|
On January 19 2011 01:28 Hautamaki wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 01:00 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote:
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children... It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production.
I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates.
I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden.
It took me not 5 min to find an actual example of it working:
Iran has succeeded in sharply reducing its birth rate in recent years. Iran is the only country where mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained. The government emphasizes the benefits of smaller families and the use of contraception,
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_Iran
Unless you can actually give me a valid source/study not done by religious group or with political motive behind it you wont convince me at least.
|
On January 19 2011 01:44 DND_Enkil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 01:28 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:00 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote:
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children... It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production. I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates. I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden.
You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children.
As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around.
|
United States43966 Posts
On January 19 2011 02:00 Hautamaki wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 01:44 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 19 2011 01:28 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:00 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote:
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children... It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production. I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates. I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden. You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children. As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around.
So your point is that contraceptives don't work just from being in proximity to people, they actually have to be used? I don't think anyone is disputing that.
|
Didn't read the list yet, but I trust that "Terran is imbalanced" is on there somewhere.
|
On January 19 2011 01:44 DND_Enkil wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 01:28 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:00 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote:
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children... It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production. It took me not 5 min to find an actual example of it working: Show nested quote +Iran has succeeded in sharply reducing its birth rate in recent years. Iran is the only country where mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained. The government emphasizes the benefits of smaller families and the use of contraception, Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_IranUnless you can actually give me a valid source/study not done by religious group or with political motive behind it you wont convince me at least.
This doesn't change my point: the government of Iran wanted to lower the birth rate first, the contraceptives were introduced afterwards as a means towards that goal. If there was no desire to change the inherent value structure of big family = good, merely introducing contraceptives would have a negligible effect.
Here's another quote from the article you linked:
"In 1993, Parliament passed further legislation withdrawing food coupons, paid maternity leave, and social welfare subsidies after the third child."
Don't you think that that legislation would be just as if not much more effective in curbing birth rates?
|
On January 19 2011 02:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 02:00 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:44 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 19 2011 01:28 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:00 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote:
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children... It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production. I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates. I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden. You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children. As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around. So your point is that contraceptives don't work just from being in proximity to people, they actually have to be used? I don't think anyone is disputing that.
My point is that the availability of contraceptives has no effect on a person's desire to produce offspring, and that a person's desire to produce offspring is the only significant factor in whether or not said person will actually produce offspring because the proportion of unintended pregnancies compared to total pregnancies is extremely small.
|
United States13896 Posts
I've been calling these things daddy longlegs spiders my entire life, and they aren't even spiders. Mind = blown.
41% of Americans believe Dinosaurs and humans coexisted ... just made me want to facepalm. I'm also pissed at the taste bud/part of tongue misconception, My group got a question wrong at a bar trivia night recently because we didn't know which type of taste bud was located on the tip of your tongue.
|
On January 19 2011 02:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 02:00 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:44 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 19 2011 01:28 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:00 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote:
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children... It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production. I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates. I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden. You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children. As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around. So your point is that contraceptives don't work just from being in proximity to people, they actually have to be used? I don't think anyone is disputing that.
I think the point is people's desire for small/large families has a much greater impact on the average family size than the availability of contraceptives
1. Want large family + have contraceptives->large family
2. Want large family + no contraceptives->large family
3. Want small family + have contraceptives->small family
4. Want small family + no contraceptives->small family
However, family #4 would be bigger than family #3 (even if both are much smaller than #1+2) because family #4 would have slightly more unintended pregnancies.(due to people wanting to have sex) The core issue is how much bigger.
Contraceptives might play a role in people Wanting smaller families by breaking the "virile man"=lots of sex=lots of kids connection in society (because when contraceptives are present more sex=/=more kids)
But I'd generally agree, the economic / other cultural conditions (ie no support for child 3) are probably more important
|
Nice find, will keep me distracted for a while longer heehee. And ya, the Great Wall of China one is a myth for sure. I even wondered it as a kid, if big ass buildings become so small as you're on a plane, how could one possibly see a smaller wall in space?
|
On January 17 2011 07:14 Generic SC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 22:26 TymerA wrote:On January 15 2011 06:42 danl9rm wrote:On January 15 2011 06:30 TymerA wrote:
Its a common misconception that the word theory means ''guess'' in science. I find the opposite to be true. Most people believe a theory is fact. Theory is a collection of facts. That is not quite true, here's an extract from my last semester Antirealisim essay. The Pessimistic meta-induction is an argument brought forth by Larry Laudan (1981) in which he states that for a theory to be true, it must be empirically successful, and that its terms must refer to actual phenomena in the objective world, furthermore, if the theory is not empirically successful, it cannot be true, since it appears to contradict what we know of the world. Past theories that where once empirically successful and which were deamed to refer to phenomena that existed in the real world are now are considered to not be true and the phenomena to which they refer to not exist. Since previously accepted and empirically successful theories were later considered to be false it then seems to follow that current and future accepted and empirically successful theories will also subsequently be considered false. Althought it might seem that modern theories may currently have empirical and predictive accuracy, but so to did previous theories of their time. If a theory relies on "facts" to support it, but those facts are later falsified, were they really true to begin with? History shows us that they were not and gives a warning against casually accepting current and future scientific theory as ironclad truth.
