|
On June 21 2013 21:31 sunprince wrote:
As the courts found in one decision after another, there was no rational basis for the discriminatory treatment (compare this with the differential gender roles for men and women, which were often grounded in societal efficiency and matched advantages with disadvantages).
This is the crux of the flaw in your argument. You have tentatively established that a sexual division of labour is efficient. Fine, nobody is disputing that. But you move from that to justifying any and all gender roles as some sort of derivation of this division of labour. That's just not true, and nor does it follow. While men as hunters/soldiers vs women maintaining the settlement makes sense in a prehistoric (and even in some early ancient empires; contrary to popular belief, serving in the military was not the death sentence you make it out to be in ancient Egypt, Rome, or Greece) it does not follow that women should also be legally considered property and deprived of autonomy/the right to vote. Just because a sexual division of labour exists and is efficient and propagates pragmatic gender roles does not mean all gender roles are valid.
Edit: yay, 3000th post!
|
On June 22 2013 00:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 21:31 sunprince wrote:
As the courts found in one decision after another, there was no rational basis for the discriminatory treatment (compare this with the differential gender roles for men and women, which were often grounded in societal efficiency and matched advantages with disadvantages). This is the crux of the flaw in your argument. You have tentatively established that a sexual division of labour is efficient. Fine, nobody is disputing that. But you move from that to justifying any and all gender roles as some sort of derivation of this division of labour. That's just not true, and nor does it follow. While men as hunters/soldiers vs women maintaining the settlement makes sense in a prehistoric (and even in some early ancient empires; contrary to popular belief, serving in the military was not the death sentence you make it out to be in ancient Egypt, Rome, or Greece) it does not follow that women should also be legally considered property and deprived of autonomy/the right to vote. Just because a sexual division of labour exists and is efficient and propagates pragmatic gender roles does not mean all gender roles are valid. Edit: yay, 3000th post!
Also efficiency does not equal morality...
|
sunprince isn't God, if you believe my fictional example is actually real then present your argument, if you're correct he won't be able to disagree with what you've said, will he? If he does so in error then it's up to you to find the flaws in his argument and make him see that he's wrong.
People have been pointing out the flaws in his argument since the beginning of the thread, including me. But if you are not arguing honestly you can simply ignore claims brought against you and talk about something else, which sunprince has done consistently. I called him out on his Just-World Hypothesis earlier and he didn't address it at all. He just said "No I'm not." The fact is that Just-World Hypothesis is the underlying cause of most of his claims, such as the "revolution <= oppression" idea.
|
On June 22 2013 00:03 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 00:00 Shiori wrote:On June 21 2013 21:31 sunprince wrote:
As the courts found in one decision after another, there was no rational basis for the discriminatory treatment (compare this with the differential gender roles for men and women, which were often grounded in societal efficiency and matched advantages with disadvantages). This is the crux of the flaw in your argument. You have tentatively established that a sexual division of labour is efficient. Fine, nobody is disputing that. But you move from that to justifying any and all gender roles as some sort of derivation of this division of labour. That's just not true, and nor does it follow. While men as hunters/soldiers vs women maintaining the settlement makes sense in a prehistoric (and even in some early ancient empires; contrary to popular belief, serving in the military was not the death sentence you make it out to be in ancient Egypt, Rome, or Greece) it does not follow that women should also be legally considered property and deprived of autonomy/the right to vote. Just because a sexual division of labour exists and is efficient and propagates pragmatic gender roles does not mean all gender roles are valid. Edit: yay, 3000th post! Also efficiency does not equal morality...
Agreed. It's worth pointing out that societies which utilized slaves out-competed those that didn't according to sunprince's own metrics, but I don't see anyone defending those.
|
I think abortion should not be a moral, ethnic or by law be forbidden.
In my opinion, a foetus is no creature with dignity of man.
It has the potential, but so what? Cum has that too.
Without the potential argument, killing a dead man.
Only our on evolution based higher appreciation or love for our children is the logical reason against abortion.
But if the parents doesnt feel that or something else is more important for them than that, i see no good points against abortion.
|
On June 22 2013 00:17 samuu wrote:
I think abortion should not be a moral, ethnic or by law be forbidden.
In my opinion, a foetus is no creature with dignity of man.
