Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Join the Romance of the Three Kingdoms discussion with our resident Scholars. Topics relating to the novel and history are both welcome. Don't forget to check the Forum Rules before posting.
Kongming’s Archives: Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Three Kingdoms Officer Biographies
Three Kingdoms Officer Encyclopedia
Scholars of Shen Zhou Search Tool

Best/Favourite of the Three Kingdoms?

Wei
138
34%
Shu
162
40%
Wu
107
26%
 
Total votes : 407

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Fri Dec 21, 2018 12:30 pm

My two cents on the “Zhang Fei is a rapist” claim:

I too take issue with it. I can understand inferring the claim from his recorded actions; the kidnapping was an awful thing, and it would seem unusual for a kidnapped girl to later consent to her kidnapper. (Though stranger things have happened, given Stockholm syndrome.)

However I feel labeling their relationship as built upon rape makes it difficult to define most male-female relationships from the time as anything else. Women were often married off, whether they liked the man or not. It would seem similarly unusual, in my opinion, for a married off woman to later consent to her appointed husband. Yet I’d be weary to consider all or even most of these cases to be rape; that would paint a rather dire portrait of the era’s men!

Before using such charged language I personally try to determine if it’s applicable language to the setting. Confucianism-prevailing culture at that time clearly held man’s decision above woman’s; I would go as far as to say the concept of consent didn’t exist at all. Cases of rape were more “you forced yourself upon a woman that belongs to me, how dare you” than “you forced yourself upon a woman against her will, how dare you”. I’m unsure women themselves even believed they had a choice in the matter at all.

Did Lady Xiahou want to have sex with Zhang Fei? She probably wasn’t looking forward to it. Did she consider her will violated? I doubt it; women weren’t taught they had such a thing to begin with.

I’m more surprised that Xiahou Yuan didn’t much seem to consider his will violated by the whole ordeal!

I don’t say any of this as an excuse for Zhang Fei. I consider the way he went about “obtaining” a wife to be reprehensible. However I do not consider him to be a rapist. I can understand applying the term retrospective to our modern cultures, but I personally don’t like to do that.
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby Han » Fri Dec 21, 2018 2:17 pm

Isn't circle jerk slang for self pleasure? Unless literally describing such an act in a more suitable topic, it would be very much appreciated if you would stick to language suitable for the forum.

If after this reply your still unhappy with my handling (beyond seeking further clarity) about way I have moderated the discussion, you are of course free to ask for second opinion of other staff. Or if you wish to continue discussions with me, my PM's are open.


Sure. But in this case it means as wikitionary puts it

(slang) Any group or group activity indulging in mutual gratification.


Aka 'chatty talk' that are neither scholar~ish nor contribute to discussion.

How is it that accusing a historical figure of rape with zero source or evidence is more suitable than a word of slang. Like I understand if one would prefer 'lol' or 'haha' over 'lmao' because the latter can carry a condescending tone insuitable for scholarly discussion.

But rape is a much more charged term than circlejerk. Especially accusing someone of doing so. In comparison to a purely internet slang.

Im not unhappy lol. Was just pointing out my surprise behind the inconsistencies of the moderation as I previously stated already.

You feel that, others will disagree about why people posted what they did and their accuracy. It was going very nicely but I agree very recently it has got hostile including from your end, I will monitor.

I honestly have no idea how those places run or what they are like, we are our own forum. If there is stuff there you feel would help improve this forum we have a suggestions/feedback thread, always helpful to get new ideas.


If they disagree with my stand on their accuracy, shouldnt they post a source after being requested to do so to support said accuracy especially when it came to scholarly discussion? Fair enough.

Sure.

I wasn't complaining, I was giving a brief explanation but sorry that is how it came across.

When "ok off topic" is a bit of a play it by ear, had it been one or two people I would have had probably moved it on for sake of others (as I did with us) but was multiple people having a good time, I was happy to let it run and nothing going on in the thread was beyond this forums norms.


Sure.

So in a thread of the best kingdom, I can understand why you would ignore/accept a discussion about the generalship of said kingdoms generals. Or the records of their respective histories. Fine. I get it. But you dont think talking about 'rape' was beyond this thread norms? Really? In a discussion about best Kingdom mind you.

