|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Feb 21, 2018 12:15:14 GMT
Or, it could suggest that African’s with advanced technology and freedom from colonialism would not have held their society to euro-centric ideas of civility. The Wakandan system of succession is based on well established, centuries-old rules and traditions.
Moreover, saying that it's OK for Wakanda to hold on to such a barbaric tradition is OK because it's
Got a God that tells them to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Feb 21, 2018 12:35:34 GMT
Its part of their culture, so who cares? In America our presidency is rigged by the rich and powerful so What's to say we are any better? In America, we don't have that same barbaric craving to see blood spilled and human life taken like Wakandans do. I wonder how many school shootings/mass shootings Wakanda has. |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 21, 2018 13:07:31 GMT
Its part of their culture, so who cares? In America our presidency is rigged by the rich and powerful so What's to say we are any better? In America, we don't have that same barbaric craving to see blood spilled and human life taken like Wakandans do. We don't? I think all the mass murders and mass shootings that have been going on lately says otherwise. Not to mention how many countries over seas that we bombed and keep on bombing, the millions of innocent people we slaughtered because we either want their resources or land. But Please! Keep on telling me that America isn't bloodthirsty or barbaric. Tell me that there hasn't been any conservatives or even liberals that haven't demanded bloodshed! The United States of America is just as bloodthirsty and barbaric as any other country, real or fake. |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 21, 2018 13:48:44 GMT
there just doesn't seem to be any other logical explanation for why a 21st-century nation (especially 1 that is supposedly technologically advanced) to still hold on to such a medieval and barbaric spectacle of bloodshed and mortal combat. The logical reason is that vibranium leap-frogged the Wakandans forward, technologically, but not socially. You couldn't figure that out on your own? You should probably watch The Best Superhero Movie of all Time again. Obviously, some of the simpler elements sailed right over your head. |
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 21, 2018 13:53:35 GMT
Either opponent can submit without forfeiting their life and honor will still be satisfied. In barbaric and brutal fights like these, it's possible that a fighter is incapacitated and thus unable to submit even if he wanted to. Hence the challenge carrying risk there by making it something one must have conviction and faith in themselves to make, also whilst they could succumb to a beating and be unable to submit being incapacitated like that also grants victory to the other person and they have the right to end the fight or kill their enemy, the fight does not require death but allows the king the right to kill their enemy or not.
Also these aren't fights for entertainment unlike in the "civilised" world where we watch various forms of combat sports where men or women can be killed in extreme circumstances but in typical ones simply sustain long term brain damage which leads to debilitating health issues later in life, and we do so for fun and entertainment, hypocrite much?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 21, 2018 15:59:58 GMT
In barbaric and brutal fights like these, it's possible that a fighter is incapacitated and thus unable to submit even if he wanted to.Hence the challenge carrying risk there by making it something one must have conviction and faith in themselves to make, also whilst they could succumb to a beating and be unable to submit being incapacitated like that also grants victory to the other person and they have the right to end the fight or kill their enemy, the fight does not require death but allows the king the right to kill their enemy or not.
Also these aren't fights for entertainment unlike in the "civilised" world where we watch various forms of combat sports where men or women can be killed in extreme circumstances but in typical ones simply sustain long term brain damage which leads to debilitating health issues later in life, and we do so for fun and entertainment, hypocrite much?
To the highlighted point. That is why the challenge has a referee of sorts to preside over the confrontation. You shouldn't waste your time on responding to him. He's doesn't have the intellectual prowess required to understand the anthropological and social construct of a warrior culture. Such a culture provides security for society at the cost of a particular social/moral standard. To evaluate the "barbarity" of that tradeoff, you'd need to assess the moral standard in question and apply context to it. Suffice it to say; it's a little more than we have time for here today. Whose moral code have the Wakandans transgressed; man's, God's, Society's, mine - yours? The shallowness of the OP's assessment of even a FICTIONAL warrior culture's succession practices is laughable. Wakandans don't send their standing armies into foreign countries to plunder their wealth, strip-mine their resources, destabilize their governments or otherwise harm their citizens. Wakandan spies observe and report back. To call them blood-thirsty, savage or barbaric is hypocrisy in the extreme. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 22, 2018 4:33:53 GMT
That's my point. It's a centuries-old tradition. Heck, royal succession in medieval England was often decided by bloodshed and loss of human life.
