innapropriate flag [Archive]

fariswheel

30 Sep 2007, 06:11

It's not like young people will die for watching a 32*32 pixel depiction of boobs... It doesn't harm anyone. It won't turn them into perverts. It won't make them kill people. It will have no effect other than maybe amusing some people.
So I don't see anything wrong with it.

Regardless, it is inappropriate. Most parents don't want there kid seeing such vulgar things in what would seem to be a game aimed at a younger audience.

MtlAngelus

30 Sep 2007, 06:26

Regardless, it is inappropriate. Most parents don't want there kid seeing such vulgar things in what would seem to be a game aimed at a younger audience.
Blah blah blah, how is it vulgar anyway?
It's a perfectly natural portion of the female anatomy.
It is inapropiate for a human to think that way. People should just get some common sense and understand that type of behaviour is incredibly stupid.

pieman280

30 Sep 2007, 14:19

Blah blah blah, how is it vulgar anyway?
It's a perfectly natural portion of the female anatomy.
It is inapropiate for a human to think that way. People should just get some common sense and understand that type of behaviour is incredibly stupid.

Lots of people think of that as aprivate area for some reason. does anyone know who made that whole private thing up because it is stupid?

MM96

30 Sep 2007, 14:50

id like to see what a staff thinks

jb.jones

30 Sep 2007, 14:53

There are more important things to fix in the game than this (i.e. everyone losing a percent when someone quits).

GhostToast

30 Sep 2007, 15:02

i think the most important thing to realize is that "experience may change during online play". When you let your child play a game on the internet, you have to come to expect this stuff. the NES online products are already so kid-friendly that it's almost crippling to the rest of the market (i.e., people who want a rich experience full of lots of users...and not have to look up friend codes on a forum if they actually want to play - which thank god at least this game has random content)

of course i'm referring to the DS version. as for the psp, same thing. i feel, as a parent-to-be, that it is indeed hard and it is going to be harder to keep our children from "age-inappropriate content" (i do not feel boobs are vulgar either), but then again - if its only a few pixels by a few pixels, and not animated...how much adult information can it really contain?

i think its a good compromise. i would hate to start a big banning war, or worse, that they follow what it says in the instructions, about custom flags only being available in friends matches. if that becomes the case, no custom flags would be shown.

its a freedom of speech thing, in a way. you start banning some stuff, and soon the whole thing goes down in smoke.

kirbySS

30 Sep 2007, 15:30

Well, I agree that it's inappropriate, but there's not a lot you can do about it.

If worse comes to worse, think of them as pink eyeballs.

AndrewTaylor

30 Sep 2007, 15:54

well some girls take that thing as offensive.

just thought I'd point that out.

Those people must hate mirrors, then.

Seriously, you can't avoid depicting, saying, or doing something just because over-sensitive people will think it offensive. If we did Worms would probably have no weapons left. Excise it if it's actually offensive, but not because "people might take it as offensive". That might happen with literally anything you say and do. Most things are offensive to someone.

Regardless, it is inappropriate. Most parents don't want there kid seeing such vulgar things in what would seem to be a game aimed at a younger audience.
Why is it inappropriate? Who says it's vulgar? You can see that on family beaches. Nobody really cares, and those that do are just being over-sensitive to things that really don't matter. If those people want to impose their arbitrary whimsy on their children then they have to realise that the rest of the world isn't going to respect that whimsy, and sooner or later their kids are going to be exposed to all the harmless stuff they've been shielded from at home, be it human anatomy or swear words or drawings of the prophet Mohammed.

You need a system to stop offensive content, but this doesn't qualify -- I even have a poster made to promote the original Worms game which is along pretty similar lines.

jb.jones

30 Sep 2007, 16:00

I'm just going to say two words here: "Worms Condoms"

zang-zag

30 Sep 2007, 17:10

I'm just going to say two words here: "Worms Condoms"

heh.
I dont think it could be " im going to die" bad but in some games with voicechat over wi-fi there are no censors. What i mean is you got to expect that stuff to happen with voicechat and online play because in my point of view someone swearing over wi-fi is a lot worse that a small picture of someone's privates.

quakerworm

30 Sep 2007, 18:52

if its only a few pixels by a few pixels, and not animated...how much adult information can it really contain?
by my count, 512 bytes of adult information.

Luther

30 Sep 2007, 19:49

Are all 512 bytes adult? If not, which bytes should be removed?

I've just discussed this with my wife and son (8). My son was bemused by the whole non-issue. He likes boobs. My wife was angered that someone might consider part of her anatomy offensive.

In the Middle East its offensive to show the soles of your feet. In most parts of Europe we have little problem with nudity but find violence offensive. In the US it seems to me that the opposite often applies.

How about a "thumbs up" graphic? Does it look offensive? It means something very nasty in Iraq.

I didn't even see this much outrage about the guy with a swastika flag, which I find quite unpleasant.

The whole issue is a minefield. I think we should tread carefully.

simpsons8

30 Sep 2007, 19:57

i was playing someone who had a flag be a womans chest, without anything on
team17, if u need to find this person, there nickname is Ladies

So... theyre just trying to be funny..i saw a guy on mario kart with that too...

AndrewTaylor

30 Sep 2007, 21:45

I didn't even see this much outrage about the guy with a swastika flag, which I find quite unpleasant.

Don't worry, I'll get trippenz on it right away.

quakerworm

30 Sep 2007, 22:28

Are all 512 bytes adult? If not, which bytes should be removed?
hmm... i think this is going to involve linear algebra. first, let us view the flag as a vector of bits. then, we must define an operator that will be selecting the adult bits. for the eigan vectors of that operator, the corresponding eigan values will decide if the given vector is adult. we must then transform the flag vector into a coordinate system spanned by the eigan vectors of the adult operator, then zero all components with adult eigan values, and finally perform the inverse transformation to return to the native coordinate system. that way, we should get a flag with all the adult bytes removed. i'll let you work out how to define the operator that will do the trick.

GhostToast

30 Sep 2007, 22:34

hmm... i think this is going to involve linear algebra. first, let us view the flag as a vector of bits. then, we must define an operator that will be selecting the adult bits. for the eigan vectors of that operator, the corresponding eigan values will decide if the given vector is adult. we must then transform the flag vector into a coordinate system spanned by the eigan vectors of the adult operator, then zero all components with adult eigan values, and finally perform the inverse transformation to return to the native coordinate system. that way, we should get a flag with all the adult bytes removed. i'll let you work out how to define the operator that will do the trick.

you killed the thread. good, it needed to be done.

jepp027

30 Sep 2007, 22:35

ever played halo 2 or 3 online, much more swearing on that, big deal animated breasts, i'll make an animated male flag, ill make a female flag too, heck why dont I make them doin the nasty, its only animated, im sure at some time your kids will walk in and see you doin stuff with your wife/girlfriend or at least hear you, might as well wear cardboard rectangles painted into black bars and tape them to your tidbits, that consored enough? LOL

parsley

30 Sep 2007, 23:52

I've just discussed this with my wife and son (8). My son was bemused by the whole non-issue. He likes boobs. My wife was angered that someone might consider part of her anatomy offensive.
Typical liberal, self-righteous uber-PC group think. Think of this: most humans start out life being pressed face first into one several times a day and nearly half spend the remainder of their lives trying to achieve the same (as Proust's masterwork demonstrates), so it follows ineluctably that the merest facsimile of one is completely inappropriate for those who are old enough to read but too young for tea and biscuits.