Understandable but fear it makes it difficult for the readers


Sorry. What do you mean by fear? I dont think there is anyone here that is being afraid in a forum about history. I will honestly admit I was hostile - extremely so even - but to the point of fear?

How I see it

1) I point out Wei Yan vs Zhuge Liang is novel invention due to something Li_Shengsun was saying

2) Li_Shengsun does the smoke without fire bit (ie must be some truth to novel's version) and asks how he died

3) I gave quick answer on the how he died, then went into smoke without fire discussion. I separated the two only for ease of seeing which bit I was responding to, it was still connected to the original discussion of Zhuge Liang distrusts Wei Yan in novel must have some truth due to no smoke without fire. Matter gets sorted

4) you query.


No, the 'no smoke without fire' was about Liu Bei's trust and Zhuge Liang's 'shortcoming' in terms of judgement. Nowhere is it related to the novel. The only time the novel was mentioned was in relation to Li asking about Wei Yan's death. NOT smoke without fire. Please please read carefully. The 'smoke fire' thing was literally after Liu Bei' trust and before Zhuge Liang's judgement which was by itself a separate quote from the question on romance about Wei Yan's death.

By the way you have yet to source that the romance, a completely fictional novel, had a 'political agenda'.

I meant 3kingdoms questions to clarify in case you have those as well but fair enough, you have every right to ask about the moderating

Targeted by whom?

I'm just saying I don't wish to debate with you as, when I saw your post, I lost the will to engage rather then a moderator issue if that is what your concerned with. You have right to be aggressive if you wish, as long as keep within the rules (or it ever come across as bullying, we would step in), and I won't mod stop you. How people in the forum as debating people react, as long as within the rules, is up to them including just walking away if they don't like the tone.


Sure.

Uhhh you? Previously you admitted that this thread got hostile. But I was the only specific user to get singled out in that pot kettle thingy.

And thas fine and dandy but I just thought that a mod will put himself in a higher standard and correct the tone instead of disengaging.

It isn't against the rules (unless being deemed trolling which would be something like "all or Shu/Wei army were rapists" or clear ill intent) to claim something. People can challenge such claims about Zhang Fei (since he is the usual one to be accused, I'm using him as example) or others at will if they feel someone has been unfairly accused. I also can't make people respond if they don't wish to debate with another person but they risk reputation damage with others depending on circumstances or frequency. I'm afraid your going to need to encourage them to want to respond to you


Ok. Thats a fair point. So...... can I claim that Cao Cao was a blood sucking vampire without showing any source? :lol: . And yes, thats a joke. Dont take it seriously. Humour attempt in a hostile thread.

I believe I am allowed, as a forum user, to withdraw from a debate. That is not one of my moderating duties.

I’m afraid I have noticed that people don’t seem willing to engage in debate so in terms of improving your general debate: You tend to challenge every little thing, including getting down to the exact meaning of the words, points just expand and expand, people don’t have that level of time and it can become exhausting. Your debating style comes across as aggressive, lecturing, rude which I’m sure you don’t intend, some don’t like an aggressive style at all, some can cope with that in bursts but combined with length, it doesn't encourage people to join in, to reply or give any any sense of fun if they join in. Anything you don't like and accusations come flying out, not "I disagree" but false or straw-man or other terms, it comes across as dismissive and I’m afraid even disrespectful. You proudly hold onto your admirable goal of being neutral but others don’t feel that way about you and any challenge is met badly while if they post a criticism, however careful they may be, of some figure then whatabouttery is quick to emerge.


I hope that helps


And thas fine and dandy but I just thought that a mod will put himself in a higher standard and correct the tone instead of disengaging.