It has the potential, but so what? Cum has that too.
Without the potential argument, killing a dead man.
Only our on evolution based higher appreciation or love for our children is the logical reason against abortion.
But if the parents doesnt feel that or something else is more important for them than that, i see no good points against abortion.
Alright, questions before I can argue with you:
1. Is life valuable? Why or Why not?
2. At what point does a potential human become a creature with dignity of a Man? (a metric is required, otherwise murder is acceptable).
3. What is your take on the non-identity problem in regards to "humanity" of the Potential Human?
4. What is the line of demarcation between human life worth preserving, and potential human life whose preservation is inconsequential?
4a. What if we disagree on where that line is?
|
On June 21 2013 21:16 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 20:43 xM(Z wrote:On June 21 2013 20:31 DoubleReed wrote:Wait, so sunprince, would you say that homosexuals have been oppressed? Because homosexuals' lives have also fluctuated wildly in terms of class struggles, and there was certainly no "homosexual uprising" for the majority of human history. Homosexuals were probably even involved with enforcing homophobic law against other homosexuals. Therefore homosexuals haven't been oppressed. No oppression of homosexuals. Atheists too! They've lived lives all throughout the class spectrum, and had to deal with all sorts of problems, but prominent atheists have always been upper class and such. And I've never heard of an "atheist uprising" or anything. So I guess atheists haven't been oppressed. Gee, I wonder if you'd say blacks in the Jim Crow South were oppressed. I mean, it wasn't slavery, but they obviously had no right to vote or anything. Plus they could always move north to get some rights. And they didn't really achieve borg hivemind status until the sixties, alongside women. So I think there's a fair argument here that blacks in the Jim Crow South weren't oppressed either. Gosh, why do these groups keep complaining? On June 21 2013 19:24 sunprince wrote:On June 21 2013 18:47 xM(Z wrote:
hypotethical question: if someone (a human/person) genetically and evolutionary adapted/tailored for/to slavery were to exist, you'd argue that is wrong for him to be a slave?.
(it's what i see the anti-sunprince coalition arguing for) A more relevant question for real life: Are BDSM submissives oppressed? When you can figure out why the answer is "no", then you will understand why "burdensome, cruel, or unjust" is essential to the definition of "oppressed". Individuals consenting is not equivalent to entire groups consenting. There is no such thing as "group consent." well if you don't like the word consent then use the 'group determinism' phrase to argue on; use determinism as the drive behind XYZ actions/preferences/predispositions of an entire group. Uhm. People aren't stereotypes. Biological determinism is well known to be bullshit. And consent is a concept that is a lot stronger than a persons preferences anyway. People like sex. People don't like rape. Consent is what is actually being discussed, so you can't remove it from the conversation even if biological determinism wasn't bullshit.
the nature vs nurture debate is in no way settled. biological determinism works fine within a slow or non changing environment and doesn't work (almost) at all within a fast changing one (inclusive fitness/kin selection).
social determinism works (worked) fine too because older women were teaching younger women the ways of self-oppression. not only men opressed women, they also opressed themselves.
|
On June 21 2013 09:38 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 09:27 Excalibursin-X wrote:On June 16 2013 01:52 cloneThorN wrote:
IMO, both are no-brainers with the same answer: Yes, they are legitimate exceptions.
Rape obvious, as it's againstthe womans will, and the child will live a life hating his father while at the same time riscs being hated by his/hers mother.
Incests is only bad for the child, however the child riscs severe defects, both mental and physical.
Getting a child through incest is no more humane, than beating a newborn baby half to death. Pertaining to rape, the child's death from abortion/prevention of life through conscious action is against his/her will as well. If there is a risk that the child's life will be bad for any reason, we shouldn't resort to such drastic measures before we are sure. We should wait for him/her to grow up until we can see for ourselves that the child will have a bad enough life (by our standards) to merit ending his life. Alternatively, we can ask the child himself (when he can speak) if he'd like to die because of his home life. You have got be trolling or being sarcastic or something. lol
Well, I'm just saying that it sounds more reasonable to "abort" per se, when the child is old enough to confirm that it's worth it, or at least when you're sure the home life will be bad instead of going through with it just because there's a risk, right?
|
On June 22 2013 04:46 Excalibursin-X wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 09:38 ZackAttack wrote:On June 21 2013 09:27 Excalibursin-X wrote:On June 16 2013 01:52 cloneThorN wrote:
IMO, both are no-brainers with the same answer: Yes, they are legitimate exceptions.