Also, in your typical lunge to indoctrinate rather than inform, you miss the fundamental point: there's two of them! They're forming gangs! If this isn't stopped, then before long we'll be over-run with boobies, in hoodies, and then where will we be? There'll be no place left safe. Mark my words: they'll be teaching in our schools, infiltrating our government and our shopping malls will be full of them, as if they have some kind of 'right' to be there. There will be no escape from them. We must protect ourselves from the threat of these so-called 'racketeers' and if, in order to preserve this great nation, that means banning their tribal clothing and video recording their antisocial behaviour at every turn, then so be it. This is our country and they should abide by our rules.

Metal Alex

1 Oct 2007, 00:25

Typical liberal, self-righteous uber-PC group think. Think of this: most humans start out life being pressed face first into one several times a day and nearly half spend the remainder of their lives trying to achieve the same (as Proust's masterwork demonstrates), so it follows ineluctably that the merest facsimile of one is completely inappropriate for those who are old enough to read but too young for tea and biscuits.

Also, in your typical lunge to indoctrinate rather than inform, you miss the fundamental point: there's two of them! They're forming gangs! If this isn't stopped, then before long we'll be over-run with boobies, in hoodies, and then where will we be? There'll be no place left safe. Mark my words: they'll be teaching in our schools, infiltrating our government and our shopping malls will be full of them, as if they have some kind of 'right' to be there. There will be no escape from them. We must protect ourselves from the threat of these so-called 'racketeers' and if, in order to preserve this great nation, that means banning their tribal clothing and video recording their antisocial behaviour at every turn, then so be it. This is our country and they should abide by our rules.

D: I'm living with fear from this day on.

*imagines a pair of good boobies teaching in high school*

...

well, nevermind.

Slick

1 Oct 2007, 05:18

id like to see what a staff thinks

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/5518/94190714hw9.jpg

Boobies on a flag? Offensive? Women?

...It's impossible to do anything about this kind of stuff. When I say that I mean, please everyone. I'm sure some people agree with you that a flag showing a woman or fat mans breasts, is offensive and should be removed. Others, I'm sure, would probably like to see more of that. :p

Move on with your lives people.

810Damage

1 Oct 2007, 08:02

titts boobees what ever aint nothing wrong wit thats online 4 ya anythang go's son:o

MtlAngelus

1 Oct 2007, 11:59

hEY T17 I THINK YOU SHOULD REMOVE THE DESTRUCTABLE LANDSCAPE SINCE SOMEONE MIGHT SHAPE THE LANDSCAPE INTO A BOOB! :(
A HUGE BOOB! :eek:

poninja

1 Oct 2007, 15:00

hEY T17 I THINK YOU SHOULD REMOVE THE DESTRUCTABLE LANDSCAPE SINCE SOMEONE MIGHT SHAPE THE LANDSCAPE INTO A BOOB! :(
A HUGE BOOB! :eek:

What landscape??? :confused:

quakerworm

1 Oct 2007, 15:37

hEY T17 I THINK YOU SHOULD REMOVE THE DESTRUCTABLE LANDSCAPE SINCE SOMEONE MIGHT SHAPE THE LANDSCAPE INTO A BOOB! :(
A HUGE BOOB! :eek:
what really cracks me up is that angelus went to all the trouble of hitting a caps lock to sound like a noob, and then hit shift to "capitalize" the initial letter.

yakuza

1 Oct 2007, 15:43

Regardless, it is inappropriate. Most parents don't want there kid seeing such vulgar things in what would seem to be a game aimed at a younger audience.

The same parents that go out to buy their kids god of war, halo 3 or whatever game that comes out and that might turn them into potential extraterrestrial rapists?

AndrewTaylor

1 Oct 2007, 19:51

hEY T17 I THINK YOU SHOULD REMOVE THE DESTRUCTABLE LANDSCAPE SINCE SOMEONE MIGHT SHAPE THE LANDSCAPE INTO A BOOB! :(
A HUGE BOOB! :eek:

You should play Yoshi's Island DS -- that actually happens.

(Well, there are a load of large, pink, bouncy, round things attached to the terrain. You can interpret them how you like.)

Wormetti

1 Oct 2007, 20:05

Heh, I haven't seen a boobies flag yet but I did see this (http://gtamp.com/worms/wow2ds_flag.jpg) (warning: may cause blindness) :)

punk2

1 Oct 2007, 20:29

I've seen so many ***** flags. Come on. This is all stupid. Grow up, guys.

Monster450

1 Oct 2007, 20:52

Regardless, it is inappropriate. Most parents don't want there kid seeing such vulgar things in what would seem to be a game aimed at a younger audience.

yes but like someone else said once you go online the ratings are no more because there are people from other countrys who are playing and those countrys might have a different rating. so what this boils down to is if you dont want your kid to see it dont let him play online simple as that.

MtlAngelus

1 Oct 2007, 21:08

what really cracks me up is that angelus went to all the trouble of hitting a caps lock to sound like a noob, and then hit shift to "capitalize" the initial letter.
That was actually to counter the all-caps filter in the forum.

Plasma

1 Oct 2007, 21:13

I think most people would agree that 'private parts' shouldn't be private, until they realise something: what are they supposed to use as porn now?

The same parents that go out to buy their kids god of war, halo 3 or whatever game that comes out and that might turn them into potential extraterrestrial rapists?
No! Don't rape the aliens!

Mr. Right

2 Oct 2007, 00:43

I don't think this is a BIG deal. I mean its just a drawing not the real thing lol. Yes its upsetting to some people but you can't help someones childish act....They also could think that their flag is a work of art!

Paul.Power

2 Oct 2007, 01:00

Mind you, this whole episode does show how absurd the word filters are.

Slick

2 Oct 2007, 06:18

Heh, I haven't seen a boobies flag yet but I did see this (http://gtamp.com/worms/wow2ds_flag.jpg) (warning: may cause blindness) :)

I see an angry face on the right... and a cactus on the left? :confused:

quakerworm

2 Oct 2007, 06:24

and a cactus on the left? :confused:
sounds painful.

kirbySS

2 Oct 2007, 07:45

Heh, I haven't seen a boobies flag yet but I did see this (http://gtamp.com/worms/wow2ds_flag.jpg) (warning: may cause blindness) :)

Combined with the team name he has, it's quite unnerving.

fariswheel

2 Oct 2007, 08:09

Why is it inappropriate? Who says it's vulgar? You can see that on family beaches. Nobody really cares, and those that do are just being over-sensitive to things that really don't matter. If those people want to impose their arbitrary whimsy on their children then they have to realise that the rest of the world isn't going to respect that whimsy, and sooner or later their kids are going to be exposed to all the harmless stuff they've been shielded from at home, be it human anatomy or swear words or drawings of the prophet Mohammed.

