. It's from there we derive our notions of good and evil.


    It's a different thing what we teach than what we know. Some culture might teach that before you can call yourself an adult, you must kill someone. (a Spartan culture I believe had something like this) It doesn't mean that they don't know killing to be wrong. They just decided to teach against it and harden their consciences.
    You are referring to the Crypteia, in which Spartan youths partook as part of their coming of age. The Spartans certainly agreed that murder was wrong - but each year the Spartans declared war on their Helot slaves, so that the killing of a Helot was no murder. Besides, they were "just" slaves anyway. That's what people always do to justify the killing of other people: they dehumanise the opposition. "We" are people, good people. "They" are not like "us".


    These are good examples of how one might try to remove their conscience. The fact that we have to do some mental gymnastics before doing something bad is a strong evidence that we have a conscience and we are trying to play it out from the game.
    Exactly.


    But if Peter did kill him, you wouldn't have a problem with that - because it'd be in the Bible. If you object to my assertion here, I must ask if you have a problem with Moses's judgement of the man who was gathering firewood on the sabbath.
    Old Testament has the law. Law doesn't include the concept of mercy. It only tells that if you do something wrong, then you will get your punishment. It's the same thing in modern days. If you do something that is against the law, you will be punished by the law.[/quote]
    Except we take mitigating factors into account. We consider the circumstances around the crime, if the convicted has a past record, and if he seems repentant. Judges are merciful all the time, if they think the case warrants it.


    Now, the destiny of that man seems to be cruel, but they had a law that on Sabbath you must not do work, because it's a dedicated day for God. The man was challenging Gods authority by doing something he knew was against what God was said. Law is hard and cold. The idea of law is to show that there are 0 people on earth who has not broken it. We are all guilty, even the most hardcore orthodox Jews are guilty to something. And that's where Jesus is the only answer. That's why I am also a Christian.
    That does not address what I asked - but it does showcase how you start out with the conclusion that the Bible is right, and so you go to lengths to excuse it - even when it is at odds with your own morality. And I put to you that your own morality is not at all congruent with that of the Bible. You don't think it was wrong for that man to be killed for gathering firewood, but if you were suddenly arrested by the clergy and sentenced to be stoned according to the same law, you would rightly cry injustice, citing the New Testament. But if it would be injustice for you, why was it not injustice for that man in the Old Testament?


    They had a very different idea of who God was. If they thought the Israelites were the one true God's own chosen people, there is no way they would want to oppose them.
    People used to go against God even in the Bible after the finest miracles made by God.
    So the Bible says. Do you really find that convincing? Whether we are talking about Aaron and the golden calf, or the disciples of Jesus who constantly do things in front of Jesus which they by all rights ought to know he'd disapprove of, we are clearly dealing with a literary device as a setup for the protagonist to demonstrate his righteousness. For as long as the disciples follow Jesus, for example, it is as if they don't know him at all. Real people, in face of evidence such as we are told they were exposed to, would never have behaved in such a way.

    We can clearly know what's right and still do against it because sins can sometimes look to be better from the point of view of man, than doing the right things. Let's say, for a greedy person, taking money from someone is better than giving it to someone who is in need.
    But Scrooge, in face of direct evidence of his doom, changed his ways.


    Yes, everyone typically believes themselves to be right. You are quoting the Bible without knowing it. "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But Yahweh weighs the hearts." If you're joining an army that is going against a good and its leaders are judging wrong, then your heart also will be weighted as wrong.
    By whom? There is no objective right and wrong, or we'd all be in agreement. Right and wrong are judged by different people using different standards, which is why there is conflict in the first place.

    And the Israelites were just as free to live in peace with the others. But they insisted that their way of doing things was so superior to everyone else's, that they had the right to murder for it.
    That is the historical fact. You need to have the ability to protect your nation, otherwise, you will be captured as slaves or removed completely by someone who has a better ability. You seem to think that Israel was the main problem because they survived and other nations disappeared. Actually, Israel was most of the time only a small quite insignificant thing in the field of big players such as Egypt and Hittites.
    No, what I'm saying is that Israel had no more right than the others. You are the ones making excuses for them. "Oh, but the Canaanites wanted to change/conquer them" etc. My point is that you can use the exact same justifications against Israel, too. "Oh, but the Israelites wanted to change/conquer them" etc. They were all vying for survival. Israel was not more "right" than anyone else.


