Both. In addition, neither are relevant to my point.
What I wanted to say is; if I had to choose between personally conducting Gay Prison Rape and Torture I would always choose the latter.
1 Like
what if it was personal matter
a man tortures your brother: would you consider you yourself gay torturing him back?
the concept of limited and gentlemanly warfare did develop in the high medieval era with knights and nobles and came into mass use with professional armies later after the renaissance. it's true that most didn't view opponents below them as deserving of respect only equals were to be treated well. that is likely because your equals had a good shot at defeating you and you being in the shoes of the prisoners. prior to all this war was slaughter where 90% of the casualties took place after the battle proper running down fleeing enemies and butchering trapped combatants. ransoms or releases were very rare
The concept would never cross my mind if not for this thread.
Have you guys seen this?
1 Like
this is john rawls level original position idiocy
prisoners dillemma is solved via:
A) retribution
B) continued iterated games where the game's ending point is completely unknown.
1 Like
this isn't prisoners dilemma
the "elimination of mass slaughter" and "prisoners rights" are likely due to the solidification of actual states.
no, it prettty much is.
in some ways yes in some ways no you're really dumb.
classical armies were often backed by larger, more centralized states than high or late middle eras
Why would anyone know this stuff?
i have a degree and i still don't know
1 Like
Oh I didn't realize you were a professional in this matter - nevermind then. It makes a lot more sense now.
the "strength" of states is "strength" insofar that wiping out another state becomes much harder.
i mean i don't get paid by anyone currently for it but i do have a degree. dunno if you can call that professional
1 Like