You need a system to stop offensive content, but this doesn't qualify -- I even have a poster made to promote the original Worms game which is along pretty similar lines.

It's inappropriate because this is a Worms game aimed at kids. A game where little cute Wormies with all kinds of weird voices fight each other in a comical sense. You think titties fit in well with that type of game? LOL!

Nobody really cares? How about the two-thirds of parents that are very concerned about sex and violence the nation's children are exposed to in video games? Unless you have been living under a rock, you should know that the majority of kids are brought up by parents who don't want their kids being subject to such things at an early age. LOL!

Swear words and sexual images harmless to children? Are you freaking serious? They are shielded from children as best as possible because they are too young to understand, respect, and use them in a mature way. So with your logic, it's completely harmless to let your child look at porn and curse whenever they want? HAHAHAHA, Nice one buddy, you would make a WONDERFUL father.

Eyedunno

2 Oct 2007, 08:32

Swear words and sexual images harmless to children? Are you freaking serious? They are shielded from children as best as possible because they are too young to understand, respect, and use them in a mature way.
You mean like how kids are too young to understand, respect, and use information on current events in the world around them in a mature way? Keep kids away from the TV news! And at what age are they capable of handling this stuff, anyway? There are plenty of twenty-somethings who can't deal with this stuff "in a mature way," either.
So with your logic, it's completely harmless to let your child look at porn and curse whenever they want? HAHAHAHA, Nice one buddy, you would make a WONDERFUL father.
Yeah, because they're never exposed to porn or blue language when they're not receiving parental supervision. *rolls eyes* If you have a child above the age of 5, and you think he or she has not been exposed to swearing, either your child is tied to a potty chair in a dark room right now, or you are a naive buffoon. As for porn, I was about 8 when I first saw porn (my friend and I found a mag in the center of our apartment complex at the time), and this was well before the Internet. While you're at it, be sure to keep your kids away from the Venus de Milo (b00bies, zomg!) and Michaelangelo's Creation of Adam (you can see his wee-wee!).

Luther

2 Oct 2007, 10:45

It's inappropriate because this is a Worms game aimed at kids. A game where little cute Wormies with all kinds of weird voices fight each other in a comical sense. You think titties fit in well with that type of game? LOL!

I'm not aware of us aiming Worms at kids. I know its very popular with children and I think we do our best to make sure the game is fun for players of all ages.

Nobody really cares? How about the two-thirds of parents that are very concerned about sex and violence the nation's children are exposed to in video games? Unless you have been living under a rock, you should know that the majority of kids are brought up by parents who don't want their kids being subject to such things at an early age. LOL!

Almost ninety percent of statistcs are made up on the spot.
I'm a parent of two wonderful children, aged eight and eleven. Most of the development team have children. I know quite a lot about parenting. How many children do you have?

Swear words and sexual images harmless to children? Are you freaking serious? They are shielded from children as best as possible because they are too young to understand, respect, and use them in a mature way. So with your logic, it's completely harmless to let your child look at porn and curse whenever they want? HAHAHAHA, Nice one buddy, you would make a WONDERFUL father.

You think that a 32x32 crudely scribbled icon of boobs is porn? LOL!

My children have a wide, varied vocabulary and can adapt it to suit any occasion. They use appropriate language for the social context of the conversation. They know the difference between talking to me, their grandmother, their teachers and their friends. I call it "social skills" and I take it very seriously.

Lets have some perspective on all this shall we? The game is a bit of harmless fun. Obscenity is a vague concept and I really dont think a 32x32 icon is much to worry about. Think about the number of complaint posts here about the name filter for online games. Now imagine how much trouble there would be if we tried to apply it to a graphical filter. Think about the shape of the game's only character...

parsley

2 Oct 2007, 10:54

It's inappropriate because this is a Worms game aimed at kids.
Non-sequitur.

The inability to distinguish between a picture of breasts, sexual imagary and pornography leads people to conflate all images of breasts with sexual imagary or pornography.

This is not a good thing.

This leads to, for example, the kind of 'outrage' displayed when the UK TV program, "This Morning," demonstrated how to examine yourself for breast cancer or testicular cancer. When the clips were posted onto YouTube, they were removed as being, "pornographic." How absurd does it need to get before this puritanism can be dropped?

Graphic close ups of bodies? Yup. Sexual imagary? Nope. Pornography? Nope.

GhostToast

2 Oct 2007, 12:31

you guys should watch "this film is not yet rated" if you want to see/hear some funny information about how protective this country is when it comes to shielding our children from sex (and while they may not understand what sex is, they will still engage in it when they feel it is time), but how much violence is permitted for younger audiences.

and furthermore, i can barely stand to watch R rated movies anymore because the theater is filled with 5-15 year olds. WHAT? how do these kids get in? their parents buy them a ticket and say "see ya at 11:00, junior!" ? cause i see no parents with them. just a big mob of children.

so if that's how its going to be, i doubt the 32x32 picture of boobs is going to do much harm. probably made some kid's day man. that same kid probably has registered usernames at every pr0n forum there is anyway.

kirbySS

2 Oct 2007, 13:01

Eyedunno

2 Oct 2007, 14:07

you guys should watch "this film is not yet rated" if you want to see/hear some funny information about how protective this country is when it comes to shielding our children from sex (and while they may not understand what sex is, they will still engage in it when they feel it is time), but how much violence is permitted for younger audiences.
I will definitely check that movie out. The People vs. Larry Flynt had a similar scene, and that, combined with Flynt's autobiography, made him one of my personal heroes. Not that I believe that violence in the media is such a damaging thing either. The famous judge Richard Posner pointed out (with respect to lawsuits involving violent video games, of all things) that violence has been in media aimed at children since time immemorial, and one needs go no further than Grimm's Fairy Tales or Greek mythology to see it. Parental guidance is necessary though, of course, as young children have a tendency to act out things they think look cool.

quakerworm

2 Oct 2007, 16:31

While you're at it, be sure to keep your kids away from the Venus de Milo (b00bies, zomg!) and Michaelangelo's Creation of Adam (you can see his wee-wee!).
i think this is a set, game, and match. if we automatically consider reproduction of nudity to be porn, we have to close down every single arts museum out there.

MtlAngelus

2 Oct 2007, 19:36

And get rid of mirrors. And saw clothes to our bodies! :eek:

Plasma

2 Oct 2007, 21:27

It's a sad, sad day when one episode from a popular children's anime in Japan gets removed from Youtube, under the reason 'contains adult material'. Not only that, but it was for nudity alone, as it didn't actually show any 'naughty parts'. (Unless, showing that breasts are generally round is classed as 'being naughty')

thomasp

2 Oct 2007, 21:35

Slick

2 Oct 2007, 21:47

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't The Simpsons Movie have full-frontal nudity in it (OK, it was 10-year-old male nudity, but my point still stands :p)? And that was only rated PG in the UK and PG-13 in the USA, indicating that it was generally suitable for children?

Yes, it did.

Why Bart, why...:(

I can't really see the difference between that and the flag issue.