Not every little thing. Quite a number but not everything. Expand and expand? I do quote the full thing and attempt to respond instead of running away and disengaging. There are times where I apologise for my mistakes, acknowledge their claims, or agree to disagree. And pretty much all of my replies comes with context and occasionally source. ESPECIALLY when requested. This gives the impression that Im 'expanding'. Would you rather I 'snip' away their stands and give half hearted replies with no crucial information? Exhuasting? I get straight to the point asap instead of using sarcasm like you frequently do so. Aggresive, rude. Yes. I apologise. But please note that in this specific thread, I wasnt hostile~ish until people start accusing that peach bros and then the Cao clan of being rapists while providing zero source. Lecturing? How so. Im always quick to ask for sources. Im not like tumblr who go around typing that 'Zhuge Liang writes history' and 'Cao Cao massacres were famine' as an example. This is strange. If I dont 'like' anything, I wouldnt respond nor attempt to go over great lengths to back my statements nor take my time to quote bit after bit and then respond bit after bit but ok. To use an anology its because the term 'I disagree' can mean that both sides may be right but offer different viewpoints like the sky is light blue or blue meanwhile I use 'false' because many have been arguing that the sky is yellow without offering any sources. And its not like I use the term all the time or even regularly. Lets temporarily bring it back to this thread. You claimed that Jiang Wei was loyally assidous which conveniently leaves out the 'his heart is loyal to the house of Han'. Meanwhile, Daolun claimed ' Zhou Yu was never CIC'. This ignores that Zhou Yu was actually CIC for like a decade. In both cases, both were literally 'false'. And Im using literally correctly by the way. Yet you dont see me 1. Just saying false. 2. Dismissing. 3. Using sarcasm or 4. Not clarifying nor not replying. As for 'strawmen', you should look up what that term means. You bringing up the romance when it was not related to the initial stand is literally the definition of strawmen. As for ' other terms', why dont you clarify. 'Burden of proof' is simply standard academic terms and fundamental requirements in academia while attacking someone of being bias to dissuade his stand is standard 'Ad hominem' and will not be tolerated(if cannot be supported) in professional academia. I cant change the way people feel about me. Though I have went great lengths to improve my tone in this thread at the least, no? Ok. First thing first. Whataboutism was literally a USA propaganda tactic to dissuade the Russians from pointing out Western hypocrisy. Second of all, I have yet to use any whataboutism. I used Cao Cao as an example. NOT to defend Zhang Fei. In fact, I proceeded to defend Cao Cao forces multiple times.

You have made many accusations with little context. Stuff like 'Expanding', 'Whataboutism', 'Lecturing', 'Dismissive'... The next time you want to accuse me of something, please provide some context and then examples. Like how I did when I pointed out in the 'Burden of Proof' in which I outlined my stand, my opposition stand, the flaws of the argument, and then the definition of my claims. Meanwhile, when I request sources you immediately disengage and are unwilling to do so. Pretty interesting eh...

You were never given formal "that's a strike" warnings if that helps (which usually involve "you have been formerly warned" style PM's). You were warned in advising terms about, if my memory is correct, how you used them.

Sarcasm is, unless seen as overly aggressive or really really unhelpfully, allowed though should be used carefully and I acknowledge I can be careless on that. Though if your referring to Zhuge Liang and Liang province, the pre brackets bit was serious and the brackets bits was meant as a good natured joke, not sarcasm. Slang isn't a good idea as can create confusion given many cultures and I must have missed that. The last :roll: I saw in skim-read back was from a new guy who I gave a gentle word to and he explained he thought it meant something else so matter was dealt with. Emoji's are allowed, we just asked they aren't overused and used with care

Logic or illogical isn't usually a moderating matter. People don't tend to source here unless asked for time reasons (or they have found something obscure/intresting they wish to share) and up to them to respond, their goodwill and so on. It is great that you do source though. I have no mod powers to force someone to engage with you (or anyone), post sources for anyone and discussions are rarely mod closed off due to lack of sourcing.

Chit chat more means one liners, off topic discussion and jokes (we do allow some joking of course) rather then the style of debate that was going on. There has been plenty of of discussion (yes, not about best kingdom but I am still happy to let that run) going in last few pages on the 3kingdoms in normal forum style rather then chit-chat.

I am sorry your frustrated, I do hope at least I have helped somewhat with the confusion.


Yeah. Looking back on my older posts. You were correct. Those warnings were pretty casual-like.

Ok, agree for now. This is pretty fair outlook.

This isnt really academic nor scholarly. Just saying.

Ahhh, so labelling historical figures as rapists and 'douchebags' that doesnt contribute anything to any topic - on or off - is not chit chatty... ok will keep in mind.

Yeah. Its cool now. Thanks for the many much needed clarification.