    I hope you don't see me as "enemy" after this conversation. I don't see things like that. I think the meaning of life is love and to take care of other people and do as much good as possible.
    I certainly do not see you as an enemy in any way. My own take on the meaning of life is happiness. We are all going to die some day, so let's make the best of the time we have. This mostly overlaps with your take on the meaning of life.
  11. Feminism

    Almalexia said:
    Sure I do. If you're familiar with Brendan Fraser's career, an incident like that was ruinous, and I mean besides how gorgeously built the dude was in George of the Jungle he did most of his own stunts, with significant physical repercussions afterwards. I have respect for the dude and given his commitment to doing his own stunts in performances I wouldn't really classify him as a snowflake.
    https://www.gq.com/story/what-ever-happened-to-brendan-fraser

    And yeah, uhh, I really think you're projecting a fair bit: maybe you were just unpopular? I can potentially see why.
    Sure you do what? And I'm projecting what, exactly?

    By the way, that's not your typical ass-grab Brendan Frasier is describing. There's a world of difference between touching the cheeks of the ass and touching what lies between them. Still, what he describes closely matches something that has happened to me as well. And while there was an overwhelming feeling of outrage and disgust then and there, it's not something I have allowed to define me. To say it was traumatising is a bit of a stretch. It was a big deal then and there, and probably for a couple days thereafter, but I've experienced worse from words alone. Just like what you're trying to do there, by the way, with your "I can potentially see why". For some reason, you felt entitled to insult me. So much for moral high ground.

    But yeah, if Brendan lost any sleep or felt too sick to go to work over that event, then he's a snowflake, as you put it.
  12. Feminism

    Almalexia said:
    Nah like legit, there'd be a fair share of catcalling n **** but any legit physical contact they'd make a big fuss of and it honestly far from the norm.
    Actually, I don't think we had much catcalling going on. I've never catcalled anyone myself, and the only catcalls I can recall have been sarcastic ones - to make fun of someone for being ugly (regardless of sex).


    We'd get some **** from the principle or teachers before class if that kind of thing happened, so like, again what the hell kind of highschool did you go to. Mine wasn't even that bougie, we had a ton of central american and middle-eastern recent migrants, we'd just toss people out on suspension if that stuff happened.
    In order for teachers or the principle to do something it'd have to be reported, and no one was going to report something as trivial as an ass grope. Fist fights weren't reported either, but naturally the teachers noticed if someone showed up for class with a bloody lip. In those cases the participants would be sent to the principle's office, where they'd told to shake hands, kiss and make up. Suspensions were rare. In high school, were kids were aged 16-18, I don't really recall any fist fights. Physical fights were brief and limited to grappling (and posturing), but injuries were unheard of. It was in primary school, ages 7-15, that we showed less restraint.


    I'm sorry a common culture of sexual harassment often bears psychological harm more than the occasional physical altercation tho, bud, having been in both.
    I've been in both, too. And I fervently disagree. Not all physical altercations are as bad as sexual harassment, but the sexual harassment in schools - certainly in my school - pales next to the physical altercations.


    Though really if you had implied that fights were so common at your school it'd be relatable to the majority of students I'd frankly be just as concerned.
    They weren't more common in my school than anywhere else, but just about everyone has been in a fight. Most, however, have not been seriously injured in fights. But I have experienced being decked and kicked multiple times in the face while lying down. You think someone having their ass groped suffer the same mental trauma? I've had my ass groped, too. Both as a kid and as an adult. There really is no comparison, and if a simple groping will traumatize you then you are more delicate than what's healthy.
  13. Feminism

    Almalexia said:
    Kissaki said:
    I think most guys can speak from experience here, even if only from their high school / jr. high school days. I've groped a few bums. Not habitually by any means, and I was very young at the time, but sure I've grabbed bums.

    The **** kind of highschool did you go to
    A typical one. If you think I ran around groping all the girls, you're wrong. No one did that. But you put teenage boys and teenage girls together for, well, the entirety of their teens, some unwanted contact is going to happen.

