story Story, Wednesday September 7, 2016

[banneret 45]

On 9/11/2016 at 7:08 PM, hkmaly said:

... ok funny. I see I was not clear enough. I meant that it's hard to have the kind of sex which can result in pregnancy and is therefore most likely to be mentioned on sex education class without one of partners having erection.

But not strictly impossible, since you can have ejaculation without erection.

Anyway, most sexual education courses in the United States that don't focus on abstinence stress the reproductive process, basic methods of contraception, and sexually transmitted diseases. In retrospect, it is difficult to recall very many course topics which were less sexually encouraging, outside of certain sections of history and literature.

[hkmaly 490]

2 hours ago, banneret said:

On 09/11/2016 at 4:08 AM, hkmaly said:

... ok funny. I see I was not clear enough. I meant that it's hard to have the kind of sex which can result in pregnancy and is therefore most likely to be mentioned on sex education class without one of partners having erection.

But not strictly impossible, since you can have ejaculation without erection.

Yes, and those little guys can get to the egg even if they need to travel longer distance. I used "hard" deliberately.

2 hours ago, banneret said:

Anyway, most sexual education courses in the United States that don't focus on abstinence stress the reproductive process, basic methods of contraception, and sexually transmitted diseases. In retrospect, it is difficult to recall very many course topics which were less sexually encouraging, outside of certain sections of history and literature.

Yes, that's another good point. I wouldn't be surprised if sex ed wouldn't even be the course students makes most sexual jokes in.

(Hmmm ... history ... actually, it must've took lot of work to make history as uninteresting as it is. There was so much action and sex in history ...)

[Scotty 1,061]

7 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

(Hmmm ... history ... actually, it must've took lot of work to make history as uninteresting as it is. There was so much action and sex in history ...)

Grade 5 history taught me about the Aztecs and their human sacrifices by cutting out people's still beating hearts. Sex ed was tame in comparison.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

DON'T get me started on the Aztecs.

Pyramids are for interring the honoured dead.

NOT performance art.

 

[Scotty 1,061]

5 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

DON'T get me started on the Aztecs.

Pyramids are for interring the honoured dead.

NOT performance art.

 

Gotta admit though, Eqyptian pyramids were kinda plain looking on the outside, it would have enticed grave robbers to believe the good stuff was inside.

Aztecs had the unfortunate disadvantage of their empire developing at the same time Europeans were going through their "Our god is best god" phase hardcore and the spanish conquistadors that came over to the new world weren't intimidated by the Aztec gods and scary pyramids.

[animalia 64]

38 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Gotta admit though, Eqyptian pyramids were kinda plain looking on the outside, it would have enticed grave robbers to believe the good stuff was inside.

Aztecs had the unfortunate disadvantage of their empire developing at the same time Europeans were going through their "Our god is best god" phase hardcore and the spanish conquistadors that came over to the new world weren't intimidated by the Aztec gods and scary pyramids.

Also their neighbors weren't fond of the way they captured them for human sacrifices. As a result they were only all too happy to team up with the spaniards.

[Tom Sewell 268]

1 minute ago, Scotty said:

Eqyptian pyramids were kinda plain looking on the outside

Actually not. As they were built, they were sheathed in polished limestone, which were covered with paintings. Except for the top of the Great Pyramid, the limestone sheathing was all robbed by the Arabs to build Cairo.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

1 hour ago, Tom Sewell said:

Actually not. As they were built, they were sheathed in polished limestone, which were covered with paintings. Except for the top of the Great Pyramid, the limestone sheathing was all robbed by the Arabs to build Cairo.

Cool!  I knew about the polished cover, but didn't know there were paintings in it.  Do we know *what* the paintings were?

[ijuin 572]

3 hours ago, Scotty said:

Aztecs had the unfortunate disadvantage of their empire developing at the same time Europeans were going through their "Our god is best god" phase hardcore and the spanish conquistadors that came over to the new world weren't intimidated by the Aztec gods and scary pyramids.

Also, Cortez impersonated one of their more benevolent gods, Quetzalcoatl, a major benefactor of humanity (comparable to the Olympian Apollo). The Aztecs fell for the trick, in part because their prophecies spoke of him returning that particular year and being tall, pale, arriving in a floating palace (ship), with strange beasts (horses) and hurling thunderbolts (artillery).

[The Old Hack 2,448]

13 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Also, Cortez impersonated one of their more benevolent gods, Quetzalcoatl, a major benefactor of humanity (comparable to the Olympian Apollo). The Aztecs fell for the trick, in part because their prophecies spoke of him returning that particular year and being tall, pale, arriving in a floating palace (ship), with strange beasts (horses) and hurling thunderbolts (artillery).

It also didn't hurt that he brought along an invisible army of billions of very lethal soldiers. Also known as a number of very virulent diseases that Europeans had resistance to but the local population had no defences against. The resulting epidemics wiped out unbelievable numbers of people and had an extremely demoralising effect on the Aztecs. It got so bad that they prepared their most powerful ritual in order to appease their gods. This involved the sacrifice living a year pampered as a prince and then to be publicly given to the Gods. (I believe this was referred to as 'The Ritual of the Smoking Mirror', referring to the God Tezcatlipoca.)