Your basic argument appears to be this: Take the Zhang Fei and the teenage girl example. You're saying that it is illogical and wrong for me to claim that Zhang Fei raped the girl because the source doesn't specifically say it. However i make a natural interpolation based on what the source says (we both know the source says something like she was collecting firewood, Zhang Fei kidnapped her and knew she was from a good family so married her). I interpret that as rape because he took a kid (proven by age) against her will (proven by kidnapping) and then married her. It doesn't say he kidnapped her, but then decided to treat her like gold and after asked her to marry him. I think rape is a very fair and logical assumption. You're saying i cant say it because it's not literally stated in any source.

What about your statements then? Earlier you said that Zhao Yun was not as versatile as Zhang Fei. You did not provide a source. Now even if i asked you for a source, all you're going to do (at best) is list a bunch of Zhang Fei's accomplishments and maybe Zhao Yun's from their SGZs and then say all of that = Zhang Fei more versatile than Zhao Yun. However, by your own logic this isn't backed up by the source because no source specifically says: 'Zhang Fei was more versatile than Zhao Yun'. You would be making your own interpolations based on what the sources say. So why is that ok for you and not me?

Also must agree with Dong Zhou, it's great that he took the time to say all of the above to you. Remember his amazing contributions over so many years are throughout the entire forum. Some of us are specific to symposium. You can't expect the guy to always reply to everything. Even he has to pick and choose here and there.


Yes. And In addition Im saying that theres a much stronger argument that Lady Xiahou wasnt a 'rape' victim because high ranking generals tend to not marry their 'rape victims' and they will have a much better and larger pool of more beautiful women to 'rape'. And then Liu Bei wouldnt just grant a 'rape' victim an important request. The r/askhistorians user already put it out for you. If you actually take the time to read it, you would understand. Meanwhile, again, lets look what Zhang DID. He KIDNAPPED. Not rape. So no, your claims are neither fair, nor logical nor backed by any source. And again, you have yet to define 'rape' as I have requested many times. In the modern 21st Century some countries constitute rape as simply sexual molestation. Others penatration. Others sexual assault. So human beings in a much liberal, open minded and freer world than Han China cant even come to an agreement on the legality of rape and yet you want to stamp that charged term on historical figures. You are engaging in a slippery slope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope by labelling historical figures as rapists when the concept of rape and sexual assault have changed and evolved over time throughout different societies. So you are damn right I want a proper source.

How does accusing historical figures of rape equate with comparing the abilities of historical figures. The concept of rape is very charged and highly debatable. More importantly its not academic nor scholarly. Meanwhile comparing the ability of different persons is in contrast more subjective and yet less charged with varying difference in opinions. So if you really want a reason... thats that. And also, I use facts for my stands.

Fact - Zhang Fei kidnapped. Not rape.

Fact - Cao Cao took women into his harem. Not rape.

Fact - Cao Chun captured Liu Bei's daughters. Not rape.

Fact - Zhang Fei was CIC for at least one campaign.

Fact - Zhao Yun was never CIC.

Fact - Zhang Fei was compared to Guan Yu and rated second to Guan Yu or equal to Ma Chao.

Fact - Zhao Yun was compared to Chen Dao a special ops guy who wasnt even given his SanGuoZhi biography.

Ohhh... I appreciate Dong. Which is why I take the time to request and question him. And actually, I find it highly likely that he check all sections of this forum at least once every two days considering his activeness and duties.

My two cents on the “Zhang Fei is a rapist” claim:

I too take issue with it. I can understand inferring the claim from his recorded actions; the kidnapping was an awful thing, and it would seem unusual for a kidnapped girl to later consent to her kidnapper. (Though stranger things have happened, given Stockholm syndrome.)

However I feel labeling their relationship as built upon rape makes it difficult to define most male-female relationships from the time as anything else. Women were often married off, whether they liked the man or not. It would seem similarly unusual, in my opinion, for a married off woman to later consent to her appointed husband. Yet I’d be weary to consider all or even most of these cases to be rape; that would paint a rather dire portrait of the era’s men!