Rape obvious, as it's againstthe womans will, and the child will live a life hating his father while at the same time riscs being hated by his/hers mother.
Incests is only bad for the child, however the child riscs severe defects, both mental and physical.
Getting a child through incest is no more humane, than beating a newborn baby half to death. Pertaining to rape, the child's death from abortion/prevention of life through conscious action is against his/her will as well. If there is a risk that the child's life will be bad for any reason, we shouldn't resort to such drastic measures before we are sure. We should wait for him/her to grow up until we can see for ourselves that the child will have a bad enough life (by our standards) to merit ending his life. Alternatively, we can ask the child himself (when he can speak) if he'd like to die because of his home life. You have got be trolling or being sarcastic or something. lol Well, I'm just saying that it sounds more reasonable to "abort" per se, when the child is old enough to confirm that it's worth it, or at least when you're sure the home life will be bad instead of going through with it just because there's a risk, right?
People are allowed to ask for medical procedures.
Children only needs one legal guardian to give consent.
A mother needs only her own consent to give consent.
|
On June 22 2013 03:12 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 21:16 DoubleReed wrote:On June 21 2013 20:43 xM(Z wrote:On June 21 2013 20:31 DoubleReed wrote:Wait, so sunprince, would you say that homosexuals have been oppressed? Because homosexuals' lives have also fluctuated wildly in terms of class struggles, and there was certainly no "homosexual uprising" for the majority of human history. Homosexuals were probably even involved with enforcing homophobic law against other homosexuals. Therefore homosexuals haven't been oppressed. No oppression of homosexuals. Atheists too! They've lived lives all throughout the class spectrum, and had to deal with all sorts of problems, but prominent atheists have always been upper class and such. And I've never heard of an "atheist uprising" or anything. So I guess atheists haven't been oppressed. Gee, I wonder if you'd say blacks in the Jim Crow South were oppressed. I mean, it wasn't slavery, but they obviously had no right to vote or anything. Plus they could always move north to get some rights. And they didn't really achieve borg hivemind status until the sixties, alongside women. So I think there's a fair argument here that blacks in the Jim Crow South weren't oppressed either. Gosh, why do these groups keep complaining? On June 21 2013 19:24 sunprince wrote:On June 21 2013 18:47 xM(Z wrote:
hypotethical question: if someone (a human/person) genetically and evolutionary adapted/tailored for/to slavery were to exist, you'd argue that is wrong for him to be a slave?.
(it's what i see the anti-sunprince coalition arguing for) A more relevant question for real life: Are BDSM submissives oppressed? When you can figure out why the answer is "no", then you will understand why "burdensome, cruel, or unjust" is essential to the definition of "oppressed". Individuals consenting is not equivalent to entire groups consenting. There is no such thing as "group consent." well if you don't like the word consent then use the 'group determinism' phrase to argue on; use determinism as the drive behind XYZ actions/preferences/predispositions of an entire group. Uhm. People aren't stereotypes. Biological determinism is well known to be bullshit. And consent is a concept that is a lot stronger than a persons preferences anyway. People like sex. People don't like rape. Consent is what is actually being discussed, so you can't remove it from the conversation even if biological determinism wasn't bullshit. the nature vs nurture debate is in no way settled. biological determinism works fine within a slow or non changing environment and doesn't work (almost) at all within a fast changing one (inclusive fitness/kin selection). social determinism works (worked) fine too because older women were teaching younger women the ways of self-oppression. not only men opressed women, they also opressed themselves.
I'm not really interested in derailing this thread even further. Suffice to say I don't think it works fine regardless of the speed or change of environment. Feel free to start another thread on Biological Determinism. In the meantime, I encourage you to look at the following articles:
An inspiring Less Wrong article on things that always were until they weren't.
Biologist PZ Myers explaining biological problems of evolutionary psychology for gender roles.