    I'm curious about your reaction. If I had mentioned that sometimes kids would get into physical fights, you wouldn't bat an eye. But a pat on the bum, man, that's messed up.
  14. Feminism

    Calradianın Bilgesi said:
    Kissaki said:
    Excuse me, but this was not your claim. That was your response to my reply to you, where you claimed that "no means yes" is a relatively common perception among men.
    Oh really? Let's look at my previous post:
    Calradianın Bilgesi said:
    but I'm less certain about 'it's unusual for anyone to actually believe in 'no means yes''.
    If you were referring to the original post, in that I'm merely presenting an argument. My conversation before you is consistent with my uncertainty:
    Calradianın Bilgesi said:
    yeah i have misgivings about the argument for these reasons too. I skimmed google to see whether there is any evidence for genuine and sincere miscommunication or 'no not meaning no'. I found these two but I also found lots of stuff on why there is no miscommunication as well. I just want to assert that this is not madman's opinion.
    This thread is currently 559 pages long. Forgive me if I haven't read every single post. My first reply was with your then latest post in mind, and focused on the role of pornography. In your first reply to me, however, you more than indicated that you believe the "no means yes" belief is widespread:

    "I'm willing to buy your points about porn, but I'm less certain about 'it's unusual for anyone to actually believe in 'no means yes''. Mainly because you also agree that 'The notion that "sometimes women say no but they mean yes" has been around for way long'."

    And I pointed out that it stands to reason that the amount of "no means yes" rapes are as common as the perception that "no means yes" is true. After all, why would a man stop if he believed the woman was actually saying "yes"?


    I agree that your assumptions here are pretty charitable. Also this kind of data has a further advantage, a woman who says 'I got raped by someone' in a survey can be raped by multiple people, so these kind of surveys do not give you upperbound. But in a rape report presumably at most one man is involved in each report. Maybe. If gangrapes are extremely rare.
    Well, they are, but for the purposes of this discussion we may also assume that all of the rapists genuinely thought that "no means yes". That still leaves 93% of the male population who do not believe it, and I dare say that qualifies as the vast majority.


    But nonetheless that's a pretty big number ain't it. Compare with the global homicide rate of 6 per 100 000 people.
    More serious crimes tend to be more rare, so no surprise there. But it bears mention that all the statistics listed so far has been extremely local. You can easily find local murder rates which far exceed 6 per 100 000 people.


    If you add the uncertainty that comes from underreporting we get a probability distribution all over the place. if you're thinking 'but vast majority of men do not do such stuff, 1/15 is not 50%', you are absolutely right. But in the context of extreme crimes these are not the thresholds we are interested in honestly.
    Do you feel that you have honestly represented my position when you pretend to quote me as saying "but vast majority of men do not do such stuff, 1/15 is not 50%"? Have I suggested, in any way, that "vast majority" is the same as "more than 50%"? That, right there, is called a straw man, and is not associated with honest rhetoric. For that matter, I have to say it smacks of confirmation bias to try to use an article with a small and very local sample size to say something about the general population. I'm not claiming to be free from sin in that department, myself, mind you. Opinions are like children: one tends to think one's own are the best.


    And if you take it to the context of less extreme crimes such as sexual assault, the number we'll get is going to be much higher. And this kind of cases are relevant for miscommunication argument too. I agree that we talked about rape in our discussion, and it made the discussion conveniently a lot simpler, but a person who gropes a woman and doesn't understand all the cues offered by woman(trying to go away, giving an angry look, pushing away the hand etc.) is within the scope of that miscommunication argument.
    I think most guys can speak from experience here, even if only from their high school / jr. high school days. I've groped a few bums. Not habitually by any means, and I was very young at the time, but sure I've grabbed bums. Had my bum grabbed, too. Here's what I can tell you: I was never under the impression that the girls ever invited or even welcomed the groping. The point was usually precisely to shock. It was never "I thought she wanted it", so you can't really call it miscommunication.
  15. Reformed Christians?

    Harmi said:
    Kissaki said:
    An omnipotent being would be able to instill that knowledge in us without the need for testing.

    Of course, but then he would've done it against the will of the target.
    I really don't see the problem with that. Not when we have already a) been created against our wills, and b) given a certain nature against our wills. Did you ask for testosterone?