Before using such charged language I personally try to determine if it’s applicable language to the setting. Confucianism-prevailing culture at that time clearly held man’s decision above woman’s; I would go as far as to say the concept of consent didn’t exist at all. Cases of rape were more “you forced yourself upon a woman that belongs to me, how dare you” than “you forced yourself upon a woman against her will, how dare you”. I’m unsure women themselves even believed they had a choice in the matter at all.

Did Lady Xiahou want to have sex with Zhang Fei? She probably wasn’t looking forward to it. Did she consider her will violated? I doubt it; women weren’t taught they had such a thing to begin with.

I’m more surprised that Xiahou Yuan didn’t much seem to consider his will violated by the whole ordeal!

I don’t say any of this as an excuse for Zhang Fei. I consider the way he went about “obtaining” a wife to be reprehensible. However I do not consider him to be a rapist. I can understand applying the term retrospective to our modern cultures, but I personally don’t like to do that.


Exactly This! And apply it to Cao Cao, Cao Chun, Guan Yu, etc etc too.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Changshi
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby DaoLunOfShiji » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:02 pm

Not really sure why I was brought up, but okay. Do you have proof that Zhou Yu ever held the rank of Commander-In-Chief 大都督? As far as I can tell 大都督 was not first used until Lu Xun gained it after defeating Liu Bei during his Wu Campaign, so going by that Zhou Yu was never Da Dudu, Da Sima nor Da Jiangjun going by all the information I have provided. If you're arguing that he held a Commander title specifically, yes he did and I will happily agree. In 208 he was a Division Chief Commander. He also held this specific title (even more specifically 上大將軍) in the Romance. But my point was that he never held the specific Commander-In-Chief 大都督. Wu only used this title 大都督 sparingly after Lu Xun from my information, with Zhuge Ke, Sun Jun and Chen taking it while regents, and then under Sun Hao for the leaders of the Jiao campaigns. I don't see this ever being used by Sun Quan before Lu Xun. Zhou Yu's SGZ nor the ZZTJ make no reference to him holding the title that I can personally find. If I'm wrong then please show me it and I'll happily admit that I am wrong on this.
"Looking at Zhong Hui is like viewing an armory, one sees only spears and lances"
— Pei Kai
Check out this list of historical resources I have.
Check out this list of cited biographies I have written.
User avatar
DaoLunOfShiji
Scholar
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:26 pm
Location: "A genius like Cao Zhi, as martial as Cao Cao."

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:05 pm

Han, simply do not use the term circlejerk. In the right context, you can use rape.

I gave you the explanation for my decisions, if that do not suit then go to another moderator for a second opinion. I have tried to give you reasons as to why people avoid you in debates, it is up to you if you use that or not. I am not willing to engage further in the discussion
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

my tumbler

my officer analysis
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 16546
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby Fornadan » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:32 pm

Jia Nanfeng wrote:My two cents on the “Zhang Fei is a rapist” claim:

I too take issue with it. I can understand inferring the claim from his recorded actions; the kidnapping was an awful thing, and it would seem unusual for a kidnapped girl to later consent to her kidnapper. (Though stranger things have happened, given Stockholm syndrome.)

It's been argued that Stockholm syndrome as an evolutionary adaption to precisely this sort of situation, where someone is kidnapped and forcibly made part of their captor's group

Before using such charged language I personally try to determine if it’s applicable language to the setting. Confucianism-prevailing culture at that time clearly held man’s decision above woman’s; I would go as far as to say the concept of consent didn’t exist at all. Cases of rape were more “you forced yourself upon a woman that belongs to me, how dare you” than “you forced yourself upon a woman against her will, how dare you”. I’m unsure women themselves even believed they had a choice in the matter at all.

Jinshu 096 actually records several stories from the fall of Western Jin where women chose death rather than becoming concubines to the barbarian chiefs who kill their husbands. So presumably that was considered the ideal "virtuous" response.
Translations from the Book of Jin: http://bookofjin.tumblr.com/index
Fornadan
Academic
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:38 pm

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:44 pm

Fornadan wrote:Jinshu 096 actually records several stories from the fall of Western Jin where women chose death rather than becoming concubines to the barbarian chiefs who kill their husbands. So presumably that was considered the ideal "virtuous" response.