RationalWiki article on Biological Determinism which talks more about the various logical and statistical fallacies that go along with it. It also talks a bit about the historical use of biological determinism for race, sex, and sexual orientation as a means to maintain the status quo.
|
those links have nothing against determinism being one of the factors driving evolution but everything against determinism being the only factor. if you can't see that then there is no point in derailing the thread.
still, why women wouldn't/couldn't oppress other women?; why isn't that debated?. it didn't happened?
|
On June 22 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 00:17 samuu wrote:
I think abortion should not be a moral, ethnic or by law be forbidden.
In my opinion, a foetus is no creature with dignity of man.
It has the potential, but so what? Cum has that too.
Without the potential argument, killing a dead man.
Only our on evolution based higher appreciation or love for our children is the logical reason against abortion.
But if the parents doesnt feel that or something else is more important for them than that, i see no good points against abortion.
Alright, questions before I can argue with you: 1. Is life valuable? Why or Why not? 2. At what point does a potential human become a creature with dignity of a Man? (a metric is required, otherwise murder is acceptable). 3. What is your take on the non-identity problem in regards to "humanity" of the Potential Human? 4. What is the line of demarcation between human life worth preserving, and potential human life whose preservation is inconsequential? 4a. What if we disagree on where that line is?
I'd actually like to bite this question. Sure, a fetus could be a life, and I'd still be cool with ending it.
Any human life is worth preserving provided that said life is not using another human beings body. So, for example, if someone has to hook their lungs up to mine in order to breathe, I'd be alright to tell them no thanks, I don't want to have you attached to me everywhere I go. To me, the dependency is kind of a big deal. There is pretty much no circumstance on earth that I can imagine where I'd feel obligated to sacrifice my body for 9 months for the sake of another human being (although I might feel obligated out of love, I wouldn't feel *morally* obligated.)
|
On June 22 2013 04:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 04:46 Excalibursin-X wrote:On June 21 2013 09:38 ZackAttack wrote:On June 21 2013 09:27 Excalibursin-X wrote:On June 16 2013 01:52 cloneThorN wrote:
IMO, both are no-brainers with the same answer: Yes, they are legitimate exceptions.
Rape obvious, as it's againstthe womans will, and the child will live a life hating his father while at the same time riscs being hated by his/hers mother.
Incests is only bad for the child, however the child riscs severe defects, both mental and physical.
Getting a child through incest is no more humane, than beating a newborn baby half to death. Pertaining to rape, the child's death from abortion/prevention of life through conscious action is against his/her will as well. If there is a risk that the child's life will be bad for any reason, we shouldn't resort to such drastic measures before we are sure. We should wait for him/her to grow up until we can see for ourselves that the child will have a bad enough life (by our standards) to merit ending his life. Alternatively, we can ask the child himself (when he can speak) if he'd like to die because of his home life. You have got be trolling or being sarcastic or something. lol Well, I'm just saying that it sounds more reasonable to "abort" per se, when the child is old enough to confirm that it's worth it, or at least when you're sure the home life will be bad instead of going through with it just because there's a risk, right? People are allowed to ask for medical procedures. Children only needs one legal guardian to give consent. A mother needs only her own consent to give consent.
I don't dispute that those are the current rules. What about them exactly?
|
On June 22 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 00:17 samuu wrote:
I think abortion should not be a moral, ethnic or by law be forbidden.
In my opinion, a foetus is no creature with dignity of man.
It has the potential, but so what? Cum has that too.
Without the potential argument, killing a dead man.
Only our on evolution based higher appreciation or love for our children is the logical reason against abortion.
But if the parents doesnt feel that or something else is more important for them than that, i see no good points against abortion.
Alright, questions before I can argue with you: 1. Is life valuable? Why or Why not? 2. At what point does a potential human become a creature with dignity of a Man? (a metric is required, otherwise murder is acceptable). 3. What is your take on the non-identity problem in regards to "humanity" of the Potential Human? 4. What is the line of demarcation between human life worth preserving, and potential human life whose preservation is inconsequential? 4a. What if we disagree on whereas that line is?
1. A soul or the consciousness is valuable. It's the most valuable thing i can imagine. Why? Cause it's the only thing in the universe that makes sense.*( do i need to explain this?) Life of an animal or a plant is nothing more than a machine. The problem is how can you know what has a soul. And when does a foetus get one? If you are conservative with that then i would say at the age of 6 months when it gets higher brain activity and is some kind of "dreaming".
