"What is better – to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?"
-Paarthurnax, 4E 201
Posts made by Sir Devil
RE: Why do we pay to live ?
@leo_sihra sigh let us first see how monetary economy came into being. You said things like, "A Bird never pays another bird in order to build a nest in a tree." The thing you must notice here is that unlike Humans, bird and other animals are predominantly independent. I mean, it is possible for it to take care of its own and its needs are much simpler than humans. We have needs that require resources that are spread out in the world. So, how could one get all the required resources?
They tried to barter at first. It was simple enough concept. You give something and get something in return, whose volume is agreed on by both parties. But, this proved to be ineffective as more and more complex and rare objects came into the market. How could one determine something's value without having a parallel to compare? How did the value convert into the volume of the object they had? I mean, what determines the conversion rate.
The Solution to this problem is to measure the value using a common denominator. They used things like Salt at first but later on moved to coins because they were easier to carry and more likely last the tests of time and from there, it evolved into the economy we have today. Today, almost the entire world has something like this.
Of course, that doesn't mean that there are no exceptions. Take the Inuits, a nomadic tribe in the Arctic as an example. They have no economy. There, no one is rich or poor. Everything is shared by the tribe members. These types of societies are called, "Egalitarian". Google it, if you are interested.
RE: Godbless everyone
@thestrangest Okay. I can understand. It's been taking a lot of my time too. It usually takes me 30-45 to write a reply but the last one took wayyy too long (almost twice the usual). I usually research something before I assert in the conversation so that I would be ready with a citation in case it is needed and so, that I would know what I'm talking about. So, I have to say that this was indeed informative. I learned a lot more about the bible, Feudal Japan, Inuits, etc.
RE: Godbless everyone
First things, first. Congratulation on the Internship. Next, if you are indeed tired, you don't have to reply to this text. You could reply when you are capable of. Thirdly, You can't just argue against my arguments and also, say that I am not going to read any of it. It makes you look bad...
In old times monks used to protect temples like soldures or should i say AS soldures
Let me give you the definition of soldiers, "a person who serves in an army." Did they serve in an army? No, then they are not soldiers.
We can say they were. They worked under a leader and fought in war
No, we can't. Echo the definition.
Okay, for starters, before the Sengoku era (~15th century), Ninjas, as we call it now, were a group of peasants who took to the arms, usually after being fed up with their Shogun. Hence, they were nothing but an angry peasant who did not make much of the impact. This is evident due to lack of documents of them since they were consisted of low-class people and did not have much impact in the feudal Japan. Hence, the High-class Aristocrats and Historians did not even bother enough to write about them.
It is only during the Sengoku period that people started to record their fighting style. We vaguely and collectively call it "Ninjutsu". It is also during this period that Mercenaries who were taught in this started to emerge. Since the way they fought was covert but at the same time dishonorable, many Shogunates hired them to do their dirty work.
Since they were hired and not served, they could not be considered as a Soldier. They also did not give two shits about the emperor. Actually, when I think about it, nobody gave two shits about the emperor. He was just a figurehead for the most part of the history. Also, they were dishonorable. Hence, no shogun would have the guts to openly admit that they hired Ninjas.
Now coming back to the point, they didn't care about their emperor. They just killed for the money and since they did not have a code of honor, most just killed anybody, including women and Children. There are documents depicting the ninja's killing numerous innocents, just because they were paid for. Now if this is not savage. I don't what is.
You said nation.
Sure but groups of people that can vaguemy be called nations live there from time to time.
Okay, I used the term "Nation" at the start of the Chain. So, let's go with it. The defenition of Nation is, "Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institution, religion and historical experience." Notice that they says, "larger than a single tribe"
live there from time to time
I literally said that they were nomadic. Hence they didn't "live there from time to time"
know it's hard as fuck to disprove a negative like this one.
then why the fuck did you argue against it by saying "but then again, there probably were"? You brought this question upon yourself.
No. In christian mythology god, yahweh is repeatidly described as all-wise, omnipotent...
