Who else here has consumed so many books and other media about history that they've started to unironically like nobility? For example after reading the Iliad, or reading biographies of various important people like Frederick the Great, Bismarck, Alexander the Great, or just normal historical movies. I've reached a point where I have to constantly remind myself that I'm literally 7/8 pure peasant and would just have been beaten for fun by local nobles.
>Inb4 entry level historian go back to the library
Can we please get this schizophrenic spammer permabanned?
Landon Mitchell
That good feel when descended from nobles
Robert Allen
>that I'm literally 7/8 pure peasant and would just have been beaten for fun by local nobles. 8/8 peasant here, my ancestors have been beating the shit out of nobles for fun (and moniez) for centuries. I always smile when people larp as knights and shit, thinking how we used those guys for fertilizer.
Angel Myers
I don't think that's really what happened m80.
Jonathan Hernandez
That's exactly what happened mate. Pic very related.
Dylan Taylor
>Can we please get this schizophrenic spammer permabanned?
I'm talking about nobility in a thread about nobility. You're off-topic.
To be fair, most peasants were illiterate, violent scumbags throughout most of history.
Lincoln Watson
You forgot drunk. I don't see how that changes anything, same is true for most nobles.
Michael Gray
I'm not going to emgage you in discussion. I just legitimately wish you seek medical help for your schizoprenia and leave us alone.
Joshua Carter
stop giving out free (You)'s to blatant trolls you dumb fuck.
Christian Morales
Do you have any idea who that is? He's been spewing his sewage here for months. It doesn't matter if people respond to him.
Isaiah Taylor
>I'm not going to emgage you in discussion. I just legitimately wish you seek medical help for your schizoprenia and leave us alone.
I don't have schizophrenia, I am your god - or I am in a solipsistic hell dimension where I am the god of this planet but all the NPCs refuse to accept reality - I cannot tell from my perspective frame whether other humans are sentient or not.
Your unwillingness to engage in honest discussion - instead resorting to ad hominem attacks - isn't my problem - it is your own.
Samuel Thompson
Ya know, I'm sure someone has pointed this out to you by now, with all your 24/7 spam - but you do realize that isn't actually the latitude those pyramids are at. They're at 29.979175 - miles from there - it's just Google snaps to them since their the nearest landmark. 29.98 will also get you the pyramids.
Longitude is completely arbitrary, and wasn't even really standardized up until 300 years ago or so. Nearly every other major nation used its own capital as the prime meridian up until then - and it switched between London and France for a good hundred years after. Ya can bet your ass, if the Egyptians even had the concept, they weren't using freaking Greenwich as their prime meridian. If anything, they probably would have used the pyramids themselves, making the Great Pyramid 0°E.
Nevermind that the ancient Egyptians have to had been measuring the speed of light in Meters, something invented in 1793AD, rather than Cubits, for this all to work.
Shouldn't be feeding you (You's), but really now, do your homework /x/ boy.
Daniel Stewart
>It doesn't matter if people respond to him. thats the only thing that keeps him going and you just made his day. Everybody else seems to get that. Well, I guess this thread is FUBAR, I'm outa here, enjoy being played like a fiddle.
Blake Hughes
>They're at 29.979175
Yeah, to 6 significant figures that's 29.9792.
> Longitude is completely arbitrary, and wasn't even really standardized up until 300 years ago or so.
I understand that - it was actually more like 120 years. That's why they're called gods - they know past and future and can orchestrate massive signs.
> Nevermind that the ancient Egyptians have to had been measuring the speed of light in Meters
Yeah, you're thinking like a mortal - you rely on the assumption there is no god to make your ridiculous point that "well the Egyptians didn't have meters" like that's something I don't know.
I inductively reason from the observation that a quote from Shakespeare has come to pass as a premonition that a god is far more likely than not.
You start with a presumption there is no god and argue why an observation is irrelevant.
I start with an observation and suggest it strongly implies a conclusion that there is a god. Of course, I reached this conclusion from observations months before I even knew the lattitude of the Great Pyramid. I only learned that in ~July 2017, I claimed to be a god in December of 2016. Yo u have no way of knowing that's true, but it is true never the less.
I came to the conclusion I am a god from observations I made completely independent of the Giza/Shakespeare observation - however, that's one of the quickest ones I can point to to back up my point that this planet is being ruled by usurpers if that weren't already obvious from the "most sacred" text most of this population uses.