2. 6 months. When your game starts ^.^
3. I don't get it srry.
4 . Potential consciousness is no argument. When you have a soul.
5. Then we a conservative with it. 6 months. Earlier doesnt make any sense.
|
On June 22 2013 00:00 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2013 21:31 sunprince wrote:
As the courts found in one decision after another, there was no rational basis for the discriminatory treatment (compare this with the differential gender roles for men and women, which were often grounded in societal efficiency and matched advantages with disadvantages). This is the crux of the flaw in your argument. You have tentatively established that a sexual division of labour is efficient. Fine, nobody is disputing that. But you move from that to justifying any and all gender roles as some sort of derivation of this division of labour. That's just not true, and nor does it follow. While men as hunters/soldiers vs women maintaining the settlement makes sense in a prehistoric (and even in some early ancient empires; contrary to popular belief, serving in the military was not the death sentence you make it out to be in ancient Egypt, Rome, or Greece) it does not follow that women should also be legally considered property and deprived of autonomy/the right to vote. Just because a sexual division of labour exists and is efficient and propagates pragmatic gender roles does not mean all gender roles are valid. Edit: yay, 3000th post!
Clearly, serving in the military was the death sentence for someone since there can only be one army that's victorious. If the army of Rome would crush the unorganized barbaric tribes that would offer only paltry resistance then soldiers are still dying en masse. And victory isn't always so painless.
Also, we really need the "sunprince debating society". :p
|
On June 22 2013 19:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 00:00 Shiori wrote:On June 21 2013 21:31 sunprince wrote:
As the courts found in one decision after another, there was no rational basis for the discriminatory treatment (compare this with the differential gender roles for men and women, which were often grounded in societal efficiency and matched advantages with disadvantages). This is the crux of the flaw in your argument. You have tentatively established that a sexual division of labour is efficient. Fine, nobody is disputing that. But you move from that to justifying any and all gender roles as some sort of derivation of this division of labour. That's just not true, and nor does it follow. While men as hunters/soldiers vs women maintaining the settlement makes sense in a prehistoric (and even in some early ancient empires; contrary to popular belief, serving in the military was not the death sentence you make it out to be in ancient Egypt, Rome, or Greece) it does not follow that women should also be legally considered property and deprived of autonomy/the right to vote. Just because a sexual division of labour exists and is efficient and propagates pragmatic gender roles does not mean all gender roles are valid. Edit: yay, 3000th post! Clearly, serving in the military was the death sentence for someone since there can only be one army that's victorious. If the army of Rome would crush the unorganized barbaric tribes that would offer only paltry resistance then soldiers are still dying en masse. And victory isn't always so painless. Also, we really need the "sunprince debating society". :p
Women also fought in wars, often, and have done so throughout history...
Not as many did it as men did, but thinking war was a purely male thing is false.
|
On June 22 2013 15:25 xM(Z wrote:
those links have nothing against determinism being one of the factors driving evolution but everything against determinism being the only factor. if you can't see that then there is no point in derailing the thread.
still, why women wouldn't/couldn't oppress other women?; why isn't that debated?. it didn't happened?
???
Your statement makes no sense. Obviously genes drive evolution 100% of the time, because that's what evolution refers to. I'm confused about what you're actually trying to say. It sounds to me like you're suggesting that we assume for the sake of argument that something is biologically deterministic when it probably isn't. That couldn't possibly be your line of thinking so please explain.
Women oppress other women all the time. It has been debated in this very thread, because we were trying to explain that sunprince and the idea of conditioning. It's one of the principle arguments AGAINST biological determinism, actually.
Perhaps you aren't understanding what Biological Determinism refers to? I'm completely lost.
|
On June 22 2013 19:11 samuu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 00:46 Kimaker wrote:On June 22 2013 00:17 samuu wrote:
I think abortion should not be a moral, ethnic or by law be forbidden.
In my opinion, a foetus is no creature with dignity of man.
It has the potential, but so what? Cum has that too.
Without the potential argument, killing a dead man.
Only our on evolution based higher appreciation or love for our children is the logical reason against abortion.
But if the parents doesnt feel that or something else is more important for them than that, i see no good points against abortion.