The sacrifice victim fell sick shortly before the ritual. When they hauled him out to be sacrificed, he quite literally fell over dead on the way to the altar. To call the resulting effect on the populace 'screaming panic' would not even BEGIN to cover it.

[hkmaly 490]

5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The resulting epidemics wiped out unbelievable numbers of people and had an extremely demoralising effect on the Aztecs. It got so bad that they prepared their most powerful ritual in order to appease their gods. This involved the sacrifice living a year pampered as a prince and then to be publicly given to the Gods. (I believe this was referred to as 'The Ritual of the Smoking Mirror', referring to the God Tezcatlipoca.)

The sacrifice victim fell sick shortly before the ritual. When they hauled him out to be sacrificed, he quite literally fell over dead on the way to the altar. To call the resulting effect on the populace 'screaming panic' would not even BEGIN to cover it.

Obviously, they should've prepared some SHORTER rituals. Wasn't something like this on evil overlord list?

[mlooney 3,417]

6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

It also didn't hurt that he brought along an invisible army of billions of very lethal soldiers. Also known as a number of very virulent diseases that Europeans had resistance to but the local population had no defences against. The resulting epidemics wiped out unbelievable numbers of people and had an extremely demoralising effect on the Aztecs. It got so bad that they prepared their most powerful ritual in order to appease their gods. This involved the sacrifice living a year pampered as a prince and then to be publicly given to the Gods. (I believe this was referred to as 'The Ritual of the Smoking Mirror', referring to the God Tezcatlipoca.)

The sacrifice victim fell sick shortly before the ritual. When they hauled him out to be sacrificed, he quite literally fell over dead on the way to the altar. To call the resulting effect on the populace 'screaming panic' would not even BEGIN to cover it.

 

44 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Obviously, they should've prepared some SHORTER rituals. Wasn't something like this on evil overlord list?

All joking aside, it was the germs from the old world, not the human invaders that allowed the European occupation of both North and South America.

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

Yup, there's growing evidence that the previous inhabitants of the Americas were far, far more numerous, sophisticated, and technological than they've been given credit for.  The travelers on the Mayflower found a deserted town and carefully managed orchards waiting for them, left behind when all but one of the inhabitants dies in a plague which had swept the coast.  Europeans remarked on how easily they could move through the forests, never considering that it was because they weren't wild places, but closer to orchards and parks.  Even Lewis and Clark found that devastating plagues had beaten them to most of the places they explored.  (The linked article is long, but worth it!)

[hkmaly 490]

3 hours ago, mlooney said:

4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Obviously, they should've prepared some SHORTER rituals. Wasn't something like this on evil overlord list?

All joking aside, it was the germs from the old world, not the human invaders that allowed the European occupation of both North and South America.

You are saying it as if the germs controlled the humans and caused them to cross the ocean.

2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Yup, there's growing evidence 

2 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

(The linked article is long, but worth it!)

I'm pretty sure that article already appeared on this server. Or was it before the Fall?

[The Old Hack 2,448]

10 hours ago, hkmaly said:

You are saying it as if the germs controlled the humans and caused them to cross the ocean.

No. Grammatically speaking, he is saying that the germs made it possible. If one insists on twisting the meaning, one might turn it into the germs giving permission, but there is nothing in that sentence that allows for the interpretation that the germs controlled anyone.

[ijuin 572]

16 hours ago, mlooney said:

All joking aside, it was the germs from the old world, not the human invaders that allowed the European occupation of both North and South America.

True, although it was his impersonation of Quetzalcoatl that allowed Cortez to march into Tenochtitlan instead of the Aztecs simply killing him and his men on sight--he had only a single company of men, against an empire with tens of thousands of soldiers/warriors. Tenochtitlan was supposedly more populous than major European cities such as Paris or London at the time of Cortez's arrival. If it had only been the germs, then Cortez would not have lived long enough to enjoy the defeat of the Aztecs--they would have killed him and then all dropped dead from disease.

15 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Yup, there's growing evidence that the previous inhabitants of the Americas were far, far more numerous, sophisticated, and technological than they've been given credit for.  The travelers on the Mayflower found a deserted town and carefully managed orchards waiting for them, left behind when all but one of the inhabitants dies in a plague which had swept the coast.  Europeans remarked on how easily they could move through the forests, never considering that it was because they weren't wild places, but closer to orchards and parks.  Even Lewis and Clark found that devastating plagues had beaten them to most of the places they explored.  (The linked article is long, but worth it!)

The native Americans mainly lacked two key things that held back their development--they had no heavy draft animals such as horses, donkeys, or oxen, and they never figured out smelting and working of iron (which takes a much higher temperature than gold or copper). They were, however, mostly pretty much as advanced as it is possible to be while still technically being in the "stone age"--especially the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas had civilizations on a par with ancient Mesopotamia or early-dynasty Egypt (back before the Upper and Lower Kingdoms were joined).