Well, if people are going to draw stuff like that, they could at least make it look presentable. If your going to draw boobs, at least add some shading you lazy people. :mad:

pieman280

2 Oct 2007, 22:44

It's inappropriate because this is a Worms game aimed at kids. A game where little cute Wormies with all kinds of weird voices fight each other in a comical sense. You think titties fit in well with that type of game? LOL!

Nobody really cares? How about the two-thirds of parents that are very concerned about sex and violence the nation's children are exposed to in video games? Unless you have been living under a rock, you should know that the majority of kids are brought up by parents who don't want their kids being subject to such things at an early age. LOL!

Swear words and sexual images harmless to children? Are you freaking serious? They are shielded from children as best as possible because they are too young to understand, respect, and use them in a mature way. So with your logic, it's completely harmless to let your child look at porn and curse whenever they want? HAHAHAHA, Nice one buddy, you would make a WONDERFUL father.

I agree with 71% of the stuff you're saying but by the time kids get into middle school, you can't do a thing to stop them from getting exposed. I can't go a day without hearing 35 bad words even the most trustable and good kids say bad words, and that bugs me. I think i'm the only guy in school who hates it when kids use that sort of language and as for porn.... face it your kid is exposed.

AndrewTaylor

2 Oct 2007, 23:27

There are no bad words, you know.

Wormetti

2 Oct 2007, 23:36

%@#$ !

pieman280

2 Oct 2007, 23:37

There are no bad words, you know.

what do you mean? there are words kids shouldn't say and they are considered as "bad words"

Slick

2 Oct 2007, 23:42

what do you mean? there are words kids shouldn't say and they are considered as "bad words"

Society is the thing that determines whats 'proper' language, and what is considered 'bad words'.
If you break it down, words are just sounds that people make to communicate. So really, there really aren't 'bad words'. If you grew up in a place where snapping your fingers at someone was considered a bad thing, it doesn't really mean its bad. It's just society. This will all be fixed once we evolve into sperm.

wave

2 Oct 2007, 23:43

There are no bad words, you know.

? really what about ****, thats the only word you can't use on UK television. For some reason. I almost prefer the american system where u cannot use any swear words on TV.

that word was the C word by the way. if i spelt it out, surely you would be offended or rather disgusted?

Wormetti

2 Oct 2007, 23:50

Why would he, it's just a word. Only a **** would be offended by that.

pieman280

2 Oct 2007, 23:50

Society is the thing that determines whats 'proper' language, and what is considered 'bad words'.
If you break it down, words are just sounds that people make to communicate. So really, there really aren't 'bad words'. If you grew up in a place where snapping your fingers at someone was considered a bad thing, it doesn't really mean its bad. It's just society. This will all be fixed once we evolve into sperm.

yeah, you're right. in this case I hate society because I would love to say some of the words that I'm restricted from so that I can use them in jokes but I can't:(

And that snapping fingers thing you mentioned reminded me of that middle finger thing which I hate so much, really it's just holding up a finger.... what's so wrong with that. people then think you're insulting them, but there's no diffrence, in my opinion. Jeez, when will society grow up and act mature!

MtlAngelus

3 Oct 2007, 07:06

? really what about ****, thats the only word you can't use on UK television. For some reason. I almost prefer the american system where u cannot use any swear words on TV.

that word was the C word by the way. if i spelt it out, surely you would be offended or rather disgusted?
It's not a bad word tho, it's just a word. You are the one who choose to make it a bad word, but in that case you can only blame yourself for that.

Plasma

3 Oct 2007, 07:39

And that snapping fingers thing you mentioned reminded me of that middle finger thing which I hate so much, really it's just holding up a finger.... what's so wrong with that. people then think you're insulting them, but there's no diffrence, in my opinion.
Well, no. In western cultures, when people hold up their middle finger to someone, 98% of the time it waas done to be insulting.

MtlAngelus

3 Oct 2007, 08:09

Well, no. In western cultures, when people hold up their middle finger to someone, 98% of the time it waas done to be insulting.
I've never found it insulting. I mean it's just a finger. It's a bit longer than the rest, but if that was a reason for being insulting then we should also censor tall people. And buildings. And d***s... oh wait... :o

Eyedunno

3 Oct 2007, 08:39

In Japan, few people understand the middle finger thing. A lot of my students think it basically means "kutabare" (a rough translation I could give for that would be "die, ***hole"), which is somewhat similar in terms of offensiveness, but not quite the same. And the f-word is even more mysterious to almost all Japanese people. Sometimes people ask me about it, expecting a simple answer, and I sure as hell can't give one.

wave

3 Oct 2007, 10:09

notice how the holding up of TWO fingers is slowly fading away.

Also note that such gestures are not offensive in their actions alone but because of the meaning behind such actions. The holding up of two fingers is something out of medieval times and the english started doing it because the french used to cut of bowmens firing fingers if they captured them. So in gest and insolence/ defience the english would hold up their two fingers to show they still had their two fingers and so you can see why it would madden medievel frenchmen. At least this is what i beleive is the reason behind the two fingers.

I wonder if the peace sign (showing your hand the other way around with two fingers) comes from this.

pieman280

3 Oct 2007, 11:12

Also note that such gestures are not offensive in their actions alone but because of the meaning behind such actions. The holding up of two fingers is something out of medieval times and the english started doing it because the french used to cut of bowmens firing fingers if they captured them. So in gest and insolence/ defience the english would hold up their two fingers to show they still had their two fingers and so you can see why it would madden medievel frenchmen. At least this is what i beleive is the reason behind the two fingers.

Thats what I've heard to. But I still don't know how it became another way of saying the F word.

Eyedunno

3 Oct 2007, 11:47

Okay, I saw the movie. It's definitely not like a Michael Moore movie. It was good, but I thought the scope was a little narrow for a 90-minute movie.

yakuza

3 Oct 2007, 12:18

wave

3 Oct 2007, 14:37

Hm, I heard a similar story but the other way around, makes more sense seeing as it's the English who find this offensive and not the French?

Hmm interesting, maybe. Do you find it insulting spaniard?

yakuza

3 Oct 2007, 14:50

Nope, it doesn't mean anything here. Thing is, when I went on a trip to Ireland the people there did find it offensive, I was a kid and so they they told us about this, that it was because the british bowmen got their two shooting fingers cut so they found it offensive, I know because I used to go around doing it to people (being a kid and all).

Eyedunno

3 Oct 2007, 14:53

Well, if the British archers were the ones getting their fingers cut off, you didn't hear it the other way around. :)

And it makes more sense that way too, like **** off, ya French #%&$%, you'll never take my fingers!

yakuza

3 Oct 2007, 14:59

I know I know, after all, it was the British who were known for their archers power, what I meant is that it was the British who get offended by it, which still can be the case though, nowadays.

Eyedunno

3 Oct 2007, 15:13

I know I know, after all, it was the British who were known for their archers power, what I meant is that it was the British who get offended by it, which still can be the case though, nowadays.
Yeah, well, it was they who were the ones using it as an offensive gesture, so it would make sense that they still attach that sense to it.

AndrewTaylor

3 Oct 2007, 18:17

yakuza

3 Oct 2007, 18:40

Know it all you like; it won't make it true.

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.asp

First of all, I never claimed the history background was true, never claimed I knew, all I said is that I heard it was the case and that I knew first hand that people found it offensive in Ireland, which they did.

