Originally posted by dadudemon
K.But that's not really a counter the REAL point being discussed. You can argue semantics in another thread, if you'd like. No one here is saying that "every last Viking was a raider and every last Viking strove to die in battle." It should be quite obvious that the context of this discussion is ALL relative to other medieval cultures, specifically to the western European peoples.
The point is you are making sweeping generalisations. Take what you said earlier
Originally posted by dadudemon
What about the Vikings who were basically the terrors of anything and anyone they wanted?
Its like saying "what about muslims don't they basically like to blow things up?" See the problem with that statement?
Originally posted by dadudemon
K. But I'm not.I've already posted what I posted. Just read it again and you will see what I said is correct.
Here, I'll save you time:
Again the problem is you are generalising.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There's also the fact that dying in battle was the only way to get taken to Valhalla.:
That is blantantly incorrect. You basically went to Valhalla because you worshipped Odin not because you died in battle. This is what I mean, its true that you could go to Valhalla if you died in battle buts its incorrect that it was the only way to get there. Also if you died in battle who you worshipped determined where you went, for example if you worshipped Thor you would go to Thrudrheim.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And, I'm quite certain that the Vikings did much more raiding, per capita, than other concurrent European cultures. The idea that since "others did it too" is a counter point to the Vikings NOT being relatively active raiders is wrong.
Serioulsy and how are you going to go about proving that, for example take a look at Anglo-Saxon history when the Danes werent invading England the Anglo-Saxons were killing each other or fighting other people. Also I mentioned other Christians who terrorized the Vikings and forced them to accept Christainity.
If you want to prove they were more violent than anybody else you have to take the whole Viking Era, the bottomline is there were times when the Vikings would terrorise people and there were times when they were terrorised. There are also examples of lots of Christian persecution. You do know thats how their religon died out right?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't deny that. However, placing the popularity of "Vikings are badass warriors who can't be stopped" simply in the hands of people who didn't like them isn't entirely accurate, though they almost certainly originated it. The Viking raiders wanted that reputation just pirates and ninjas and such did.
Guess im not arguing against that really.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
The point is you are making sweeping generalisations. Take what you said earlierIts like saying "what about muslims don't they basically like to blow things up?" See the problem with that statement?
🤨
1. It was more of a joke to Lil B than a serious comment. It should have remained as just that: a joke. You turned things into serious business.
2. Those two analogies are no where to being close.
3. Nothing you've said, posted, etc. has actually contradicted me. You've been arguing semantics the whole time instead of he actual points.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Again the problem is you are generalising.
No, the problem is your understanding. That's it.
No where was it stated or implied that Vikings, in all of history(including just their own), were the most blood thirsty examples of a Western European peoples
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
That is blantantly incorrect.
Wow. Obviously, you know very little about Norse culture and history. You've proven that multiple times now.
Here comes teh pwnage.
"Valhalla is the great hall of the Einherjar - the heroic dead. Warriors who died in glorious battle were chosen by Odin to wait in Valhalla until Ragnarok.
The large structure, built by Odin himself in Asgard, had over five hundred doors, each large enough for eight hundred warriors to march out of at the time of Ragnarok so that they could fight the futile battle with the gods.
Valhalla was the heaven of the Vikings - a large hall where wounds healed quickly and meat was readily available."
http://www.ancient-mythology.com/norse/valhalla.php
"In Valhalla, the dead join the masses of those who have died in combat known as Einherjar, as well as various legendary Germanic heroes and kings, as they prepare to aid Odin during the events of Ragnarök. Before the hall stands the golden tree Glasir, and the hall's ceiling is thatched with golden shields."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
You basically went to Valhalla because you worshipped Odin not because you died in battle.
Well, we definitely know this is wrong. This is 100% incorrect, on multiple levels.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
This is what I mean, its true that you could go to Valhalla if you died in battle buts its incorrect that it was the only way to get there.
No. That's the only way. You don't know what you're talking about.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Also if you died in battle who you worshipped determined where you went, for example if you worshipped Thor you would go to Thrudrheim.