Did they make these decisions for concern of their sexual autonomy, or because they didn’t want to betray their empire/husband/family?
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby Fornadan » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:11 pm

Jia Nanfeng wrote:
Fornadan wrote:Jinshu 096 actually records several stories from the fall of Western Jin where women chose death rather than becoming concubines to the barbarian chiefs who kill their husbands. So presumably that was considered the ideal "virtuous" response.

Did they make these decisions for concern of their sexual autonomy, or because they didn’t want to betray their empire/husband/family?

Generally, they claim to prefer death to the humiliation their future holds.
Bad translations by me:

Heir-Apparent Minhuai’s Consort, Ms. Wang [d. 311 AD], was the daughter of Grand Commandant Yan [JS043] and had the courtesy name Huifeng. She was virtuous and amiable, and was determined and steadfast. When the Heir-Apparent had been deposed and resided in Jinyong [300 AD], Yan spoke of terminating the marriage. Huifeng wept and wailed, and returned, going on the road with her tears flowing. When Liu Yao captured Luoyang [in 311 AD], he used Huifeng to bestow on his general Qiao Shu. Shu wanted to marry her. Huifeng pulled out a sword to resist Shu, saying: "I am the daughter of a Grand Commandant and Excellency, and the Consort of the August Heir-Apparent. Righteous not to be humiliated by a traitorous Hu." Shu thereupon murdered her.

Jia Hun’s wife Ms. Zong, her native place is unknown. Hun was Prefect of Jiexiu [in Xihe]. He was attacked and routed by Liu Yuanhai’s general Qiao Xi and died there. Ms. Zong had a beautiful figure and Xi desired to take her. Ms. Zong cursed him, saying: "Slave of the Tuge [the Xiongnu roayl tribe], how can you murder a person’s husband then desire to assign [her] without rites, how is this to you? [?] Why do you not hurry and kill me!" Then she raised her head to Heaven and greatly wept. Xi thereupon murdered her. At the time she was (more than) 20 years old.

Liang Wei’s wife Ms. Xin was a native of Didao in Longxi. Wei was a Cavalier in Regular Attendance. When the Western Capital [Chang'an] was captured and lost, he was murdered by Liu Yao. Ms. Xin was a special beauty, Yao wanted to marry her. Ms. Xin grasped the ground [?], greatly wept, and raised her head to speak to Yao, saying: "Your Handmaid has heard a woman does not twice pledge, a man uses righteous zeal. I have heard. Your Handmaid’s husband is already dead, [I] manage not to live alone. [I] beg to attain sentencing and have the ministers for the earth send down the affair to my husband’s father and mother. [?] Moreover a wife twice betrothed, Your Enlightened Excellency, likewise how [will you] make use of her?" Thereupon she wept and wailed without halting. Yao said: "Chaste wife, rely on it." [She] strangled herself and died. Yao thereby buried her with the rites.

Xu Yan’s wife, Ms. Du, her native place is unknown. Yan was Aide-de-Camp of Yi province, and was murdered by Li Xiang. Xiang desired to take Ms. Du as wife. Ms Du wept and wailed, and protected her husband’s corpse. She cursed Xiang, saying: "You are among the traitorous thieves without the Way, death is before and after, serenity must for a long time exist [?]. I am a daughter of the Du family, how can [I] become a traitor’s wife?" Xiang was furious and thereupon murdered her.

Yin Yu’s two daughters were natives of Changsha. Yu first served as Grand Warden Shixing. He raised troops to punish Du Tao [JS100], but was defeated in battle. His two daughters were captured by Tao. Both were beauties of the state and Tao wanted to marry them. The daughters said: "Our father was a 2 000 shi [officer]. As a result we are not able to be a traitor’s wives. We will die, that is all." Tao murdered both of them.