Now, I don't understand either why you quoted me when it wasn't me who started this nor the one who mentioned the legend. I get from your post you're eager to prove me wrong, impartiality isn't working as it should, and I'm sure you'll have to wait for a chance, thank you and come again.

wave

3 Oct 2007, 18:45

Know it all you like; it won't make it true.

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/pluckyew.asp

well its all just guess work really, not sure of the validity of the site you lionked but neither way can be proved right or wrong, but the fact that its offensive in the british isles and not elsewhere in europe (as we have just established) kinda points to teh bowmen thing being probable, but if the bowman thing isn't the reaon for shoving TWO fingers (not one) up, then what is?

yakuza

3 Oct 2007, 18:46

Maybe the myth got to England too and they started being offended by it based on the rumour.

wave

3 Oct 2007, 18:48

Maybe the myth got to England too and they started being offended by it based on the rumour.

yes possible

AndrewTaylor

3 Oct 2007, 20:32

Now, I don't understand either why you quoted me when it wasn't me who ... mentioned the legend.

Well, it was you who mentioned it, wasn't it? You quite explicitly mentioned it.

well its all just guess work really, not sure of the validity of the site you lionked but neither way can be proved right or wrong, but the fact that its offensive in the british isles and not elsewhere in europe (as we have just established) kinda points to teh bowmen thing being probable, but if the bowman thing isn't the reaon for shoving TWO fingers (not one) up, then what is?

I don't know, and I don't care. I was just trying to do my bit against the march of ignorance. I was taught this nonsense in history class, and I think that there's enough interesting stuff in the world without making up any more of it.

Sticking up two fingers is offensive for the same reason swearing and breasts are: because people are offended by them. There's absolutely no logic behind it. There's bound to be some historical accident that explains why we have these particular taboos and don't mind the thumbs-up gesture or showing the soles of our feet, but don't expect it to be as exciting as the bowmen myth.

yakuza

3 Oct 2007, 21:15

Well, it was you who mentioned it, wasn't it? You quite explicitly mentioned it.

Actually I was only commenting on it, which I guess also involves mentioning it, but I never sold it as a fact like you claimed, and as far as I'm concerned nor did wave. I'm glad you blessed us with the correct information, however your post was still inaccurate and your last post doesn't change that.

pieman280

3 Oct 2007, 21:42

I was just trying to do my bit against the march of ignorance.

I don't think anyone was being ignorent.

Vader

3 Oct 2007, 22:03

I even have a poster made to promote the original Worms game which is along pretty similar lines.

They're dead hairy, them.

wave

3 Oct 2007, 22:16

Well, it was you who mentioned it, wasn't it? You quite explicitly mentioned it.

I don't know, and I don't care. I was just trying to do my bit against the march of ignorance. I was taught this nonsense in history class, and I think that there's enough interesting stuff in the world without making up any more of it.

Sticking up two fingers is offensive for the same reason swearing and breasts are: because people are offended by them. There's absolutely no logic behind it. There's bound to be some historical accident that explains why we have these particular taboos and don't mind the thumbs-up gesture or showing the soles of our feet, but don't expect it to be as exciting as the bowmen myth.

like i said neither you or i can prove which to be right or wrong, i like the bowman myth.

AndrewTaylor

3 Oct 2007, 22:50

i like the bowman myth.

Oh, well then let's assume it's true.

wave

3 Oct 2007, 23:26

Oh, well then let's assume it's true.

Alright ! !

GhostToast

4 Oct 2007, 01:07

yay, arguing on the intarwebs!

Luther

4 Oct 2007, 08:59

I don't think anyone was being ignorent.

I believe you mean "ignorant".

The irony is sweet.

pieman280

4 Oct 2007, 11:30

I believe you mean "ignorant".

The irony is sweet.

Sorry, I got that mixed up.

That was ironic.

Vader

4 Oct 2007, 22:50

Oh, well then let's assume it's true.

Belief has no bind to truth and you know it.

In many respects, belief is far more powerful.

Where's the harm in believing the myth and remaining ignorant of the truth, whatever it may be, in this case?

Alien King

4 Oct 2007, 22:56

Where's the harm in believing the myth and remaining ignorant of the truth, whatever it may be, in this case?

Well if you believe in a myth simply because you don't know the truth, your only possible fault is that you didn't investigate it.

Of course, to still believe the myth even after learning the truth is just silly.

AndrewTaylor

4 Oct 2007, 23:28

Where's the harm in believing the myth and remaining ignorant of the truth, whatever it may be, in this case?

It's not this specific case, it's the general case. You don't believe something just because it's a good story. If you do that then you're one step away from writing to the characters in soaps. I don't complain about people being ignorant -- they can't help it if they've heard a myth and were told it was true. That's just plain old being misled, and not their fault. But people who choose to be ignorant I have no truck with. People who actively seek out ignorance by opting to believe the most interesting version of events rather than the one that actually happened -- it's people like that is why people think that women's chests are "obscene" in the first place. It's why we have animal cruelty posing as "halal" and getting away with it, and it's why we have worms called Mohammed being censored, and it's why we have tax money being spent giving deluded people glasses of water in the false hope of curing their ills.

The bowman story is made up. I think believing it is wrong because it isn't true. I think, when you are directly presented with two options, one of which is the truth and the other of which is made up, you should accept the truth. And I can't think of a single reason why anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be considered dangerously insane.

It's magical thinking, and I won't have it. Sorry to go off on a rant, but I have very few Causes, so when one comes up I fight it.

parsley

4 Oct 2007, 23:47

Well if you believe in a myth simply because you don't know the truth, your only possible fault is that you didn't investigate it.

Of course, to still believe the myth even after learning the truth is just silly.
Burn the heretic!

MtlAngelus

5 Oct 2007, 00:06

Someone infract parsley for doubleposting.
And infract me for backseat moderating. :cool:

pieman280

5 Oct 2007, 01:12

quakerworm

5 Oct 2007, 01:57

I think, when you are directly presented with two options, one of which is the truth and the other of which is made up, you should accept the truth.
the problem with this is that there is absolutely no way to prove something to be true without making assumptions, which still leaves you with a statistical probability of anything being true or anything being false.

pieman280

5 Oct 2007, 02:13

the problem with this is that there is absolutely no way to prove something to be true without making assumptions, which still leaves you with a statistical probability of anything being true or anything being false.

Yes, his link could be right... or wrong

there are ways to back up both points. just like you said, it could be false either way. unless someone gets a timemachine or something, we'll never know the full story of the middle finger myth

MtlAngelus

5 Oct 2007, 02:37

the problem with this is that there is absolutely no way to prove something to be true without making assumptions, which still leaves you with a statistical probability of anything being true or anything being false.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious! :rolleyes:
Historical records, even if cannot be proved, are still more likely to be true than myths.
It's also just silly to try to come up with other explanations from things that come from glod knows where rather than just take the ones that have been accepted as true for a long time based on historical records, even if neither can be proved.

quakerworm

5 Oct 2007, 07:24

there are ways to back up both points. just like you said, it could be false either way. unless someone gets a timemachine or something, we'll never know the full story of the middle finger myth
you missed the point. it doesn't matter what you do, you cannot prove something to be true. any proof requires an axiom set, and axiom set has to be assumed.