It's spelled "Thrudheim."
And the fact you said "worshipped" speaks volumes of your ignorance of Nordic culture. And, no, it doesn't matter which god you liked, it mattered which god liked YOU.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Serioulsy and how are you going to go about proving that, for example take a look at Anglo-Saxon history when the Danes werent invading England the Anglo-Saxons were killing each other or fighting other people. Also I mentioned other Christians who terrorized the Vikings and forced them to accept Christainity.
If you can prove with a credible source that there was another people that were more battle hardened and warrior-like, in Western Europe, I admit that this particular, unrelated to my actual point, point is wrong.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
If you want to prove they were more violent than anybody else you have to take the whole Viking Era,
No I don't. Just the time frame that they were the most violent in and compare it to the other peoples in Western Europe. That's it. That's all I'd have to do.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
the bottomline is there were times when the Vikings would terrorise people and there were times when they were terrorised. There are also examples of lots of Christian persecution. You do know thats how their religon died out right?
1. Their religion never died out. It survived in various forms until today. And today, it's seeing a revival.
2. You're only furthering my actual point of "violent Western Europeans."
I assume you were just bored and wanting to talk about something? Me too.
Originally posted by dadudemon
🤨1. It was more of a joke to Lil B than a serious comment. It should have remained as just that: a joke. You turned things into serious business.
2. Those two analogies are no where to being close.
3. Nothing you've said, posted, etc. has actually contradicted me. You've been arguing semantics the whole time instead of he actual points.
No, the problem is your understanding. That's it.
No where was it stated or implied that Vikings, in all of history(including just their own), were the most blood thirsty examples of a Western European peoples
Wow. Obviously, you know very little about Norse culture and history. You've proven that multiple times now.
Here comes teh pwnage.
"Valhalla is the great hall of the Einherjar - the heroic dead. Warriors who died in glorious battle were chosen by Odin to wait in Valhalla until Ragnarok.
The large structure, built by Odin himself in Asgard, had over five hundred doors, each large enough for eight hundred warriors to march out of at the time of Ragnarok so that they could fight the futile battle with the gods.
Valhalla was the heaven of the Vikings - a large hall where wounds healed quickly and meat was readily available."
http://www.ancient-mythology.com/norse/valhalla.php
"In Valhalla, the dead join the masses of those who have died in combat known as Einherjar, as well as various legendary Germanic heroes and kings, as they prepare to aid Odin during the events of Ragnarök. Before the hall stands the golden tree Glasir, and the hall's ceiling is thatched with golden shields."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla
Well, we definitely know this is wrong. This is 100% incorrect, on multiple levels.
No. That's the only way. You don't know what you're talking about.
It's spelled "Thrudheim."
And the fact you said "worshipped" speaks volumes of your ignorance of Nordic culture. And, no, it doesn't matter which god you liked, it mattered which god liked YOU.
If you can prove with a credible source that there was another people that were more battle hardened and warrior-like, in Western Europe, I admit that this particular, unrelated to my actual point, point is wrong.
No I don't. Just the time frame that they were the most violent in and compare it to the other peoples in Western Europe. That's it. That's all I'd have to do.
1. Their religion never died out. It survived in various forms until today. And today, it's seeing a revival.
2. You're only furthering my actual point of "violent Western Europeans."
I assume you were just bored and wanting to talk about something? Me too.
It is becoming clear engaging in a discussion with you is going to be a waste of time. Im going to help you with some sources that may help educate you and elaborate on some points.
First of all read this and educate yourself. This gives you alot of information on the afterlife in Norse culture and also talks about Valhalla. The chapter conception of the future life and realm of the gods will be useful
http://www.runewebvitki.com/Road_To_Hel.pdf
I will concede on a couple of points. When I stated that who you worshipped basically determined where you went when you died this is not entirely accurate and it depends. If we look at some of the Norse Sagas when some people died they would end up in the Mountains or would go to Hel. However nowhere days most heathens tend to believe that you go to the realm of your god and some people believed this during the Viking age.