Here's how science works: observe phenomenas (natural/experimental) - formulate theory - do experiments to test theory. So in a way theory is kind of a guess, a very educated guess based on observed data and existed theory.
In response to previous post: in science you should never think in absolute true/false terms. If a new experiment produces a surprise result not predicted by the current theory, that doesn't mean the theory is total garbage. Instead you should work to explain the new phenomena by expanding the theory.
Dumb example: from midair releasing a metal ball in a warehouse, ball drops, gravity works; next day someone put a big magnet on the roof, ball rise up and stuck to the roof; does that mean that gravity theory is wrong?
Some statistics guy said this and I think it's relevant: "All theories are wrong, but some are useful."
|
On January 19 2011 02:15 p4NDemik wrote:I've been calling these things daddy longlegs spiders my entire life, and they aren't even spiders. Mind = blown. 41% of Americans believe Dinosaurs and humans coexisted ... just made me want to facepalm. I'm also pissed at the taste bud/part of tongue misconception, My group got a question wrong at a bar trivia night recently because we didn't know which type of taste bud was located on the tip of your tongue.
There are still regions of your tongue with a greater sensitivity to certain tastes, so it's not completely a myth. The myth is that those regions are exclusive, and you can ONLY taste certain things in those regions. It's just a difference of relative receptor concentrations.
|
On January 19 2011 02:06 Hautamaki wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 01:44 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 19 2011 01:28 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:00 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote:
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children... It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production. It took me not 5 min to find an actual example of it working: Iran has succeeded in sharply reducing its birth rate in recent years. Iran is the only country where mandatory contraceptive courses are required for both males and females before a marriage license can be obtained. The government emphasizes the benefits of smaller families and the use of contraception, Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_IranUnless you can actually give me a valid source/study not done by religious group or with political motive behind it you wont convince me at least. This doesn't change my point: the government of Iran wanted to lower the birth rate first, the contraceptives were introduced afterwards as a means towards that goal. If there was no desire to change the inherent value structure of big family = good, merely introducing contraceptives would have a negligible effect. Here's another quote from the article you linked: "In 1993, Parliament passed further legislation withdrawing food coupons, paid maternity leave, and social welfare subsidies after the third child." Don't you think that that legislation would be just as if not much more effective in curbing birth rates?
I agree that the most important thing when it comes to birth rates is economy, China has had the problem resently where they actually have tried to increase the birth rate but since thier population have now become more financially stable the population has not really wanted to - but when they first introduced thier "one child rule" contraception was a vital part of making it possible.
If you look at urban areas with low birth rate you could argue that the birth rate would remain low even without contraceptions, but i think that only would hold true over a shorter time. I seriously doubt that you could get any society to go into forced celibacy because of the goverments wishes, and over time they will not even want to and having big famieles will again be the norm.
So maybe contraceptions are not the direct cause for any society lowering thier birth rates, but they certainly play a vital role and have a big effect on child births.
|
If I didn't have contraceptives, I am sure I would of caused many girls to be pregnant.
Condoms are great. Sure without them I would restrain myself more. But hell there are times when I would of done it anyway. With or without protection.
|
On January 19 2011 02:08 Hautamaki wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 02:03 KwarK wrote:On January 19 2011 02:00 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:44 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 19 2011 01:28 Hautamaki wrote:On January 19 2011 01:00 DND_Enkil wrote:On January 17 2011 09:46 Mayfly wrote:
1. Contraceptives have a marginal (at best) effect on how many children are born.
Are you saying this is a myth or that this is true? I dont understand... Of cource Contraceptives have a huge effect on child birth rates, maybe not in 3rd world countries but just take sweden as an example. Me and most of my friends have sex with our partner all the time and yet very few children are born. And if you look how it was for our grandparents they all had huge families since they also had sex all the time, but without any birth control this lead to children... It doesn't have an effect on the likelihood of two people to produce a child, just an effect on the likelihood of a given sex act to produce a child. If you and your partner didn't want to have a child but had no access to contraceptives, you just wouldn't have so much sex, or you'd restrict it to oral/anal. By the same token, when you DID want to have a child, you just wouldn't use contraceptives. The only real factor that affects birth rate is how much people want to have a child. The availability of contraceptives just gives them more options for sex acts without child production. I am sorry but i call bullshit on this one. I think that in every society where Contraceptives are readily avialable and it is not considered morally wrong to use them they will have a very real effect on child birth rates. I think that the availability of contraceptives have planted they idea that you dont have to have a big family, or children early, or even children at all even if you are married. Without contraceptives this would not even be an option. I think the age where couples get their first child are steadily rising in Sweden. You are trying to establish a causation when no causation can be shown here. There is a correlation, yes, but there are numerous other factors at work that most likely have a much higher effect on birth rates. Aside from access to contraceptives, people in the first world are also much better educated and much richer/more economically stable. I don't want to go into a massive sociological treatise on it but the bottom line is that people in the first world do not place a high value on having a large family whereas throughout the third world a man's success is measured by the amount of children he has (especially males), and this has a much more important effect on birth rates than availability of birth control. People tried to lower birth rates in India and Africa by saturating people with condoms. Poor people were literally roofing their houses with unused condoms. They didn't use them because they wanted to produce children. As for you and your girlfriend, is it really contraceptives that prevent you from having a child? Of course not--you choose to use contraceptives because you don't want a child, not the other way around. So your point is that contraceptives don't work just from being in proximity to people, they actually have to be used? I don't think anyone is disputing that. My point is that the availability of contraceptives has no effect on a person's desire to produce offspring, and that a person's desire to produce offspring is the only significant factor in whether or not said person will actually produce offspring because the proportion of unintended pregnancies compared to total pregnancies is extremely small.
Your logic assumes that people's will power allows for their desire to no have childern to overpower their desire to have sexual intercourse. This is not the case in many people and the fact that many people have unwanted children even though they have easy access to contraceptives prooves your assuption to be faulse.
|
Its not that hard to avoid pregnancy w.o contraceptives. Yeah its riskier, but not that hard.
|
On January 19 2011 07:52 NIJ wrote:
Its not that hard to avoid pregnancy w.o contraceptives. Yeah its riskier, but not that hard.
I think his point is that the mere presence of contraceptives is not enough to prevent births. People have to want to use them, is more or less what I am getting from him. In other words, people seem to wonder what the disconnect is between parts of Africa and birth prevention, and he is saying that it isn't that birth prevention isn't present or that there is misinformation about birth prevention, but that people just don't want to do it.
Which is why those will be the countries that run the world in 200 years, when all of our "enlightened" Western countries have the population of a small town.
|
Most of these 'X% of people think Y' statistics are flat out misrepresentations. They make really misleading multiple choice questions and often draw conclusions that aren't based off of the question/answer. Nevermind the sample size. I'll try to find an article about it.
41% of of Americans think that dinosours and humans coexisted? Really? Because I live in one of the dumbest places in the U.S. and I haven't met one that thought that.
|
"Mathematics
* Contrary to a widespread perception, the real number 0.999... is exactly equal to 1. They are two different ways of writing the same real number."
oh no, not this again hahahahahah.
|
On January 19 2011 09:49 elmizzt wrote:
"Mathematics
* Contrary to a widespread perception, the real number 0.999... is exactly equal to 1. They are two different ways of writing the same real number."
oh no, not this again hahahahahah.
Contrary to a widespread perception, the real number 41.999... is exactly equal to 42. They are two different ways of writing the same real number.
|
On January 17 2011 07:27 Danjoh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2011 17:38 DTK-m2 wrote:On January 16 2011 16:35 .Aar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Pretty interesting read. Too bad most of this is stuff I don't care about, and would make me sound like a huge douchebag for correcting others for.
"YOU KNOW THERE'S ACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE VIKINGS WORE HORNS ON THEIR HELMETS. THAT'S A POP CULTURE FABRICATION." I learned most of this in that one cracked article of misconceptions. It would makes sense for Vikings to not have horns, of course, because they're basically handlebars for other people. If you're fighting a Viking that has horns on his helmet, you just grab them with your hands and you have pretty good control of his head. You steer it down, and either you bring him to his knees or he loses his helmet. Neither outcome is favorable. Also in the cracked article, I believe, was the fact that ninjas never wore all black, because that makes you stand out and says to everyone, "HEY LOOK I'M A NINJA." It would make much more sense for ninjas to just wear normal clothes, because that's what allows them to blend in. + Show Spoiler +
Also, those ancient Greek statues apparently were not all shining white. The paint chipped off over time, but apparently the Greeks painted them all sorts of trippy rainbow colors.
And of course you don't go around blatantly correcting others for, but if you're already on the topic of misconceptions, somehow (hey, who knows, it's possible) and someone brings up vikings or something, it's interesting stuff to know.
What if the Ninja was operating in the middle of the night? Wouldn't it make sense if he wore black clothes then to easier blend in with the shadows?
Blacks actually a bad choice for this, blue would be better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