    If you're an engineer, you can't say that your machine is having a free will if you programmed it to do some specific tasks.
    Well, we don't have free will, either. We have the freedom of choice, sure, but we invariably choose our actions based on our personality. And we do not choose our personality. Our personalities are formed by outside influences.


    Let's say, bottle milk. It would be forever bottling milk and nothing else because it only has the power to do the programmed tasks. But you have the power to bottle milk or do something else.
    Yes, within our programming. I have the option to go and rape a porcupine, but I'm not gonna. I am going to do what I want to do instead. But I never chose what to want. Think about it, if people could choose what to want, there'd be virtually no infidelity. Because I dare say that most, if not all of those who are unfaithful would rather be without the desire to stray. I haven't cheated myself, but I'd be lying if I tried to claim that my girlfriend is the sole focus of my fantasies. If I could choose, I'd choose to want only her, and I'd choose to want her as badly as in the beginning of our relationship. But choosing desires is impossible. I am free to act on my personality - or my programming, if you will - just like any computer. Just like a computer is programmed to react certain ways to certain inputs, so are we conditioned to react certain ways to certain inputs. After all, what is upbringing, if not programming?


    Because we can follow him or not follow him. That's the idea of this whole concept.
    Yes, and we would all have that choice if we were all like Enok. More knowledge doesn't deprive us of choice, it makes our choices more informed.


    However, free will is a very complex thing and there are multiple ways to talk about it. I am not sure if I have enough knowledge to start talking about this, especially not in English which is not my main.
    You're doing fine. Better, in fact, than many native Enlish speakers I have come across.


    I don't agree with this theory. The tree was everything they knew about good and evil. They knew that God said them to not eat from it because if they do, they would die.
    They did not know what death was at the time. This is a minor flaw in the story, but a significant one if you take it at face value.

    Also, even if they did know what death was, they still would have no concept of "wrong". So they could not possibly know it was wrong to disobey. And if we would apply this to a real life scenario:

    Let's say you have a young son, a 3-year old. You're doing some gardening, and you have a bottle of weed killer with you. Your 3-year old looks on. Then you get up to fetch something, leaving the opened bottle of weed killer behind. You tell your 3-year old, "don't drink that, it's bad for you." Now, who would be to blame if your 3-year old took a sip? Adam and Eve may have been created with fully grown bodies, but they were blank templates. They had no experiences, no knowledge - only their innate human curiosity. They would have been like children, wanting to find out things for themselves.


    Now that metaphor is not from Bible. It's literally the first time I see it and definitely never seen it in Bible itself. Of course, we can make thousands of alternative ways to decode every single sentence in the Bible, but it does not mean that any those are the way the author wanted them to be read.
    Metaphors are not usually explained. Just like jokes are not usually explained: the explanation kind of kills it.


    They also had knowledge of good and evil, just like everyone else.
    No, not just like everyone else. Each culture defines good and evil its own way.


    We have the conscience that is written to us by God. It will provide us the needed info so that we know if we are doing good or bad things.
    People will always find ways to justify their actions. A thief may justify his crimes by thinking, "I have so little, and they have so much. And yet they don't even share with people around them. This little act of pilfering is nothing more than an inconvenience to them, and it's an inconvenience they bloody well deserve, the rich bastards." Or even with really big things, like genocide: "They are scum, they will destroy our society given half the chance. They are evil, they're not like normal people. And it's either them or us." This God-written conscience did not stop the conquistadores, it did not prevent the 30 Years War, it did not prevent the Holocaust. This is because we are very good at dehumanising "them". "They" are not like "us", and so we have a right. If "they" oppose "us", then "they" are in the wrong - by default. And anything "we" do to "them", they brought on themselves. Even those who aren't particularly athletic are capable of some fantastic mental gymnastics.