Paul.Power

5 Oct 2007, 07:59

I'm a little confused about this subject right now as I feel some people are taking this a little to Drastic.

It's kind of funny how this started out as a talk about bad flags to middle finger mythes. it's still a little on topic but it's still odd how one conversation jumps to the next.

I think I'll stick with the story I've heard from 8 people or places V.S 1.Welcome to the Team 17 Forum.

Andrew: I agree with you in principle, but you can't stop human beings from being human beings. Telling stories is what we do (yes, I'm afraid I do subscribe to the Pan narrans theory). It's one of the things that propelled us from being fairly bright apes to... well, us. Arguably it's a scaffolding that we can take down now that the building's finished, but you should know that with science, the building is never finished.

Luther

5 Oct 2007, 09:40

you can't stop human beings from being human beings.

Sorry to be pedantic, but Yes, you can.

It's one of the things that propelled us from being fairly bright apes to... well, us.

A journey slightly shorter than getting out of bed.

it's still odd how one conversation jumps to the next.

Odd compared to what? Isn't that how conversations work?

Raziel

5 Oct 2007, 10:12

Where's the harm in believing the myth and remaining ignorant of the truth, whatever it may be, in this case?

Just throwing my two pence in, but surely that's the very basis of many religions?

That being the case the "harm" can be seen in various wars, murders and other such nasty actions.

wave

5 Oct 2007, 10:33

It's not this specific case, it's the general case. You don't believe something just because it's a good story. If you do that then you're one step away from writing to the characters in soaps. I don't complain about people being ignorant -- they can't help it if they've heard a myth and were told it was true. That's just plain old being misled, and not their fault. But people who choose to be ignorant I have no truck with. People who actively seek out ignorance by opting to believe the most interesting version of events rather than the one that actually happened -- it's people like that is why people think that women's chests are "obscene" in the first place. It's why we have animal cruelty posing as "halal" and getting away with it, and it's why we have worms called Mohammed being censored, and it's why we have tax money being spent giving deluded people glasses of water in the false hope of curing their ills.

The bowman story is made up. I think believing it is wrong because it isn't true. I think, when you are directly presented with two options, one of which is the truth and the other of which is made up, you should accept the truth. And I can't think of a single reason why anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be considered dangerously insane.

It's magical thinking, and I won't have it. Sorry to go off on a rant, but I have very few Causes, so when one comes up I fight it.

You can't prove that the bowman thing isn't true just like i can't prove its true. But just because i choose to beleive it to be true, doesn't mean that it's false.

parsley

5 Oct 2007, 10:45

Where's the harm in believing the myth and remaining ignorant of the truth, whatever it may be, in this case?
It's irrational. Things are either reasoned or not and if you sink to unreason in any case, you have sunk to unreason.

It's just a small part of the mental blankies such as homeopathy, astrology, religion, crystals and so on. The whole gamut of supernatural crud that blights this world so badly is astonishing and scary.

Welcome to the Unlightenment.

Luther

5 Oct 2007, 10:48

Do we need to prove either are true? Why? I'm happy with knowing it might be this, that or some other reason.

quakerworm

5 Oct 2007, 10:50

You can't prove that the bowman thing isn't true just like i can't prove its true. But just because i choose to beleive it to be true, doesn't mean that it's false.
he can't prove anything, but he can and in part does provide strong evidence to support this myth being made up. if it is made up, the probability of it being true are extremely low. so yes, he can't prove it, but if we had to make bets, i wouldn't bet in your favor regardless of odds you give me.

quakerworm

5 Oct 2007, 10:56

Do we need to prove either are true? Why? I'm happy with knowing it might be this, that or some other reason.
as long as engineers don't pick up this line of thinking.

AndrewTaylor

5 Oct 2007, 12:32

You can't prove that the bowman thing isn't true just like i can't prove its true. But just because i choose to beleive it to be true, doesn't mean that it's false.

I don't need to prove it. That's why we have the Burden Of Proof.

If could tell you that the fingers-are-offensive thing came about because Henry XVII adhered to a religion called Quarf which held that fingers were obscene and must be covered. The population had to wear gloves for two decades, during which showing fingers was highly offensive. The religion and its glove requirement faded into history but the offence stayed in people's minds.

It's not true, of course; I just made it up. There was no Quarf and there was no Henry XVII. But you can't prove it isn't true. You can't prove that Harry Potter isn't real. The bowman story is made up. That doesn't automatically make it false -- people have made up loads of stuff and later found out that it was true -- but it does mean there's absolutely no reason to think it might be true (other than that you apparently [i]want[i] it to be true). It's no more likely than Harry Potter, Quarf, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Welcome to real life. In real life, we don't get to choose what's true.

pieman280

5 Oct 2007, 12:56

The bowman story is made up.

I don't see were you got this idea from.

I think that story could have been passed down from the people who were there to the people now. that's how a lot of things are, they get passed down from the people who were there passed their story onto their kids who passed it down to others and soon, a few words might be mixed up, but the story makes it to our generation. that's what I believe , you can disagree with me but I will always beleive that.

Luther

5 Oct 2007, 13:10

You insist on believing something that is clearly in doubt? Why?

pieman280

5 Oct 2007, 13:19

I don't see were it is in doubt.

I have heard this story a lot of times over and over again and I think it is possibly true.

Paul.Power

5 Oct 2007, 13:24

A journey slightly shorter than getting out of bed.Touché, but you get the idea.

Luther

5 Oct 2007, 14:15

I don't see were it is in doubt.
I have heard this story a lot of times over and over again and I think it is possibly true.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_gesture#V_sign

Popular legend holds that the sign originated with British archers in the Hundred Years War (1337 -1453). According to the legend, it was the habit of French captors to cut off the fingers of British archers when captured, thus disabling their ability to fire. It is said that mass salute evolved at the beginning of battles, showing the opposing French soldiers that they were still capable of effecting the massive damage associated with the war bow. There is, however, no record of this practice in any contemporary source, and the story must be regarded as a myth.

More detail can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign

There, that didn't take much effort.

wave

5 Oct 2007, 14:32

You insist on believing something that is clearly in doubt? Why?

No i don't insist, but where the doubt comes from i must insist, wikipedia? don't make me laugh. I see so by this logic because something wasn't recorded on a piece of paper it SIMPLY ISN'T true? Truth can be passed on through generations of people.

This is not that same as religion and believing in that, remember religion IS recorded in the BIBLE.

I am and have not stated that the bowman thinng (myth if you like) is true but i will say again that it could be true and yes might not be.

GhostToast

5 Oct 2007, 14:34

well, wikipedia is only "so-so" when it comes to truth. but still.

i always heard the V-sign was given from the bowmen to say "i'm going to kill you with these two fingers". that doesn't exactly tie in to the thing about french cutting them off, but simply that those two fingers were the means to the end, and the V-sign meant "i'm going to kill you..." which is why it took offensive meaning today.

so you can prove that the french didnt mutilate the archers. but can you prove that the sign wasn't given for this other reason?

not that i know what to believe since there's a witch trial going on and all on this thread.