Thrudrheim is actually spelt Thrudheim but naturally you managed to focus on one of the minor points when the real point is that people that worshipped Thor who died in battle went to him and not Valhalla. It mentions this in the Road to Hel and The Lay of Harbard.
Your contradicting yourself and nitpicking. I also have a strong feeling your are lying and changing your argument. Im not going to engage in further debate with you because I can see your looking for an argument.
I also find it interesting that you want to educate me about modern heathenism. If you were actually paying attention you would know that I have discussed this topic already. Also its fairly common knowledge for most modern heathens that dying in battle was not the only way to go to Valhalla. Don't believe me go to a heathen forum and make a fool of yourself.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Apparantly, African American imprisonement cannot be blamed on white racism
No? Then why are conviction rates dispropotionately higher for Blacks than they are for Whites in this country.
The racism is apparent with the correlation that exists inbetween that and that the fact that most criminal court judges are old white conservative men or w.a.s.p.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
No? Then why are conviction rates dispropotionately higher for Blacks than they are for Whites in this country.The racism is apparent with the correlation that exists inbetween that and that the fact that most criminal court judges are old white conservative men or w.a.s.p.
There maybe be a racial-prejudice issue in regards to which punishments are dealt out, maybe.
But blacks do commit more crimes than any other color in the US, population/percentage-wise, this is just a fact.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
No? Then why are conviction rates dispropotionately higher for Blacks than they are for Whites in this country.The racism is apparent with the correlation that exists inbetween that and that the fact that most criminal court judges are old white conservative men or w.a.s.p.
Do we have any proof that these old white judges are racist?
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
It is becoming clear engaging in a discussion with you is going to be a waste of time. Im going to help you with some sources that may help educate you and elaborate on some points.
Indeed. When you don’t know anything and make off the wall claims, it’s rather difficult for you to make legitimate points, especially if your points can be directly contradicted by an outside source.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
First of all read this and educate yourself. This gives you alot of information on the afterlife in Norse culture and also talks about Valhalla. The chapter conception of the future life and realm of the gods will be useful
You, sir, were the one in need of an education. I posted those sources to you. Now you have the audacity to pretend that I need to “educate” myself when you made atrocious statements, most of your facts being incorrect, and demonstrated your very broad lack of insight into Viking and Noridc culture.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I will concede on a couple of points. When I stated that who you worshipped basically determined where you went when you died this is not entirely accurate and it depends. If we look at some of the Norse Sagas when some people died they would end up in the Mountains or would go to Hel. However nowhere days most heathens tend to believe that you go to the realm of your god and some people believed this during the Viking age.
Just, stop, dude. Every last point I countered was wrong, on some level. It wasn’t just 2 points.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Thrudrheim is actually spelt Thrudheim but naturally you managed to focus on one of the minor points when the real point is that people that worshipped Thor who died in battle went to him and not Valhalla. It mentions this in the Road to Hel and The Lay of Harbard.
When you try to pontificate, make sure you know how to spell those words. That was really my only point. Normally, I couldn’t care less about proper spelling.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Your contradicting yourself and nitpicking. .
You see, I’m not contradicting myself. At all. You can’t pretend that I am. I nitpicked only on one point: the spelling. You’re avoiding all of my other points and focusing on an almost completely non-issue. (I corrected your spelling as a passive aggressive way of showing you that you’re even ignorant on the English spellings.)
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I also have a strong feeling your are lying and changing your argument.
You have a strong feeling that I’m lying…..about….points I’ve backed up with credible sources? 🤨
And, I’m “changing” my argument by pointing out how you’ve gotten off track from my original point? facepalm
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Im not going to engage in further debate with you because I can see your looking for an argument.
No, you’re not going to debate further because with each post you make, you dig yourself deeper and deeper into a whole and show how really ignorant you are.
And, it was YOU who decided to nitpick a post that was a joke. On top of that, in the process, you only furthered my ACTUAL point of Western European violence.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I also find it interesting that you want to educate me about modern heathenism.