I was just throwing a bunch of What if questions.
This is exactly why I said that you are not able to read between the lines and understand the context. I had to even change up the order of the statements so that the reply would go like a flowchart and thus, making it easy for you. This also shows that you did not argue as a whole but against each breakdown of a statement, which is a bad way to argue.
The point is we don't know. There's no evidence for that either way.
I see that you have conveniently ignored this statement. I wrote this statement for an important reason. It just basically states the purpose of me writing those what if question. By ignoring this statement, you were able to argue against those individuals what if questions.
JIGGA. CIRCOMSISION IS GENITAL MUTILATION
Oh, okay. I was initially thinking something entirely different.
Now getting back to this, The Bible never said that Circumcision was an absolute necessity. What it did says it that God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his household and all his animals. But the tricky part, here is that it is said to come from Moses himself and there are records showing that his son was not circumcised. And every single Christian was freed from these laws in the Book of Acts and that is why, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches never adopted circumcision.
Here's a site that compiles all of those, http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/.
Although it is bit religious, you would get the point in the first few paragraph.
I'm tited of this conversation. Ok man let's say the bible does not comment on the shape of the earth
sigh If you are going to say this, why oppose it twice before. It just seems unnecessary. Why are so predisposed to argue against each breakdown of my argument? And no, I didn't decide that they were meant to be taken metaphorically. Historians Did.
Btw, did you even go to that wiki page? It's a common wiki page available to edit by anyone. It says right there that medieval flat earth theory was nothing but a modern-day misconception with quite a few citations. If you did and still said that it said that Earth is flat, facepalm Sad...sad indeed.
we know that people and the apostels back then did not know where the sun went at night.
I don't know what you are talking about. Citation needed.
u just admitted there were truces. I rest my case. The lenght of the truces do not matter for the argument
I admit that there was a truce and the length of the truce do matter for the argument. If it does not last for a significant amount of time, it has no purpose. What is usually the ideal situation for a truce? Most of the time, truces were after significant losses on both sides in a war. That means that it was already a violent situation.
Of course, I would wholeheartedly support that truces were indeed extremely useful in BCE, if you a give a small list of times where truces held in BCE were indeed effective.
Nice try, ignoring the last sentence. (The reason why truces weren't effective, as I mentioned earlier would be the lack of any governing forces (like the UN) watching over those countries and maintain the peace.)
First sex ed classes are normally at 12 y.o.
No, no, no, no. You can't do that. I specifically said, "again". That means that I was repeating the previous request, where I asked you to provide some evidence, that 7-12 year children all around the world, knew about "The Meaning of Life". I repeat "The Meaning of Life" not how to create life. There's a difference.
You previously said that we have all figured about the meaning of life. But I see that there are philosophers discussing it in the modern era. I think, you were thinking about "What is Life?" and not about "The Meaning of Life". There's a subtle difference between them.
Dude. Please im tired ok
Why? Just Why? If you are indeed tired, why are you replying now? You could have taken rest and had more time to collect your thoughts. Why argue now and say that you are tired? It's not like I'm forcing you to reply within a time limit. You usually take about ~2 days to reply anyway.
RE: Godbless everyone
Sure dude. I said 'some' as in soldures who mracticed martial arts and were very strategic and technical
I thought I asked you for an example and you said "Ninjas". Fockin Ninjas. Let me get to that in a bit. The people you mentioned would be something like the Chinese monks. Not soldiers but monks. Then again, even they were savage. A Chinese historical document mentions them defending their countries' borders against enemies. It tells a story about a small group of monks defending an army against overwhelming odds using their superior combat skills and better weapons. Were they savage? Yes, of course, they were. Or do you have any better and precise examples?
Not necessarily. I doubt ninjas in wartime were savages for example
Ninjas are a good example
Let me get this straight. I asked an example of a soldier. You said, Ninja. Okay.
