And what did you read?
I've read a lot of the source material available on the Crusades (Chronicles written by eye-witnesses) for example, and while some of their numbers might be exeggerated, you may want to consider the greater picture.The Crusades started in 1095 with the last Crusader hold (Akkon) being lost in 1296. So you have two centuries filled with conquest, oppression and re-conquest of a significant territory in the "Holy Land" with additional "Crusades" happening within Europe to bring down "heretics" and "heathens" (even to the 15th century). If you devide the number of 20 million deaths through the time-span of 200 years, you end up with an average of 100,000 deaths per year.
Does that seem so high to you? The source material written by Christian chronists speaks of entire cities being littered with bodys, of indiscriminate slaughter happening in the conquered cities, often wiping the entire population out (as apparently happened in Jerusalem). You may want to take a look at Fulcher of Chartres "Historia Hierosolymitana", Radulf of Caens "Gesta Tancredi In Expeditione Hierosolymitana" or Albert of Aachens "Historia Hierosolymitanae Expeditionis". Radulf's account of what happened during the conquest of the city Ma'arrat al-Numan alone is disturbing enough.
Nai, I have 11 books in my bookshelf detailing the Crusades. I spent about 10 minutes per book yesterday (almost 2 hours I could have been gaming, watching porn, doing wife things, etc), and the ones that give a number range from 200,000 to 2.5m. Keep in mind that this encompassed ALL the Crusades, including the People's Crusade and Albigensian Crusade. I don't even see a figure of 3 million honestly, so you'll excuse me if I have doubts about your 60-80million figure. Honestly, that's like saying 300 Spartans fought a Persian Army of 1,000,000 strong.Now I understand where you're going with 100,000 deaths a year, but aside from cities like Constantinople, Jerusalem, and I believe a city in Egypt, nobody else even had a population of 100,000 people so 100,000 deaths a year seems incredibly inflated unless you're telling me that the Crusades went from 1095 to 1291 (Siege of Acre), or even Akkon, 365 days a year. That is the only way your numbers could even come close (and maybe half of what you wrote). But we both know the
Crusades didn't occur 365 days a year. So..
I wonder where you got the idea from that Hitler "slaughtered" Catholics. Ever heard the term "Reichskonkordat"? The Catholic Church was protected via contract, because Hitler didn't want any open conflict with the Church, even though he may not have liked it, because of what he perceived as jewish influence. Sure, there were prominent Catholic victims (Alfred Delp, Maximilian Kolbe) but I'd consider that far from "slaughter" - especially compared to the Holocaust. And even the Holocaust wasn't directed against a Religion - not from Hitlers point of view at least. It was an action taken against a what he viewed as a "lesser race" of human beings.
If you don't want to argue intent, you would need to attribute every single killing commited by a religious person / organisation to the "religious" side of the equation. How can you even think, that the "secular" side would come out on top of that?
What do you think happened during the "conquest of America"? The Europeans invaded the country, more often than not using violence against whatever natives they met. Those were - by virtue of lacking a "real" culture - seen as lesser humans. Result? There was Chistianisation (which sometimes took the form of "get christened or get killed"😉, getting sold into slavery (if one managed to survive the travel to Europe), getting raped, getting killed for entertainment purpose or - in some cases that ended in a rather catastrophic pandemia - being gifted with pox infected cloths.
If you want to make a comparison between "religious" and "non-religious" killings in the way you define them then any murder commited by a Christian/Muslim/Jew/EnterSystemOfBeliefHere - regardless of intent or motivation - is "religious" - and that are by far more than those architected and overseen by "atheists" by virtue of "people with a religious mindset" dwarving the opposite group.So, obviously, that doesn't work. If one takes the number of murders justified through either religious or secular reasons, the amount of the former would still dwarf the latter, by virtue of mass of them over the span of time. /quote]
Prove it Nai, the numbers don't work in your favor.[quote]ust one of the prime examples dealing with "religious" wars as example: The Thirty Years' War reduced the population that lived within the boarders of what would have counted as "Germany" by 20-45 percent starting at 15-17 millions. So that conflict alone left 3 to 6,8 million "Germans" dead, not even talking about the foreign fighting forces that mainly used Germany as battlefield. Now just imagine every atrocity commited in the name of Christianity since it became state religion in Rome (in the year 315) to this very day, then add the same for the Muslims (with the early years of the Islam being pretty much constant war). Then throw in all other systems of belief in. /quote]
Again, the burden of proof is on you.You have deaths committed in the name of God, you have deaths committed against those who believe in God, you have deaths committed by those that oppose religion, etc..
[quote]Most probably, the entirety of the European population in the time frame in question was between 40 and 50 million people. But that does mean that - at any given point in time - the was the average population. Those people didn't live of the time frame of two centuries.
he 20 million would have been killed over a time span of 200 years, which is an average of 100,000 persons per year, which includes people killed in battles, killed through oppresive rule of conquerers, died on the trip or were killed by problems caused by the Crusades (starvation, sickness etc.)
I'm not trying to mislead you, but attempting to show you, that you're comparing apples to oranges. Not every muder commited by an "atheist" is a "secular murder", much as not every killing done by a "religious person" is a "religious murder". Hence I stated, that attempting to compare those based on "body count" is something I really wouldn't do. Especially, when even if somebody could assume a "religious" motive (e.g. Crusades) the underlying causes may be entirely different (e.g. amassing of wealth / power by conquering new land). /quote]You're missing my point. My argument was a response to those who condemn religion on the basis of the Crusades. Those people are usually secularists, or athiests, or both. I just show them one secularist/athiest who committed infinitely more atrocities than religion ever could, to prove that it has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with humans.