    In middle age when so-called Christians were burning people, their motives were not based on true knowledge of Bible or the lessons Jesus taught. During that time only rare people used to have the ability to read the text. But just like we people do, we can find a way to use the tools available to benefit us. Let's say that you want something that someone else has. His farm for example. If you know that the time is sensitive for some reason for some things, you can blame your neighbor with those sensitive things and made him to be punished. By that way, you can also take his farm. You can read from the Bible when Paul meets a man in Acts 19:19 and didn't kill him even when it was a known thing that the man was a witch. Also on 8:9 Peter didn't kill the sorcerer.
    But if Peter did kill him, you wouldn't have a problem with that - because it'd be in the Bible. If you object to my assertion here, I must ask if you have a problem with Moses's judgement of the man who was gathering firewood on the sabbath.

    You underestimate the people of that time very much. They had their own "twitters" from which they heard things. Those people knew very well who Israelites are and who is God and what Israelites are after.
    They had a very different idea of who God was. If they thought the Israelites were the one true God's own chosen people, there is no way they would want to oppose them.


    But those people were not interested in following God, instead, they were looking for opportunities to teach Israelites to follow their gods and do their acts.
    How can you say such a thing? They were just as religious as the Israelites, they just believed in different gods. Sure, they wanted to teach the Israelites their ways - but how is that different from the Israelites wanting to teach other tribes their ways? Or the Christians wanting to convert non-Christians? Here's the thing: everyone believes themselves to be right.


    Also, Israel never was a closed nation. Anyone could come to them and live in peace with them. "You shall not wrong an alien, neither shall you oppress him, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt."
    And the Israelites were just as free to live in peace with the others. But they insisted that their way of doing things was so superior to everyone else's, that they had the right to murder for it.
  16. Reformed Christians?

    Harmi said:
    But the test is not just for God. Of course, he knew what would happen. But it's also for us so that we would also know the test results.
    An omnipotent being would be able to instill that knowledge in us without the need for testing.


    Of course, he could've model us to be without the ability to do evil. But then we would've only been machines doing some certain tasks without the ability to do what we really wanted to do.
    That does not follow. We invariably choose to do what we want to do, so if he programmed us to want to do only good, then we would do only good. We'd all be doing tasks to God's satisfaction, and we'd all be doing all the things we wanted to do. After all, the Bible says that Enok was so good that he didn't die - God simply took him without death, because of his righteousness. Did Enok have no will of his own? Add to that the fact that Jesus suggests that it is sinful to have even sinful thoughts, Enok could not have wanted to do much wickedness.


    The tree as a very innocent looking thing was the first step to start having the ability to select if we for real wanted to do what God wanted us to do (do good) or do we wanna do against him. (do evil).
    The purpose of the story of the Fall is to illustrate sin-nature. We are sinful because we know right from wrong. Adam and Eve could commit no sin before they were imbued with that knowledge. "They were naked, but they were not ashamed". And after the fall, they were hiding because they were naked. They knew - according to Biblical morality - that they were indecent, and it was shameful to bare their naughty bits. But this had hitherto been ok, because they didn't know any better. And God's reaction: "Who told you you were naked?" The thing is, Adam and Eve could not be blamed for eating of the Tree of Knowledge, because they had no way of knowing that it was somehow wrong to disobey God.

    You might draw the parallel to the difference between children and adults. We excuse little children for certain behaviours, because they don't know any better. I see the whole story of the Fall as a metaphor for how children will eventually grow up and leave the nest, creating a life for themselves. In the garden of Eden, they were like children with God providing for their every need. After they were kicked out, they had to provide for themselves. God wasn't going to babysit them anymore.


    Baal worshippers were not only just not worshipping God. They actually were doing literally everything against God.
    You think they saw it that way?


    They were satan worshippers of the time and they used to love violence. The thing is that if the choices were God or Baal and Baal would've won that, then probably earth as we know would be something completely different, even more violent and cruel than what it is now.
    The Israelites were just as fond of violence, and perpetrated every bit as much of it as Baal worshippers. And the reason is that both Israelites and Baal worshippers were people. People don't do things because their preferred god wants them to, they do them because they, the people want to. And they decide what their god wants from them. That's the way it's always been. Proof positive of this is seen with how Christianity has constantly changed to fit the times, even though the texts have stayed the same. So you have a book with various claims and instructions, and these claims and instructions have always been interpreted by different people to mean different things - all according to what they want the Bible to say. So there is no reason to assume that we would have been any worse off with Baal just because that religion included human sacrifice. That religion could have changed just as easily as Christianity did. Followers invariably pick and choose as they please. Christians don't burn heretics anymore, either. Well, except some places in Africa.