I find it very interesting that that is not something I did or tried to accomplish at all. Odd that you would assume that or even come to this conclusion. This is yet another example of your extremely weird almost Czarina like posts. How the hell did you come to such an off the wall unrelated conclusion? Simply ridiculous.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
If you were actually paying attention you would know that I have discussed this topic already.
facepalm
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Also its fairly common knowledge for most modern heathens that dying in battle was not the only way to go to Valhalla.
You do know that they would be wrong, don’t you? (If they are thinking of medieval heathens.)
Are you even aware of the logical fallacy your above statement can make?
Lemme put it this way: just because I’m a Mormon doesn’t mean I know every historical point or gospel truth held by my religion.
If you meet a heathen or talk to a heathen that thinks their medieval predecessors can get into Valhalla any other way, other than dying honorably in battle, they’re wrong. The whole POINT of Valhalla is for Odin to collect the best warriors for the battle at Ragnorak.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Don't believe me go to a heathen forum and make a fool of yourself.
Oh, I believe you that there are some coffee shop Heathens out there. That should be obvious. Considering my sources contradict that, history contradicts that, and the poems contradict that, they can STFU with their ignorance too.
Now, why don’t you ACTUALLY address my counter points instead of making a text wall strawman argument, Hmm?
Address the points in which you were made a fool out of, please:
Originally posted by dadudemon
3. Nothing you've said, posted, etc. has actually contradicted me. You've been arguing semantics the whole time instead of he actual points.No where was it stated or implied that Vikings, in all of history(including just their own), were the most blood thirsty examples of a Western European peoples
"Valhalla is the great hall of the Einherjar - the heroic dead. Warriors who died in glorious battle were chosen by Odin to wait in Valhalla until Ragnarok.
The large structure, built by Odin himself in Asgard, had over five hundred doors, each large enough for eight hundred warriors to march out of at the time of Ragnarok so that they could fight the futile battle with the gods.
Valhalla was the heaven of the Vikings - a large hall where wounds healed quickly and meat was readily available."
http://www.ancient-mythology.com/norse/valhalla.php
"In Valhalla, the dead join the masses of those who have died in combat known as Einherjar, as well as various legendary Germanic heroes and kings, as they prepare to aid Odin during the events of Ragnarök. Before the hall stands the golden tree Glasir, and the hall's ceiling is thatched with golden shields."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valhalla
Well, we definitely know this is wrong. This is 100% incorrect, on multiple levels.
And the fact you said "worshipped" speaks volumes of your ignorance of Nordic culture. And, no, it doesn't matter which god you liked, it mattered which god liked YOU.
If you can prove with a credible source that there was another people that were more battle hardened and warrior-like, in Western Europe, I admit that this particular, unrelated to my actual point, point is wrong.
No I don't. Just the time frame that they were the most violent in and compare it to the other peoples in Western Europe. That's it. That's all I'd have to do.
1. Their religion never died out. It survived in various forms until today. And today, it's seeing a revival.
2. You're only furthering my actual point of "violent Western Europeans."
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
No? Then why are conviction rates dispropotionately higher for Blacks than they are for Whites in this country.The racism is apparent with the correlation that exists inbetween that and that the fact that most criminal court judges are old white conservative men or w.a.s.p.
Nice try. Why don't you capture the rest of the post instead of misrepresenting me?
Originally posted by dadudemon
African American crime and imprisonement cannot be blamed on white racism or racial profiling. (It can, but only slightly when normalized with other heavily sub-saraha african groups.
Originally posted by Robtard
There maybe be a racial-prejudice issue in regards to which punishments are dealt out, maybe.But blacks do commit more crimes than any other color in the US, population/percentage-wise, this is just a fact.
So what that still doesn't explain disproportionate conviction rates. Per capita has nothing to do with it.
There's a pretty good chance that 5 regular Black men will get far more time for commiting the same exact crime some 5 other regular White men would commit.
this is just a fact.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
So what that still doesn't explain disproportionate conviction rates. Per capita has nothing to do with it.