[malloyd 23]

2 hours ago, ijuin said:

True, although it was his impersonation of Quetzalcoatl that allowed Cortez to march into Tenochtitlan instead of the Aztecs simply killing him and his men on sight--he had only a single company of men, against an empire with tens of thousands of soldiers/warriors.

That's actually not true.  He had only a single company of Spaniards.  When he arrived at Tenochtitlan he also had a few thousand Cholulans and quite a lot (Diaz says 100,000, but that's probably exaggerating even for just the number of troops they had, let alone sent along) of Tlaxcalans too.  Cortes was a skilled political player, and not just in Mexico, he won most of his political battles in Cuba and back in Spain to.

 

[hkmaly 490]

7 hours ago, ijuin said:

The native Americans mainly lacked two key things that held back their development--they had no heavy draft animals such as horses, donkeys, or oxen

or elephants. Although I think the iron bit is more important.

7 hours ago, ijuin said:

hey were, however, mostly pretty much as advanced as it is possible to be while still technically being in the "stone age"--especially the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas had civilizations on a par with ancient Mesopotamia or early-dynasty Egypt (back before the Upper and Lower Kingdoms were joined).

They apparently did smelt bronze ... so, maybe bronze age?

[animalia 64]

9 hours ago, ijuin said:

They had no heavy draft animals such as horses, donkeys, or oxen, and they never figured out smelting and working of iron (which takes a much higher temperature than gold or copper). They were, however, mostly pretty much as advanced as it is possible to be while still technically being in the "stone age"--especially the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayas had civilizations on a par with ancient Mesopotamia or early-dynasty Egypt (back before the Upper and Lower Kingdoms were joined).

The lack of draft animals also contributed to the fact that they never developed the wheel*, as without draft animals to pull them there would not be much point to wheel carts. As a result many of the other things that are built on wheels never came into fruition as well.

 

*The exception to this was the Incas but due to their mountainous terrain they were mainly used in children's toy's

[Vorlonagent 442]

...sort of like China and gunpowder...

[hkmaly 490]

54 minutes ago, animalia said:

The lack of draft animals also contributed to the fact that they never developed the wheel*, as without draft animals to pull them there would not be much point to wheel carts. As a result many of the other things that are built on wheels never came into fruition as well.

Which is surprising, as wheelbarrow is useful even without animals. Although maybe without animals and in hard terrain it never looked like something worth it ...

[ijuin 572]

If the more advanced Native American cultures had possessed iron weapons and armor even comparable to that used in the Roman Republic era, they would have not been completely helpless against European weapons. As it was, they had no weapons that would penetrate European armor, and no armor of their own that was adequate to stop a musket ball or steel pike or axe. Native Americans with iron weapons and armor would likely have been conquered and ruled over (as with other colonized regions such as Southeast Asia) instead of simply exterminated.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

8 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

...sort of like China and gunpowder...

Yeah, and they didn't even invent gunpowder. It was invented in India.

More examples of that in history. Some enterprising Roman invented a steam engine. But it was extremely primitive and they lacked a lot of the technology needed to make it useful, so they never did anything with it and it was eventually forgotten. (It was also argued that steam power wasn't necessary due to the abundance of slaves available, but I am not sure I am buying that one -- a big point of the steam engine when it was actually developed industrially was that it could produce exponentially more power than muscle power could.)

10 minutes ago, ijuin said:

Native Americans with iron weapons and armor would likely have been conquered and ruled over (as with other colonized regions such as Southeast Asia) instead of simply exterminated.

The diseases mentioned above were what actually did the exterminating. Exterminating populations by hand is actually very time consuming and difficult work and is usually not worth it if you can just convince them to be ruled. Which is usually a LOT easier than convincing them to hold still for being exterminated.

[ijuin 572]

40 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

The diseases mentioned above were what actually did the exterminating. Exterminating populations by hand is actually very time consuming and difficult work and is usually not worth it if you can just convince them to be ruled. Which is usually a LOT easier than convincing them to hold still for being exterminated.

Well, my intended meaning was that with iron weapons and armor, it would be less like "shooting fish in a barrel" for Europeans to roll right over them.

[Scotty 1,061]

1 hour ago, ijuin said:

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The diseases mentioned above were what actually did the exterminating. Exterminating populations by hand is actually very time consuming and difficult work and is usually not worth it if you can just convince them to be ruled. Which is usually a LOT easier than convincing them to hold still for being exterminated.

Well, my intended meaning was that with iron weapons and armor, it would be less like "shooting fish in a barrel" for Europeans to roll right over them.

It's also possible that if the natives were found using iron, the Europeans might have considered them to be less barbaric. Like they look at a bronze age civilization and think they're too primitive that they wouldn't be able to grasp any of the more modern knowledge, but if they found an iron age civilization, it wouldn't have taken much to teach them to make steel.