Nobles are usually antagonists in a lot of fiction works. Blame 19th century realism for that trend.
Jackson Peterson
>a race of people bred to rule should rule
Crazy, I know.
>inb4 inbred stereotype universally applied
>"all historians were nobles" >historians in the middle class over the past century trained by critical theorists and deconstructionists will go HAM any day now
Adrian Morris
They aren't bred to rule. Otherwise you'd off all the ones that ruled mediocre or badly, and only bred the ones that did well. I suppose *some* of the really bad ones get offed, but then you start a whole new line, and often the better ones just plain fail to breed. To top it all off, ambition rarely makes for good parenting. That isn't exactly artificial selection aimed towards rulership qualities.
I suppose you *could* make a breeding school of the most excellent philosopher kings, and that might result in something interesting, but the nobility has certainly never been that. Everyone just did the best with the materials they had, and the nobility just tended to have the best of everything for generations at a go, and still somehow often managed to fail miserably.
Not that the nobility aren't more interesting and pleasant to follow historically - well, probably - it's rare that anyone else had shit written about them, but you're bound to have more interesting adventures with a prestigious family fortune and connections at your disposal.
Cameron Brown
>I don't have schizophrenia, I am your god
Yes, let's think about the world.
For example, many many Kings across the globe have claimed to be gods for 1000's of years. This was before they even knew the world was round much less had the scientific nihilism to claim there are no gods, souls, or afterlives.
Why claim to be a god when you're the King? Why not just be the King? Why risk some sort of divine retribution by falsely claiming to be a god? They're all nutcases? They're all nihilistic opportunists? Or maybe some of them, most of them, or all of them had good reason to claim to be gods?
Why not say "the gods will punish you for killing the King?"
Why say "the gods will punish you for killing a god who is also the King?"
>I suppose *some* of the really bad ones get offed, but then you start a whole new line, and often the better ones just plain fail to breed. To top it all off, ambition rarely makes for good parenting. That isn't exactly artificial selection aimed towards rulership qualities.
Baseless assumptions required by the opposition to argue otherwise. I could equally say that ambitious rulers would do more to raise their legacy and it would be as valid as your claim.
How did the nobles become so noble in the first place? You act like murderous train robbers or lucky investors were selected to rulership. Would you guess that there is more or less discontentment in the medieval era than there is now, even with the obvious difference in standard of living? I would, but that's just me. Since nobles marry other nobles, those traits are what gets put forward and refined so yes it was a breeding ground of certain traits in the exceptions that marriages weren't immediately needed to secure a peace.
Landon Jackson
>This was before they even knew the world was round
Idk about that. The Greeks guessed the circumference on the world based on the notion that it was round. Also it shows up in the Orphic mysteries. The Orphic Hymns call Earth a ball(flat Earthers on suicide watch)
And it comes from the conception of what divine is. There is more than one type of concept for divinity, and it doesn't always have to be supernatural, it could be reverential.
Carter Davis
>Idk about that.
Ok, well yes, there were people who knew the world was round in these eras. But certainly not all of them.
You're just begging the question of why risk divine retribution by claiming to be a god in an era when scientific nihilism was virtually non-existent?
There are many reasons why someone might claim to be a god. They may well be a "nutcase" or just be making things up. They may have said "if I am wrong, strike me down" and when nothing happened assumed it is because they are a god.
It is not logical to leap to the conclusion it is because they are one.
Adam Wood
Your pic, video, and arguments are all scattered and obscure. I don't know what you were trying to relate with each thing, but taken on their own I don't even know where to start with each. Maybe come up with a better post?
Isaac Cooper
It's just free association run wild. Magical thinking makes for good fiction though, so it's good to keep a few nutcases and drug addicts around, I suppose. Just wish they'd stay on when they aren't writing screenplays and the like.
Benjamin Lee
>They may have said "if I am wrong, strike me down" and when nothing happened assumed it is because they are a god.
Well, I didn't say strike me down - that never happens obviously - you can mock and degrade anything and gods won't strike you dead.
I presume there's an afterlife like all reputable theologies - concerning oneself with the soul not the body.
>Your pic, video, and arguments are all scattered and obscure.
They are not "scattered and obscure," they form a clear nexus on The Imperial Cult.