Raziel

5 Oct 2007, 14:38

This is not that same as religion and believing in that, remember religion IS recorded in the BIBLE.

See? Here's where i take issue with that, there are documented errors in translation in the bible, most well known is the error regarding the mix up of the word Virgin, with young woman.

Secondly, the bible itself was written by man and is therefore prone to exaggeration.

Retranslation, exageration and any errors that have happened over time due to changes in social politics can therefore state that the Bible itself is about as reliable for factual information as the web.

Or at least that's my opinion.

Luther

5 Oct 2007, 14:46

You insist on believing something that is clearly in doubt? Why?

I was talking to Pieman.

Belief. Its a personal choice. I choose not to. Thats all I have to say on this.

Paul.Power

5 Oct 2007, 15:00

Truth can be passed on through generations of people.Two words: Chinese Whispers.

AndrewTaylor

5 Oct 2007, 18:29

No i don't insist, but where the doubt comes from i must insist

The doubt doesn't come from anywhere. The doubt was there to begin with. You start with doubt; that's how the burden of proof works. The question is where the story comes from, and it appears to come from nowhere. It doesn't come from historical record and it doesn't come from evidence. So why believe it? And if you do believe it, why not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Scientology, or that the universe was created by S2K's old CD rack? I'll wager you can't disprove those, either.

In this case, though, Snopes suggests a number of reasons to doubt the story aside from the fact that there's no evidence to support it.

I am and have not stated that the bowman thinng (myth if you like) is true but i will say again that it could be true and yes might not be.

That's true, but It's well worth mentioning that when more than one possibility exists it isn't necessarily the case that they are all equally likely. In this case, there is a very tiny chance that the story is true but somehow failed to be recorded, and a very large chance that the story is false.

wikipedia? don't make me laugh. ... remember religion IS recorded in the BIBLE. See? Here's where i take issue with that, there are documented errors in translation in the bible, most well known is the error regarding the mix up of the word Virgin, with young woman.

Secondly, the bible itself was written by man and is therefore prone to exaggeration.

Thirdly, vast tracts of the Bible are also made up. Look at the birth of Jesus -- the various versions of the story within the Bible contradict each other and they all contradict historical record. The whole thing is lies designed to make the story fit a prophecy that turned out to be bunk (or pending, if you're Jewish). I'd much sooner trust Wikipedia than the Bible.

wave

5 Oct 2007, 18:55

The doubt doesn't come from anywhere. The doubt was there to begin with. You start with doubt; that's how the burden of proof works. The question is where the story comes from, and it appears to come from nowhere. It doesn't come from historical record and it doesn't come from evidence. So why believe it? And if you do believe it, why not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Scientology, or that the universe was created by S2K's old CD rack? I'll wager you can't disprove those, either.

In this case, though, Snopes suggests a number of reasons to doubt the story aside from the fact that there's no evidence to support it.

That's true, but It's well worth mentioning that when more than one possibility exists it isn't necessarily the case that they are all equally likely. In this case, there is a very tiny chance that the story is true but somehow failed to be recorded, and a very large chance that the story is false.

Thirdly, vast tracts of the Bible are also made up. Look at the birth of Jesus -- the various versions of the story within the Bible contradict each other and they all contradict historical record. The whole thing is lies designed to make the story fit a prophecy that turned out to be bunk (or pending, if you're Jewish). I'd much sooner trust Wikipedia than the Bible.

no no the point i was making is that the wikipedia ( which many scientists question the reliability of) article dismissed the bowman story as untrue because it WASn't and is NOT documented, i can't abide by that.

A large proportion of modern society especially British has abandoned the bible as untrue, so although the christian faith is documented, just because it is so doesn't make it true. I guess what i am saying is that because the bowman myth isn't documented it makes disproving/ proving nearly impossible. But the idea that history is recorded as solid fact can't be relied on either can it, so there we go.

KRD

5 Oct 2007, 19:57

I guess what i am saying is that because the bowman myth isn't documented it makes disproving/proving nearly impossible.

It makes proving it nearly impossible. Disproving only comes into play after someone's tried to prove something. In this example, nobody has attempted to do so yet for an obvious reason; documentation is either nonexistent or extremely hard to come by. This means it's your turn, believers!

I quite enjoy this sort of debate. I rarely get involved, but please carry on. :p

Plasma

5 Oct 2007, 20:20

You can't prove that the bowman thing isn't true just like i can't prove its true. But just because i choose to beleive it to be true, doesn't mean that it's false.
He did prove it wasn't true. It was all in the link he posted.

Just throwing my two pence in, but surely that's the very basis of many religions?

That being the case the "harm" can be seen in various wars, murders and other such nasty actions.
People believe in religions because there's actually a pretty good chance that it's true, as far as they're concerned.
Also, wars are caused by people of any motive, as long as they have enough power to start one.

No i don't insist, but where the doubt comes from i must insist, wikipedia? don't make me laugh. I see so by this logic because something wasn't recorded on a piece of paper it SIMPLY ISN'T true? Truth can be passed on through generations of people.

This is not that same as religion and believing in that, remember religion IS recorded in the BIBLE.

I am and have not stated that the bowman thinng (myth if you like) is true but i will say again that it could be true and yes might not be.
Let's put it this way: if you can't prove something existed, then you should presume that it isn't. Because you just heard that it came from a battle in medieval times, despite such a battle never being recorded, and despite that the actual practice of cutting off an archer's fingers when you captured him was utterly pointless, you shouldn't believe it.

See? Here's where i take issue with that, there are documented errors in translation in the bible, most well known is the error regarding the mix up of the word Virgin, with young woman.

Secondly, the bible itself was written by man and is therefore prone to exaggeration.

Retranslation, exageration and any errors that have happened over time due to changes in social politics can therefore state that the Bible itself is about as reliable for factual information as the web.

Or at least that's my opinion.
Right. So a book writted thousands of years ago, when people's capacity of understanding was still pretty low, is not a good scource of accurate history, dispite having very little in it that should be recorded for anything other than religious purposes.
What's your point again?

FeXd

5 Oct 2007, 20:29

I am restraining myself from getting involved in this post (I'm doing a minor in Philosophy).

If you have never read up on epistemology, then please take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology at the very least.

I see many circular arguments forming, and you are all going to just get bent out of shape, and prove nothing if you don't have a solid ground for your initial arguments.

Plasma

5 Oct 2007, 20:39

If you have never read up on epistemology, then please take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology at the very least.

I see many circular arguments forming, and you are all going to just get bent out of shape, and prove nothing if you don't have a solid ground for your initial arguments.
Thnak you for that, umm, very vague post.
Really though, who or what were you directing that post to?

I am restraining myself from getting involved in this post (I'm doing a minor in Philosophy).
The entire existance of this sentence contradicts itself! Well done.

FeXd

5 Oct 2007, 21:06

Thnak you for that, umm, very vague post.
Really though, who or what were you directing that post to?

The entire existance of this sentence contradicts itself! Well done.

It is a tad contradictory, but at least I didn't say "I will not get involved".