Did you read that PDF I posted that talks about just that? I even posted the reason for it as well. Go back over my posts and your questsion will be answered and THEN some.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
There's a pretty good chance that 5 regular Black men will get far more time for commiting the same exact crime some 5 other regular White men would commit.this is just a fact.
Really? I was under the impression that it was due to them comitting 3 times the amount of crime, per person, compared to their asian counterparts.
We whites are just trying to keep the black man down. I purposely go to the Montopolis area of Austin just so I can get robbed and thus add to the number of reports of black people commiting crimes. The plan's working perfectly, because it's one of the highest crime areas in the city, besides Riverside, muahaha!!!
Originally posted by Robtard
The answer to racism
I don't think so. See 0:06, they're trying to create a connection between black people and monkeys. Remember, everything is racist.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. When you don’t know anything and make off the wall claims, it’s rather difficult for you to make legitimate points, especially if your points can be directly contradicted by an outside source.You, sir, were the one in need of an education. I posted those sources to you. Now you have the audacity to pretend that I need to “educate” myself when you made atrocious statements, most of your facts being incorrect, and demonstrated your very broad lack of insight into Viking and Noridc culture.
Just, stop, dude. Every last point I countered was wrong, on some level. It wasn’t just 2 points.
When you try to pontificate, make sure you know how to spell those words. That was really my only point. Normally, I couldn’t care less about proper spelling.
You see, I’m not contradicting myself. At all. You can’t pretend that I am. I nitpicked only on one point: the spelling. You’re avoiding all of my other points and focusing on an almost completely non-issue. (I corrected your spelling as a passive aggressive way of showing you that you’re even ignorant on the English spellings.)
You have a strong feeling that I’m lying…..about….points I’ve backed up with credible sources? 🤨
And, I’m “changing” my argument by pointing out how you’ve gotten off track from my original point? facepalm
No, you’re not going to debate further because with each post you make, you dig yourself deeper and deeper into a whole and show how really ignorant you are.
And, it was YOU who decided to nitpick a post that was a joke. On top of that, in the process, you only furthered my ACTUAL point of Western European violence.
I find it very interesting that that is not something I did or tried to accomplish at all. Odd that you would assume that or even come to this conclusion. This is yet another example of your extremely weird almost Czarina like posts. How the hell did you come to such an off the wall unrelated conclusion? Simply ridiculous.
facepalm
You do know that they would be wrong, don’t you? (If they are thinking of medieval heathens.)
Are you even aware of the logical fallacy your above statement can make?
Lemme put it this way: just because I’m a Mormon doesn’t mean I know every historical point or gospel truth held by my religion.
If you meet a heathen or talk to a heathen that thinks their medieval predecessors can get into Valhalla any other way, other than dying honorably in battle, they’re wrong. The whole POINT of Valhalla is for Odin to collect the best warriors for the battle at Ragnorak.
Oh, I believe you that there are some coffee shop Heathens out there. That should be obvious. Considering my sources contradict that, history contradicts that, and the poems contradict that, they can STFU with their ignorance too.
Now, why don’t you ACTUALLY address my counter points instead of making a text wall strawman argument, Hmm?
Address the points in which you were made a fool out of, please:
Just read the PDF I even showed what chapters to read. So far you haven't demonstrated the ability to be objective so getting into a debate with you is a complete and utter waste of time. Maybe if you can read the PDF and be man enough to admit your wrong i'll think about it.
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Just read the PDF I even showed what chapters to read. So far you haven't demonstrated the ability to be objective so getting into a debate with you is a complete and utter waste of time. Maybe if you can read the PDF and be man enough to admit your wrong i'll think about it.
There's no need for me to read the .pdf as I didn't contradict myself with anything factual. Even my stating that the Vikings raped and pillaged as accurate. They did some raping and some pillaging. Quite a bit of if, too. If you wanted to say that other Western European cultures did it too, that's fine. It only furthered my semi-serious point that Western Europeans were violent at times, as well.