[quote]P.S.: Hummels rocks and Brazil versus Columbia was one of the best matches I saw in the World Cup so far (at least the first half).
Brazil and Colombia reminded me of a "real housewives" show. 90 minutes of bitches flopping. Columbia got robbed of a goal that didn't come close to being offsides, so it should have been 2-2. Brazil at full strength are no match for Germany. Add to the fact that Silva is out of the next game and Neymar's unfortunate injury (and cowardly play by the Colombian player), and Brazil is going to get rocked. But this is good for them because now they have no expectations of winning, and therefore no pressure. They honestly aren't a good team. They keep getting by with the home crowd and dubious calls.
I think all the debate on how many people died during the crusades is missing the point. The crusades were NOT acceptable. They were, however, 500 years ago, while the deaths im talking about are iccurring today. We cant do much about the crusades today, but we could do something about religious deaths today. You cant use the crusades to justify current carnage, thats crazy.
I would say that the reason why the Crusades is applicable is because it represents that A) Christianity was at one point at least as violent as modern day Islam has the potential to be (I emphasize potential because, again, the segment of Muslims whom are violent are an extreme minority), and B) Christianity has had centuries to evolve as a Religion and a Culture, while Islam had been denied that opportunity. The West has never had the burden of being destabilized for hundreds of years by other countries so that they may exploit our natural resources and manpower. Muslims weren't giving us guns and telling us to kill those other Christians over there in the name of Christ, while enslaving our people, taking our oil and diamonds and assassinating or encouraging the coups of any leaders who didn't sip their kool-aid.
Point being, Africa collectively is an extremely harsh region in which the inhospitable nature of it serves as a powder-keg for territorial disputes and wars over resources. That the West has actively worked to destabilize and exploit the region since basically forever has only compounded those problems. Christianity and Western ideals have had a thousand years to evolve to the relatively "civilized" point we're at now. Islam needs to have that same opportunity, but it never will so long as we keep sticking our fingers into their business.
Drop the White Man's burden, leave them the **** alone and let them sort out their own issues and come to their own conclusions on what it means to be apart of the Human Race. That's the only way anything constructive will ever come out of the Middle East debacle.
Ok, if you are suggesting isolationism, i can get behind that 100%, but maybe we offer asylum or something to those who live in the bloodshed and dont want to play? Im kinda caught up in the bartlett doctrine right now, but how can we possibly say we are helpless to help the innocent people in these situations?
Originally posted by truejediI don't think anyone was saying that. The comparison was a deflection from the topic, but it's core point wasn't that Islam--or radical Islam--is the problem. The problem is the humans. All these humans with all their innumerable ways of thinking and looking at things... give any relatively small number of them any idea you can think of (Islam, astrology, liberalism, the value of Pies, etc.) and you'll inevitably get some who interpret it in their own unique, strange, misled sort of way. Sometimes (often times) at the disadvantage or outright detriment to others.
Not really sure, but saying it isnt really a problem because the crusades were worse doesnt help.
Humans are the problem. Not the simple, one-track issue of religion.
Originally posted by truejedi... and insulating one group of selected humans--in an immensely globalized and inter-connected world to boot--from another, is not the way to go.
Ok, if you are suggesting isolationism, i can get behind that 100%, but maybe we offer asylum or something to those who live in the bloodshed and dont want to play? Im kinda caught up in the bartlett doctrine right now, but how can we possibly say we are helpless to help the innocent people in these situations?
Originally posted by TzeentchThis. All the this. It's not to be confused with isolationism, which is a way of shutting the world out to protect one's self. A hand's off approach to other people's internal affairs allows for those people to settle their differences in their own way--keeping them responsible for their own decisions and outcomes. A culture and generation will have greater appreciation for what they've obtained if they have independently fought for it themselves. A hard-earned victory tasting sweeter, and all that.
Drop the White Man's burden, leave them the **** alone and let them sort out their own issues and come to their own conclusions on what it means to be apart of the Human Race.
Originally posted by Lord LucienThis. All the this. It's not to be confused with isolationism, which is a way of shutting the world out to protect one's self. A hand's off approach to other people's internal affairs allows for those people to settle their differences in their own way--keeping them responsible for their own decisions and outcomes. A culture and generation will have greater appreciation for what they've obtained if they have independently fought for it themselves. A hard-earned victory tasting sweeter, and all that.
the problem here is that we then just leave how many millions to die so they can "earn appreciation of what they have" or whatnot. The millions who die didn't gain appreciation. Sure, the culture does as a whole, but your post there ignores the individual. Surely you wouldn't suggest we did the right thing in Rwanda by doing nothing, would you?
Originally posted by NemeBro
Nephthys, has your fat yet strangely attractive ass ever seen Puella Magi Madoka Magica (Best name for an anime that totally doesn't drive people away from watching it btw). It seems like the kind of shit you'd like.
Of course. It's a fantastic anime. Already a modern classic imo. I also masturbate to the characters frequently. There's some good doujinshi about the series. Some of its not even porn actually.
Originally posted by NephthysLol. Of course you've already seen it, lawl.
Of course. It's a fantastic anime. Already a modern classic imo. I also masturbate to the characters frequently. There's some good doujinshi about the series. Some of its not even porn actually.
It is pretty ****ing great so far (Finished episode 5 today). I didn't expect
Spoiler:
Mami to have her ****ing head bitten off three episodes into the series. I mean, I'd read doujins that had her together with the entire cast as friends so I figured she'd last quite a while. LOLNUP.
Yeah I've already cupped a *** and twiddled a **** to a few decent doujins of the series. I am a bit miffed that most I've read follow the trend of "All futa, no les" rule that plagues yuri doujins though. I mean I like futanari, but goddammit not all sex needs a cok.