As a matter of interest please name one King in England who gained the throne through man to man combat with the current king? In medieval England, it was common for Kings to lead their armies into battle. In 1485, both Richard III and Henry Tudor fought at the Battle of Bosworth Field. Richard III became the last English King to be killed in battle and Henry Tudor won the throne and became Henry VII. Moreover, saying that it's OK for Wakanda to hold on to such a barbaric tradition is OK because it's a centuries old tradition is the stupidest thing ever. Henry VIII beheaded 2 of his wives for infidelity (and only 1 of the 2 was actually guilty of infidelity). So if Prince Charles had said "Diana was unfaithful to me so she should be beheaded", would you say that's OK because it's a centuries-old tradition for a King or Prince to behead his wife if she was unfaithful? Do you see how stupid your argument is? You truly are a fucking idiot. Beheading your wife for infidelity was NOT a tradition. It was a tradition during the time of Henry VIII. He beheaded 2 of his wives on the charge of infidelity (although only 1 of the 2 was actually guilty of infidelity). |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 22, 2018 4:43:30 GMT
In America, we don't have that same barbaric craving to see blood spilled and human life taken like Wakandans do. Keep on telling me that America isn't bloodthirsty or barbaric. Tell me that there hasn't been any conservatives or even liberals that haven't demanded bloodshed! The United States of America is just as bloodthirsty and barbaric as any other country, real or fake. Well, when the 2000 Presidential election was disputed, I don't recall anyone blood being shed to settle that dispute. The dispute was settled peacefully without any bloodshed. Yet Wakanda, which is supposedly a technologically advanced nation, still cant' figure out in the 21st century a peaceful way to settle a political dispute and still resort to uncivilized barbaric savagery to settle a simple political dispute. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 22, 2018 4:47:00 GMT
In barbaric and brutal fights like these, it's possible that a fighter is incapacitated and thus unable to submit even if he wanted to. Hence the challenge carrying risk there by making it something one must have conviction and faith in themselves to make, also whilst they could succumb to a beating and be unable to submit being incapacitated like that also grants victory to the other person and they have the right to end the fight or kill their enemy, the fight does not require death but allows the king the right to kill their enemy or not.
Also these aren't fights for entertainment unlike in the "civilised" world where we watch various forms of combat sports where men or women can be killed in extreme circumstances but in typical ones simply sustain long term brain damage which leads to debilitating health issues later in life, and we do so for fun and entertainment, hypocrite much?
The key word in "combat sports" is "sports". It's a sport, they don't use deadly weapons and don't kill. Unlike Wakanda, which uses deadly weapons in mortal combat. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 22, 2018 4:49:44 GMT
Hence the challenge carrying risk there by making it something one must have conviction and faith in themselves to make, also whilst they could succumb to a beating and be unable to submit being incapacitated like that also grants victory to the other person and they have the right to end the fight or kill their enemy, the fight does not require death but allows the king the right to kill their enemy or not.
Also these aren't fights for entertainment unlike in the "civilised" world where we watch various forms of combat sports where men or women can be killed in extreme circumstances but in typical ones simply sustain long term brain damage which leads to debilitating health issues later in life, and we do so for fun and entertainment, hypocrite much?
Wakandans don't send their standing armies into foreign countries to plunder their wealth, strip-mine their resources, destabilize their governments or otherwise harm their citizens. Did you not see the scene when the Wakandan woman walked into a casino in Korea with a large spear and started stabbing people? |
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Feb 22, 2018 4:50:51 GMT
Why do you talk about these movies like you live in them/like they’re real life?