    Also, whenever God destroyed a place. Let's say Sodomah or Gomorrah, he also used to warn the people before doing anything. Turn away from your sins, do not anymore go with your violent and sinful ways. Nineveh, for example, turned away from their sins and God spared the city.
    Not really huge alarm bells and claxons, though, was it? Two new guys coming to town, they warn one dude and his family, and decide that the rest of the city isn't worth warning. And in Deuteronomy 20, no warnings at all are given:

    However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.
    Deut. 20:16-18
  17. Feminism

    Calradianın Bilgesi said:
    I'd say you've got that the wrong way around. You have been drawing conclusions based on a very limited set of data, and I pointed out some important caveats.
    No, I'm making the 'we need more evidence claim'. You are making 'we have enough evidence' claim. Precisely:
    My claim:
    But one needs more evidence to readily assert that 'no means yes' is rarely taken seriously.
    Excuse me, but this was not your claim. That was your response to my reply to you, where you claimed that "no means yes" is a relatively common perception among men. That was your claim, for which I cannot accept that you have provided adequate evidence. I said it wasn't so, and justified my position with the fact that the vast majority of men never rape. I should have specified even then that the vast majority of men are never even accused of rape. This is what you wanted more evidence for, not your own claim.


    Your claim:
    I only need one piece of evidence: the vast majority of men never rape.
    No, that was not my claim. My claim was that "no means yes" is not something men take seriously - with very few exceptions. If you object to the notion that the vast majority of men never rape, then the burden of evidence is on you. The evidence is against you, and you cannot claim underreporting as evidence in your favour - because underreporting, by its very nature, can never be mapped. It isn't a good argument to say "a significant number of men rape because I suspect it".


    You agree that men's self-reported rate of rape, and women's self-reported rate of being victims of rape are not adequate evidence for our question of miscommunication. You want to make further claim that they are not adequate data on the prevalence of rape either, I don't agree with that.
    You disagree with the article you agree with?

    "Another limitation pertains to the generalizability of the findings. Because of the non-random nature of the sampling procedures, the reported data cannot be interpreted as estimates of the prevalence of sexual and other acts of violence."

    First of all, 1882 is a very small sample size for something of this scope. Second, these were 1882 students, and from the same university at that. How representative is the culture of this particular university for colleges or universities in general? Let alone society in general.


    But it's irrelevant anyway for our current inquiry, I won't comment on those.

    Your favourite evidence is:
    I had in mind not only convicted rapists, but also all who have been accused of rape - and even those acquitted.
    I couldn't find data on this. I have data on the count of convicted rapists and such rape incidents. But I don't know what proportion of men were accused of the rape. It would be nice if you could provide the numbers on this.
    With better time I could find better numbers, but I did find this:

    https://www.semissourian.com/story/1528034.html

    Now, assuming Missouri police receive 2000 rape reports each year, and assume a long lifespan of the rapists (100 years), and furthermore assume that each report pertains to a completely different rapists, ie. there is no overlap, then we get 200,000 rapists out of a male population of 3 million. That's 1 in 15 men, with an extremely liberal estimate. But remember, I'm not the one saying significant numbers of men rape - you are.


    And your favourite data addresses the problem that it's difficult to prove rape. It doesn't address the problem that rape is underreported, and furthermore it's difficult to assess how much underreported it is.
    And what do you want to conclude from that? Either you are saying that significant numbers of men rape, or you agree with me. But you don't want to do the latter, and you cannot explicitly do the former without accepting the burden of evidence.
  18. Feminism

    Calradianın Bilgesi said:
    Okay so you:
    a. reduce the data to penetrative rape incidents. I'm more interested in all sexual misconduct that happens because of miscommunication.
    Well, I'm not. That's really moving the goal posts quite a lot. And "sexual misconduct", what are the parameters of that label? I think all of us have experienced sexual misconduct in our lives. Most of us have even been guilty of it, depending on how you define it. Seeing as you have been citing rape statistics, however, it is not natural to assume you have been talking about sexual misconduct. It is certainly rape which has been the topic so far.