Originally posted by dadudemon
There's no need for me to read the .pdf as I didn't contradict myself with anything factual.
Yes there is you got your facts wrong. Concerning dying in battle is the only way to get to Valhalla.
http://www.runewebvitki.com/Road_To_Hel.pdf
In one of the later sagas, Gautreks Saga, we have a fantastic opening chapter dealing with an absurd family of misers who sacrifice themselves to Othin on the slightest provocation, and their way of reaching Valhöll is to hurl themselves over a cliff.
Another quote from the book
Valhöll which was not merely a paradise for warriors who fell in battle. We have the same note of fierce joy and certainty in the Krákumál,1 the death-song of Ragnarr Loðbrók:
It gladdens me ever to know that Balder’s father makes ready the benches for a banquet. Soon we shall be drinking the ale from the curved horns. The champion who comes to Fjölnir’s dwelling does not lament his death. I shall not come into Viðrir’s hall with words of fear on my lips (V, 25).
The Æsir will welcome me; death comes without lamenting..
I am eager to depart. The dísir summon me home, they whom Othin has sent to me from the halls of the Lord of hosts. Gladly shall I drink ale in the high-seat with the Æsir. The days of my life are ended. I die with a laugh (v, 29).
Ragnarr, it will be remembered, did not according to tradition die in battle. The poem itself as well as the saga states that he was killed by snakes at the command of Ella of Northumberland. This sounds like some kind of sacrificial death, and if so, this would explain Ragnarr’s firm conviction that he would be received by Othin, and would be in accordance with other passages dealing with human sacrifice which we have noticed.
Concerning who you worshipped indicated where you went...
In Hárbarðsljóð (v. 24) the adversary of Thor, about whose identity there is no complete agreement, taunts him by the remark that Othin has the jarls who fall among the slain, but Thor the race of thralls.
This clearly states that the jarls (nobleman) went to Odin and the thralls (common people) went to Thor. Oh it was also common for noblemen to worship Odin and the common people to worship Thor in Norway where this poem is probably from. So this is an indication of who you worship affecting where you went when you died.
Here is an intepretation of this poem on another website
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/rune/399/harbard.html#top
Odin and Thórr confront each other in a flyting (war of insults) and a mannjafnaðr (a matching of men against one another with respect to accomplishments and prowess). Óðinn (Harbarð) seems to stand for the nobility, and Thórr for the yeomanry in this contest of eloquenceand wits. The author favours Óðinn, obviously, as Thórr is made to look a bit slow and foolish matching wits with the suave, locquacious and bitterly ironic God of Wisdom. The poem probably is an expression of the conflicts between the nobility and the yeomanry in Norway at this time, as similar conflicts did not exist in Iceland. The Poet, certainly, was retained by a nobleman.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Even my stating that the Vikings raped and pillaged as accurate. They did some raping and some pillaging. Quite a bit of if, too.
Not the point you were generalising.
Originally posted by dadudemon
If you wanted to say that other Western European cultures did it too, that's fine. It only furthered my semi-serious point that Western Europeans were violent at times, as well.
Well thats a lie your first post was this.
Originally posted by dadudemon
What about the Vikings who were basically the terrors of anything and anyone they wanted?
You were talking about The Vikings not Western Europeans in general your just saying that now because you can't prove that the Vikings were more violent.
When asked about this statement you then provided a massive list of links to prove your case. I don't know about you but when im not making a serious point I bend over backwards to try and prove it.
Your also a hypocrite you accuse me of engaging in semantics and making a big deal about me using the word worship.
Hell you even stated you didn't know about everybody else. How can you being arguing about everybody else (other western europeans)when you don't know about them? In the quote im posting you also implied that it was their culture to raid and therefore implying they were more violent (than other western europeans).
Originally posted by dadudemonEdit - Don't know a response to "everyone else" other than it being a large part of their culture to raid. I don't read about that from other peoples in western Europe. I read about political things.