First things first, Ninjas were not soldiers. Ninja is a vague term used to describe peasants who took to arms after getting fed up with their shogun. Hence, they were more like an assassin. They were unorganized and they practiced guerilla warfare assassinating key officials on the cover of the night using household things. Later, the way the fought were recorded and were called as "Ninjutsu". Of course, that in itself is extremely vague too. Swift assassination requires one to be savage. Hence, of course, they were savage too.
I doubt people who lived at the south and north pole had slaves
Okay. I asked an example of a country. You gave a vague answer about the people of the north and south pole. Okay, let me set that straight. Antartica does not and has never had an indigenous population. Inuits of the high arctic, that is near the north pole were a nomadic tribe. Not a country but a nomadic tribe. They were virtually impossible to own a slave. That is because they do not have an economy because their society was "egalitarian". There were no rich or poor. The food they gather was distributed evenly among their tribe.
Some of the tribe migrated south to the arctic circle and settled down. They formed villages with a chieftain as their leader. The neighboring chieftain fought numerous wars with themselves and usually, I hope no one notices this, lol I wrote this on dec tweleth where's there is war, there's slavery and it is true in here too. They sold the captured villages' women and children as slaves. Few such tribe would be where the Vikings came from and we all know how they were.
God is an omnipotent dude.
We have already discussed it. We have already established that there is no solid evidence opposing and supporting the existence of god. The thing in the bible is that it never discussed the origin of god and even if it was mentioned, no one would have believed it, just like that. What if he is bound by rules like he can't directly interfere? What is he is just one of the god monitoring the vast multiverse? What if he can't directly control minds? What if he is not truly omnipotent? The point is we don't know. There's no evidence for that either way.
I thought that we have already established it and moved on to whether the people in time period Old testament takes place were "Uneducated desert savages"
I don't know, why you are mentioning genital mutilation. As far as I searched there is no mention of it in the bible. Citation needed.
Last time I checked average people from back then were still at least performing weird rituals like killing babies and burying them under buildings to prevent earthquakes and shit like that
As far as I know, I do not find anything related to that in the bible. Citation needed.
Or are you mentioning something that some tribes did, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.
some people back then already knew the earth was round
Yes, and the bible also does not comment on the shape of the shape of the earth. It sometimes says things like four corners of the earth but it's meant to be taken metaphorically. It does not mention anything directly related to the shape of the earth. During the early Church period, the spherical view was widely held, with just a few exceptions.
Refer this wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
Because ignorance and technological unadvancements
That's exactly what I am saying. Peace was virtually impossible to attain due to their lack of knowledge and technological advancement. Today due to the advancement we attained over a period of several millenniums, we are able to attain said peace. Of course, there was truce back then but it was not possible to maintain it back then and hence, they were rarely held, especially with bigger nations. The reason why truces weren't effective, as I mentioned earlier would be the lack of any governing forces (like the UN) watching over those countries and maintain the peace.
12 as the age where you learn about exactly how life is born
Again, You were certain about an age. That means that you have proper evidence to back you up. Where is it? I would not have asked for it unless you were sure about it and asserts that it is indeed the truth.
And I wouldn't bet on every single prepubescent to know about their meaning of life. As far as the ones I was seen, they don't have a frickin clue or they don't care whatsoever.
No they don't. That's what defining something means
Yes, they do. Standard change with time. If you are too hung up on it, here's the definition of educational standard, "Learning //(also can be called educational)// standards are elements of declarative, procedural, schematic, and strategic knowledge that, as a body, define the specific content of an educational program."
and here's the definition of educational program, "An educational program is a program written by the institution or ministry of education which determines the learning progress of each subject in all the stages of formal education."
Notice that it says here "written by institution". With this two defenition, we can establish that the educational standard is something that depends on the current government. Hence, since with time both the government and the institution beneath it changes, the standards also change with time.
If you say that, that wasn't the defenition you had in mind of that my conclusion of the defenition was completely wrong, I do ask you provide us with an accurate defenotion of "Educational Standard"