    There is 'no means yes' in these contexts as well.
    There's a "no means yes" in all sorts of situations. In many, there actually does exist such a thing as "no means yes". It depends how wide you wish to open the umbrella.


    b. Have more confidence in having adequate data then I have.
    I'd say you've got that the wrong way around. You have been drawing conclusions based on a very limited set of data, and I pointed out some important caveats.


    Let's look at the options of data:
    i. Surveys in which men report committing acts that fit the definition of rape. For example, in this survey with male students in a suburban university, 6% admit committing acts that fit the legal definition of rape.
    http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf
    This survey won't offer any help, because we're talking about men who thought it was voluntary. Men who report understanding it was non-consensual do not fit the bill.
    More importantly, the sample size here is both non-random, self-reported and small, and the authors themselves point out that you can't really conclude anything from it.


    ii. Using the number of convicted rapist.
    Haven't done that once. I probably didn't specify, but I had in mind not only convicted rapists, but also all who have been accused of rape - and even those acquitted. Even cases where the rape accusation has been thrown out with prejudice. Bring them all aboard, they'll still constitute a small minority of men.


    This won't help either, because rape has a tendency to be wildly underreported. In cases where it's reported, it's very difficult to prove rape as well.
    Certainly. But you can't make statistics out of it. This is why I included everything of rape accusations and the kitchen sink in my estimates, to compensate as best as possible.


    iii. Surveys in which women report being sexually assaulted.
    We get numbers up to 20% of women reporting sexual assault in those surveys. But women do not report on whether the perpetrator thought it was consensual. So these are not very helpful either.
    More importantly, they say nothing of how many perpetrators were involved. Like the article you linked to, the self confessed rapists were ten times as violent as the non-rapists, and the 4% who were serial rapists were responsible for 28% of the estimated number of rapes in that paper. So 20% of women assaulted by men does not in any way, shape or form translate to 20% of men being guilty of assault.
  19. Aging, negativity, your prime or post prime... - your thoughts?

    My dad once told me it was hard for him to accept that he's getting old, and being forced to do so by virtue of not being able to do all the things he used to do. I haven't quite hit that age mark yet, but I can feel inside me the need to cling onto my youth - wanting to prove to myself that I can still do the same things, that I'm not over the hill. I don't dwell on it, but there is a feeling of unease there when I do think about it.
  20. Feminism

    Calradianın Bilgesi said:
    The number of admitters is 47, the number of deniers is 32. 11 is 34% of the deniers and 24% of the admitters. 3500 letters of invitation were sent to convicted rapists across country, those that agreed to have an interview are our sample. The excuse is in the context of the interviews. And yes I pointed out in my previous post that rapists might be lying and this is not conclusive evidence.

    A point of clarification: The adjectives 'usual' 'common' etc. do not have their normal meanings in context of crimes. People often say homicide is widespread, when the homicide rate is still less than 0.1%. Similarly my intention is not to make points about 'most' men. But if 10% of the men sexually miscommunicate that's pretty bad. And I'd like to see more evidence before dismissing that readily. Your point of 'most men do not commit rape' is not enough to dismiss that. It's completely irrelevant to the question of whether 'rapes happen because of miscommunication'. But you didn't say anything on that question anyway so you don't need to worry on that.
    This goes back to when you said, "but I'm less certain about 'it's unusual for anyone to actually believe in 'no means yes'" and "but one needs more evidence to readily assert that 'no means yes' is rarely taken seriously." And conclusive evidence is indeed found in the fact that the vast majority of men never in their lives commit rapes, in any of their sexual encounters. So if rape happens because of miscommunication, then it is a much lower number than 10% of men who misinterpret communication. Indeed, such a low number that you can dismiss them from the normal population altogether. Even if "I thought no meant yes" was an almost universal excuse among rapists, and even if it were an honest excuse at that, that still doesn't suggest that "no means yes" has any common ground with men in general. In fact, it stands to reason that the vast majority of men are perfectly aware that no means no, as the vast majority of men are likely to have considerable experience with "no" in all its forms, and no rapes have ensued. Most men are imbued with sufficient empathy that will prevent them from defying a "no".
Top Bottom