Alright, questions before I can argue with you: 1. Is life valuable? Why or Why not? 2. At what point does a potential human become a creature with dignity of a Man? (a metric is required, otherwise murder is acceptable). 3. What is your take on the non-identity problem in regards to "humanity" of the Potential Human? 4. What is the line of demarcation between human life worth preserving, and potential human life whose preservation is inconsequential? 4a. What if we disagree on whereas that line is? 1. A soul or the consciousness is valuable. It's the most valuable thing i can imagine. Why? Cause it's the only thing in the universe that makes sense.*( do i need to explain this?) Life of an animal or a plant is nothing more than a machine. The problem is how can you know what has a soul. And when does a foetus get one? If you are conservative with that then i would say at the age of 6 months when it gets higher brain activity and is some kind of "dreaming".
"Soul" is a dump word that can mean something entirely different depending on the person. Because there is zero evidence of humans having a sould except if by "soul" you mean self consciousness.What is your definition of soul? So that people here can actually understand what you want to say, yes please explain what you meant.
Also the latest studies imply that some animals have self consciousness (it's already proven with primates). So by your definition would a chimp have a "soul"?
|
On June 22 2013 19:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 00:00 Shiori wrote:On June 21 2013 21:31 sunprince wrote:
As the courts found in one decision after another, there was no rational basis for the discriminatory treatment (compare this with the differential gender roles for men and women, which were often grounded in societal efficiency and matched advantages with disadvantages). This is the crux of the flaw in your argument. You have tentatively established that a sexual division of labour is efficient. Fine, nobody is disputing that. But you move from that to justifying any and all gender roles as some sort of derivation of this division of labour. That's just not true, and nor does it follow. While men as hunters/soldiers vs women maintaining the settlement makes sense in a prehistoric (and even in some early ancient empires; contrary to popular belief, serving in the military was not the death sentence you make it out to be in ancient Egypt, Rome, or Greece) it does not follow that women should also be legally considered property and deprived of autonomy/the right to vote. Just because a sexual division of labour exists and is efficient and propagates pragmatic gender roles does not mean all gender roles are valid. Edit: yay, 3000th post! Clearly, serving in the military was the death sentence for someone since there can only be one army that's victorious. If the army of Rome would crush the unorganized barbaric tribes that would offer only paltry resistance then soldiers are still dying en masse. And victory isn't always so painless. Also, we really need the "sunprince debating society". :p
Lots of battles ended in surrender. Civilizations like ancient Rome were successful because they allowed subjugated civilizations to retain some autonomy so long as they came under the Roman rule. If they slaughtered all of the men, the Romans wouldn't have been able to work any of the land that they captured.
|
On June 22 2013 23:37 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2013 19:42 Grumbels wrote:On June 22 2013 00:00 Shiori wrote:On June 21 2013 21:31 sunprince wrote:
As the courts found in one decision after another, there was no rational basis for the discriminatory treatment (compare this with the differential gender roles for men and women, which were often grounded in societal efficiency and matched advantages with disadvantages). This is the crux of the flaw in your argument. You have tentatively established that a sexual division of labour is efficient. Fine, nobody is disputing that. But you move from that to justifying any and all gender roles as some sort of derivation of this division of labour. That's just not true, and nor does it follow. While men as hunters/soldiers vs women maintaining the settlement makes sense in a prehistoric (and even in some early ancient empires; contrary to popular belief, serving in the military was not the death sentence you make it out to be in ancient Egypt, Rome, or Greece) it does not follow that women should also be legally considered property and deprived of autonomy/the right to vote. Just because a sexual division of labour exists and is efficient and propagates pragmatic gender roles does not mean all gender roles are valid. Edit: yay, 3000th post! Clearly, serving in the military was the death sentence for someone since there can only be one army that's victorious. If the army of Rome would crush the unorganized barbaric tribes that would offer only paltry resistance then soldiers are still dying en masse. And victory isn't always so painless. Also, we really need the "sunprince debating society". :p Lots of battles ended in surrender. Civilizations like ancient Rome were successful because they allowed subjugated civilizations to retain some autonomy so long as they came under the Roman rule. If they slaughtered all of the men, the Romans wouldn't have been able to work any of the land that they captured.
I think people have this illusion where real war was like playing Starcraft where you slaughtered everything in sight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