I hear much talk around belief, truth, knowledge, fact, etc. My link is addressed to everyone participating in this thread. Did you take a look at the link?

Everyone here has arguments that are deeply related to (if not entirely rooted in) Epistemology. Thus, you should probably take some time to read up on it, so as to have a better understanding of your stance, and others stances.

pieman280

5 Oct 2007, 22:54

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_gesture#V_sign

Popular legend holds that the sign originated with British archers in the Hundred Years War (1337 -1453). According to the legend, it was the habit of French captors to cut off the fingers of British archers when captured, thus disabling their ability to fire. It is said that mass salute evolved at the beginning of battles, showing the opposing French soldiers that they were still capable of effecting the massive damage associated with the war bow. There is, however, no record of this practice in any contemporary source, and the story must be regarded as a myth.

More detail can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign

There, that didn't take much effort.

Well I didn't read all of the stuff from wikipedia but I got the point. Fist I just want to point out that we were talking about the middle finger not the "V sighn" but I read that it didn't have a point in cutting off the captives finger. although the story behind the middle finger theory says that they cut their finger off so that if they got away, then they couldn't shoot.

I feel like believing the bowmen story, but yet I'm starting to get doubtfull. this wikipedia definitionwas strange since I've also saw that another wikipedia thing was saying that the bowmen myth or story was true. I forgot where it was though:confused:

People believe in religions because there's actually a pretty good chance that it's true, as far as they're concerned.
Also, wars are caused by people of any motive, as long as they have enough power to start one.

Right!:)

Paul.Power

5 Oct 2007, 23:17

Fist I just want to point out that we were talking about the middle finger not the "V sighn"Correction: you were talking about the middle finger.

If you have never read up on epistemology, then please take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology at the very least.

One of the cases involves two men, Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong. Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job."Good grief.

Eyedunno

6 Oct 2007, 00:11

Good grief.
Heh, Gettier problems. I too minored in philosophy (was actually majoring, but I switched to economics at the beginning of my third year).

Personally, I would rather refer to knowledge as beliefs we're certain we're not mistaken about (outside of certain philosophical contexts, e.g., an evil demon is tricking me) rather than justified true beliefs (since we have no practical way to verify truth in most cases).

Edit: I made this for another forum (in a thread about careers available to philosophy majors):
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/2011/philosophy2wv2.jpg

pieman280

6 Oct 2007, 00:43

Correction: you were talking about the middle finger

I never saw anything talking about the V sighn but a lot of the talk over what started the middle finger thing.

Paul.Power

6 Oct 2007, 00:56

So the bursar of a university is complaining to the head of the physics department about all the money the physicists spend on equipment. "Why can't you be more like the mathematicians? All they need are pencils, paper and a waste-paper basket. Or even better, the philosophers. All they need are the pencils and paper."

parsley

6 Oct 2007, 01:07

See? Here's where i take issue with that, there are documented errors in translation in the bible, most well known is the error regarding the mix up of the word Virgin, with young woman.
[deletia]p
See? Here's what I take issue with...

Even the most egregious errors in translation don't alter the underlying basis: It's fiction. It's fantasy. It's delusional.

Raziel

6 Oct 2007, 01:25

People believe in religions because there's actually a pretty good chance that it's true, as far as they're concerned.
Also, wars are caused by people of any motive, as long as they have enough power to start one.

Hmmm Wars started or heavily revolving around religions The crusades, 100 years war, American civil war (Some believed that their God allowed them to own slaves, others didn't, war ensued) and to a certain extent WWII (Or at least some very religious connotations.)

Granted, the last few skirmishes have been as a result of power struggles, but then again when the enemy is armed by the countries fighting it to start with, it seems less of a war and more of an economic bully tactic along the lines of "I'm going to sell this to you and then beat the heck out of you until you give up your oil destroy the weapons that were sold to you in the first place."

Right. So a book writted thousands of years ago, when people's capacity of understanding was still pretty low, is not a good scource of accurate history, dispite having very little in it that should be recorded for anything other than religious purposes.
What's your point again?

I believe I stated that I didn't have a point and that it was my own opinion. . .

Hang on i'll check. . .

Or at least that's my opinion.

Hey look i did too!

However that aside, my opinion has very little to do with this post I was merely stating that the Bible is not exactly a good source of fact due to it's many errors, mistranslations and so on. I'm pretty sure I said that too but I figure I'll let you find that one for yourself.

As for my opinion itself, it seems others have the same sort of belief

Even the most egregious errors in translation don't alter the underlying basis: It's fiction. It's fantasy. It's delusional.

Thanks for that.

wave

6 Oct 2007, 01:34

He did prove it wasn't true. It was all in the link he posted.

People believe in religions because there's actually a pretty good chance that it's true, as far as they're concerned.
Also, wars are caused by people of any motive, as long as they have enough power to start one.

Let's put it this way: if you can't prove something existed, then you should presume that it isn't. Because you just heard that it came from a battle in medieval times, despite such a battle never being recorded, and despite that the actual practice of cutting off an archer's fingers when you captured him was utterly pointless, you shouldn't believe it.

Right. So a book writted thousands of years ago, when people's capacity of understanding was still pretty low, is not a good scource of accurate history, dispite having very little in it that should be recorded for anything other than religious purposes.
What's your point again?

I dispute most of that.

Paul.Power

6 Oct 2007, 01:36

Seen as this thread has taken a philosophical turn (well, it's taken an "everyone shouting at cross purposes" turn. I will refrain from making the obvious joke), I thought I'd mention this: http://members.autobahn.mb.ca/~pmclure/SThowto3.html

"How to 3".

Ladies and gents, here is your field. Have a day there.

Eyedunno

6 Oct 2007, 01:41

See? Here's what I take issue with...

Even the most egregious errors in translation don't alter the underlying basis: It's fiction. It's fantasy. It's delusional.
Yeah, that tends to be my reaction to this line as well. The worldwide flood thing is not an error in translation. Nor are the things about a guy being swallowed whole by a big fish and emerging alive, a really strong guy who gets his strength from his hair, and a woman being impregnated by a god and giving birth to a god-man who is actually identical with his father and exists for the purpose of dying (but don't worry, he gets better!) as a blood sacrifice to himself.

And if some guy on the street told you any of these stories and portrayed them as happening in the present day, (almost) nobody would take them seriously.

wave

6 Oct 2007, 13:39

Two words: Chinese Whispers.

two more words; 'Arabic telephone' both are names for the same game, this is what the french call it, but which is the true name of the game?

Have you ever played the game and the final person got it right, because it happens.

thomasp

10 Oct 2007, 17:07

All posts from the Religious Debate have been moved to their new home: http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34598 (Luther's post above this one will go soon ;)

wave

10 Oct 2007, 18:14

All posts from the Religious Debate have been moved to their new home: http://forum.team17.co.uk/showthread.php?t=34598 (Luther's post above this one will go soon ;)

oh i didn't know there was a general chit-chat forum, horay this is good news.
But does the bowman thing really relate to the inappropriate flag topic? Perhaps you could create a topic called 'the french bowman myth' . But I believe you can blame/thank me for starting the religious-universe creation discussion. Spiffing.