|
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Feb 22, 2018 4:55:30 GMT
Why do you talk about these movies like you live in them/like they’re real life? Maybe the Mandela effect pushed him into the Marvel universe?  |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Feb 22, 2018 5:14:11 GMT
Wakandans don't send their standing armies into foreign countries to plunder their wealth, strip-mine their resources, destabilize their governments or otherwise harm their citizens. Did you not see the scene when the Wakandan woman walked into a casino in Korea with a large spear and started stabbing people? You should watch the scene again and, this time, please try to pay closer attention. The action moves fast but, I'm confident you can keep up if you still your hateful thoughts. General Okoye, Commander of Wakanda's elite royal guard, the Dora Milaje, stabs exactly one person during the casino fight. She otherwise expertly uses her spear to stun and topple her opponents. The individual who was 'stabbed' received his wound to the foot - a non life-threatening area of the body. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Feb 22, 2018 9:29:03 GMT
As a matter of interest please name one King in England who gained the throne through man to man combat with the current king? In medieval England, it was common for Kings to lead their armies into battle. In 1485, both Richard III and Henry Tudor fought at the Battle of Bosworth Field. Richard III became the last English King to be killed in battle and Henry Tudor won the throne and became Henry VII. I ask again...name one King who gained the throne through man to man combat with another King. Show me something comparable with Black Panther...a battle between two armies is not the same. Because a king did something centuries ago does not make it a tradition. Also Henry VIII is a terrible example as he is a man that changed laws and religious doctorine to suit his own needs, particularly with regard to his marriages Anne Boleyn was also accused of incest and high treason when beheaded. Catherine Howard was not beheaded because it was a tradition, Henry VIII did it because he was angry and he could. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 22, 2018 9:31:25 GMT
Did you not see the scene when the Wakandan woman walked into a casino in Korea with a large spear and started stabbing people? The individual who was 'stabbed' received his wound to the foot So he may have been maimed for life and possibly unable to ever walk again. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Feb 22, 2018 9:39:22 GMT
The individual who was 'stabbed' received his wound to the foot So he may have been maimed for life and possibly unable to ever walk again. Are you spending so much time giving dumb answers and theories on this subject so you can avoid addressing the change to your beloved RT 50 Best Super Hero Movie List |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 22, 2018 9:41:05 GMT
In medieval England, it was common for Kings to lead their armies into battle. In 1485, both Richard III and Henry Tudor fought at the Battle of Bosworth Field. Richard III became the last English King to be killed in battle and Henry Tudor won the throne and became Henry VII. I ask again...name one King who gained the throne through man to man combat with another King. Show me something comparable with Black Panther...a battle between two armies is not the same. It's the same thing. We're talking about bloody combat for a throne, which was common in medieval times but doesn't happen now in the 21st century. Except in Wakanda, where the Wakandan people are bloodthirsty and barbaric savages, possibly a side effect from living in an environment surrounded by all that vibranium. Vibranium came from a meteor so it's basically radioactive. So prolonged exposure to vibranium is what probably caused the Wakandans to become bloodthirsty and barbaric savages. Anne Boleyn was also accused of incest and high treason when beheaded. And the consensus among historians is that she was innocent of those charges. Catherine Howard was not beheaded because it was a tradition Catherine Howard was beheaded for infidelity. Unlike her cousin Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard was guilty of the charges and admitted after she was sentenced. And yes, it was a tradition, established by Henry VIII. Or do you actually think that Henry VIII wouldn't have beheaded any of his other wives if they were also unfaithful? |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Feb 22, 2018 10:03:28 GMT
