Statistics
- Thread starter Scikosomatic
- Start date
Recommended Videos
In most traditional and religious weddings the bride always stands to the left of the groom. That's because back in the day weddings were one of the few reasons lots of people gathered together in one spot, making it a huge temptation for thieves and kidnappers. The reason the bride stands to the left is because the hunband needed his sword arm, which was always the right arm, to be free. That's also why there is a best man, to help the groom defend his bride from bandits and kidnappers.
In Montana if you see more then 5 Indians in a group you can legally shoot them until there are.
In WA state it's illegal to deflower a virgin.
I think it's Oregan, but you are not allowed to slaughter sheep between the hours of midnight and three in the morning.
Dogs can't look up.
In Montana if you see more then 5 Indians in a group you can legally shoot them until there are.
In WA state it's illegal to deflower a virgin.
I think it's Oregan, but you are not allowed to slaughter sheep between the hours of midnight and three in the morning.
Dogs can't look up.
And 53 percent of Unicorns have no feeling to this one way or another.Pulse Reality said:
Damn... I like New Mexico now!IdealistCommi said:
The big difference here is that the rule of thumb article has citations, and most examples of page vandalism, like you describe, are changed back almost instantly. I hope you didn't actually change the page, because that would be just rude. In fact, it appears that Wikipedia is about as reliable as most any other non-primary source. Books are also wrong all the time, as well as history teachers. In fact, those 2 sources have less oversight. So far, in terms of how trustworthy the sources are, Wikipedia's winning by a long shot. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the wife beating hypothesis is completely and utterly wrong, with such emphasis on surety, but the Wikipedia article is definitely the best argument so far.muckinscavitch said:
That is a wrong fact. Bronze weapons did infact have very sharp edges. They also kept their edges for far longer than iron weapons. They were harder to reforge when they had taken too much damage though and so were phased out by iron weapons which could easily be hammered back into shape and resharpened.sms_117b said:
If a smith tried to hammer a bronze sword back into shape they would often snap as they were too brittle to stand up to it.
Here endeth the lesson.
On Slavery
Slavery in America started with white people. Indentured servitude at the founding of the colonies was the practice of a land owner/tradesman paying for the expenses of someone to come to america and then the room and board for the next 7ish years in exchange for that individual to work for them and learn that trade. As it became clear to plantation owners that they could make more money off of these indentured servants (usually from europe) by extending their term of service, they began to plot against them. The land owners would frame the individual for some petty crime such as theft on the plantation. Then, they would take the accused to a tribunal made up of the other land owners in the area who were doing the same things. Thus a mans' term could be extended indefinitely. How this came to be a white on black oppression is that some of the indentured servants at the time were africans. And while it's all good and well to oppress anyone, we prefer to keep our slaves mute. When a man you are enslaving is from your country, looks like you, or speaks a language you know, it is much harder not to identify with him. But, if your slave has a completely different appearance than you and doesn't speak a language you have knowledge of, you can justify making him your subservient much easier. Thus, over time slavery became a strictly black-man only occupation. The great folly of slavery in a economic society is this. When you buy a slave for 1000 dollars, but you only need to pay an unskilled laborer about .50 cents a week. It would take that man 2000 weeks to work up to 1000 dollars. That's just over 38 years, you could fire him when he starts getting old, and you'll always have a youthful/more productive workforce at a lesser cost than owning a man and having to feed/clothe/and shelter him. Plus, if one of your unskilled workers dies during a project, you don't even have to pay him that day. Slavery just doesn't make sense in an economic society.
On Sabotage
Dutch workers who were afraid that automated textile machinery would end the need for human labor threw their wooden shoes, called 'sabots', into the wooden cogs of the machines, destroying them. Thus the word, sabotage.
Sorry about the rant. I'm a historian, what can I say?
Slavery in America started with white people. Indentured servitude at the founding of the colonies was the practice of a land owner/tradesman paying for the expenses of someone to come to america and then the room and board for the next 7ish years in exchange for that individual to work for them and learn that trade. As it became clear to plantation owners that they could make more money off of these indentured servants (usually from europe) by extending their term of service, they began to plot against them. The land owners would frame the individual for some petty crime such as theft on the plantation. Then, they would take the accused to a tribunal made up of the other land owners in the area who were doing the same things. Thus a mans' term could be extended indefinitely. How this came to be a white on black oppression is that some of the indentured servants at the time were africans. And while it's all good and well to oppress anyone, we prefer to keep our slaves mute. When a man you are enslaving is from your country, looks like you, or speaks a language you know, it is much harder not to identify with him. But, if your slave has a completely different appearance than you and doesn't speak a language you have knowledge of, you can justify making him your subservient much easier. Thus, over time slavery became a strictly black-man only occupation. The great folly of slavery in a economic society is this. When you buy a slave for 1000 dollars, but you only need to pay an unskilled laborer about .50 cents a week. It would take that man 2000 weeks to work up to 1000 dollars. That's just over 38 years, you could fire him when he starts getting old, and you'll always have a youthful/more productive workforce at a lesser cost than owning a man and having to feed/clothe/and shelter him. Plus, if one of your unskilled workers dies during a project, you don't even have to pay him that day. Slavery just doesn't make sense in an economic society.
On Sabotage
Dutch workers who were afraid that automated textile machinery would end the need for human labor threw their wooden shoes, called 'sabots', into the wooden cogs of the machines, destroying them. Thus the word, sabotage.
Sorry about the rant. I'm a historian, what can I say?
No, I obviously didn't change the page. I do agree that wikipedia is accurate for the most part, but it is always best to quote their source, and not them themselves.Xanadu84 said:
But is he more credible than: a b c 28env - J.Straton - North Carolina.Violence women,TK421 said:
Safire, William, Uncertain Terms, p. 189
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/rule-of-thumb.html
and http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2550/does-rule-of-thumb-refer-to-an-old-law-permitting-wife-beating
My geography teacher told me melting ice caps could not raise the sea level because they are floating. Completely ignoring all the land-based ice. Teachers are fallible. Until you get out of high school they're down right uneducated half the time.
Wow, count me as one of the 35%. I tried immediately after reading the first sentence.lissn said:
Yeah, that's actually not true. People seem to have it in their heads that Wikipedia is this fun, whimsical place where stuff can just be 'made up'. It's peer reviewed and original or dubious research is removed.TK421 said:
Your history teacher may be more credible than the internet, but he's less credible than either Jack Stranton of the University of Portland or noted Dr Christina Hoff Sommers of more scholastic boards and universities than I care to state. Both those people's works are credited (veritably) as the source of the refutation you so casually dismiss.
It sounds like your history teacher has a touch of the old "hyperfeministitis".