I ask again...name one King who gained the throne through man to man combat with another King. Show me something comparable with Black Panther...a battle between two armies is not the same. It's the same thing. We're talking about bloody combat for a throne, which was common in medieval times but doesn't happen now in the 21st century. Except in Wakanda, where the Wakandan people are bloodthirsty and barbaric savages, possibly a side effect from living in an environment surrounded by all that vibranium. Vibranium came from a meteor so it's basically radioactive. So prolonged exposure to vibranium is what probably caused the Wakandans to become bloodthirsty and barbaric savages. Anne Boleyn was also accused of incest and high treason when beheaded. And the consensus among historians is that she was innocent of those charges. Catherine Howard was not beheaded because it was a tradition Catherine Howard was beheaded for infidelity. Unlike her cousin Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard was guilty of the charges and admitted after she was sentenced. And yes, it was a tradition, established by Henry VIII. Or do you actually think that Henry VIII wouldn't have beheaded any of his other wives if they were also unfaithful? It's not the same thing. How is a a King being challenged to hand to hand combat for his throne on his coronation, the same as a King dying in battle. Whether guilty or not is not the point. You say she was beheaded because it was tradition to do so to adulterers...ever thought perhaps High Treason may have been more of a reason for the beheading? Don't give a shit about their guilt or not...that is not what this is about. It is about you insisting the beheadings were because of a tradition. No it was a law. There is a difference. And secondly if you cannot see the stupidity in what you said there in the context of your argument you really are a lost cause. Henry VIII would have done what he wanted...and he pretty much did so...so much that resulted in the creation of a seperate religious doctorine to meet his needs. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 22, 2018 10:18:08 GMT
It's the same thing. We're talking about bloody combat for a throne, which was common in medieval times but doesn't happen now in the 21st century. Except in Wakanda, where the Wakandan people are bloodthirsty and barbaric savages, possibly a side effect from living in an environment surrounded by all that vibranium. Vibranium came from a meteor so it's basically radioactive. So prolonged exposure to vibranium is what probably caused the Wakandans to become bloodthirsty and barbaric savages. And the consensus among historians is that she was innocent of those charges. Catherine Howard was beheaded for infidelity. Unlike her cousin Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard was guilty of the charges and admitted after she was sentenced. And yes, it was a tradition, established by Henry VIII. Or do you actually think that Henry VIII wouldn't have beheaded any of his other wives if they were also unfaithful? It's not the same thing. How is a a King being challenged to hand to hand combat for his throne on his coronation, the same as a King dying in battle. It's the same thing. In both cases, the King faces a challenge to the throne and has to defend his Crown in bloody combat. Like I've explained to you MCU fans many times before, that was common in medieval times, but now so in the 21st century. Except for Wakanda, because Wakandans have been infected from living in an environment surrounded by all that radioactive vibranium. [Whether guilty or not is not the point. You say she was beheaded because it was tradition to do so to adulterers...ever thought perhaps High Treason may have been more of a reason for the beheading? Infidelity to the King was considered high treason in medieval times. So Anne Boleyn was beheaded on the charge of infidelity to the King. But like I said, the consensus among historians is that she was innocent of those charges. Don't give a shit about their guilt or not...that is not what this is about. It is about you insisting the beheadings were because of a tradition. And they were. Henry VIII charged 2 of his wives with infidelity and beheaded both of them. If another wife had been unfaithful, he would've had her beheaded as well since that was tradition. |
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Feb 22, 2018 10:24:26 GMT
It's not the same thing. How is a a King being challenged to hand to hand combat for his throne on his coronation, the same as a King dying in battle. It's the same thing. In both cases, the King faces a challenge to the throne and has to defend his Crown in bloody combat. Like I've explained to you MCU fans many times before, that was common in medieval times, but now so in the 21st century. Except for Wakanda, because Wakandans have been infected from living in an environment surrounded by all that radioactive vibranium. [Whether guilty or not is not the point. You say she was beheaded because it was tradition to do so to adulterers...ever thought perhaps High Treason may have been more of a reason for the beheading? Infidelity to the King was considered high treason in medieval times. So Anne Boleyn was beheaded on the charge of infidelity to the King. But like I said, the consensus among historians is that she was innocent of those charges. Don't give a shit about their guilt or not...that is not what this is about. It is about you insisting the beheadings were because of a tradition. And they were. Henry VIII charged 2 of his wives with infidelity and beheaded both of them. If another wife had been unfaithful, he would've had her beheaded as well since that was tradition. OK ...you are being way to stupid to get into lengthy responses so briefly 1. NO it is not the same 2. And therefore beheaded because it was a law NOT a tradition 3. In all seriousness...do you know hat "tradition" means. Even if it was a tradition how can Henry VIII be an example if he introduced it. 4. Care to comment of the Greatest Super Hero films list on RT? |
|