This one is somewhat different:

The Marquis of Luyang, Wang Guang, courtesy name Guangzhi, was Inspector of West Yang province. At the end of Jin, he gathered the multitudes to escape the era. There was a Mei Fang of the Man who fanned the mountain barbarians to action and besieged Guang. The city was captured. The Man took Guang prisoner and wanted to turn him [?] to Fang. Guang’s daughter had a beautiful appearance. Fang pulled her in to enter, she considerably had favour. She entered through a ten day period. Wang waited until Fang was asleep, and pulled out a blade to behead Fang. Fang was startled and stood up, saying: "Why are you rebelling?" Wang scolded [him] saying: "Animal of the Man, I desire to execute the rebellious thieves, why speak of me rebelling? I have heard that with one’s father’s enemy one does not share the heavens, with one’s mother’s enemy one does not share the earth. Your rebellious treason is indescribable, [you] murdered this person’s father and mother, and then without courtesy affronted this person. The reason why I did not die is that I desired to execute you, that is all. Now death I myself will mete out, and not wait for you to kill. I only resent not getting to display your head at the roadway intersection, so as to close up the great shame." Her phrases and manners were savage and sharp, her appearance had no change in form. She then killed herself. At the time she was 15 years old
Translations from the Book of Jin: http://bookofjin.tumblr.com/index
Fornadan
Academic
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:38 pm

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby Han » Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:46 am

Not really sure why I was brought up, but okay. Do you have proof that Zhou Yu ever held the rank of Commander-In-Chief 大都督? As far as I can tell 大都督 was not first used until Lu Xun gained it after defeating Liu Bei during his Wu Campaign, so going by that Zhou Yu was never Da Dudu, Da Sima nor Da Jiangjun going by all the information I have provided. If you're arguing that he held a Commander title specifically, yes he did and I will happily agree. In 208 he was a Division Chief Commander. He also held this specific title (even more specifically 上大將軍) in the Romance. But my point was that he never held the specific Commander-In-Chief 大都督. Wu only used this title 大都督 sparingly after Lu Xun from my information, with Zhuge Ke, Sun Jun and Chen taking it while regents, and then under Sun Hao for the leaders of the Jiao campaigns. I don't see this ever being used by Sun Quan before Lu Xun. Zhou Yu's SGZ nor the ZZTJ make no reference to him holding the title that I can personally find. If I'm wrong then please show me it and I'll happily admit that I am wrong on this.


Great job attacking a strawman. Show me where either me or Li claimed that Zhou Yu had the rank of CIC. When we referred to Zhou Yu as CIC. It was specifically the role. Not the rank which we reclarify again when you tried to attack the strawman. Also, neither of those ranks were explicitly CIC by the way. Da Dudu means Great Controller. Da Sima is Great Controller while Da Jiangjun is Great General. These are the proper accurate translations. Your claims arent wrong, they were just irrelevant to the discussion on hand. Because role =/= rank. And again, when we refer to people as CIC, its role not rank. Unless specifically stated otherwise. Because if so, Liu Bei, Zhuge Liang and Cao Cao werent CICs.

Here are some examples.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16306&p=617418&hilit=CIC#p617418

In here, Li called Liao Hua as possibly being a poor CIC. Noticed that when Dong Zhou referred to Liao Hua and discussed his generalship ability, he didnt nitpick and said Liao Hua was never CIC(rank). Why? Because it is automatically assumed that Li was refering to CIC(role).

Another example here

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7758&p=616271&hilit=CIC#p616271

Me and Dong Zhou were discussing the 5 Tigers achievments, reputation and role etc etc. Noticed how I labelled Guan and Zhang and Ma as CICs(role) even though they never had CIC(rank)? Again why? Because Dong Zhou RIGHTFULLY assume that the CIC I was reffering to here was specificially the role.

So lets go back to YOUR question. Why did I use you as an example? Why did I brought you up? Because me and Li pointed out Zhou Yu's role and feats and than you didnt bother to understand and try to label our claims wrongly. Aka being false. If not a strawman.

Han, simply do not use the term circlejerk. In the right context, you can use rape.

I gave you the explanation for my decisions, if that do not suit then go to another moderator for a second opinion. I have tried to give you reasons as to why people avoid you in debates, it is up to you if you use that or not. I am not willing to engage further in the discussion


In the right context can I use circlejerk(slang)?

And Im pointing out the flaws in your explanation. Am I not allowed to do so? You were flat out resorting to ad hominem without providing any context. Its in my right to do defend my character. And by the way, if you bothered to read, you would know I actually agreed and proceeded to apologise for my mistakes. Its just a few statements I took offense too.

It's been argued that Stockholm syndrome as an evolutionary adaption to precisely this sort of situation, where someone is kidnapped and forcibly made part of their captor's group


For Lady Xiahou? Labelling mental/emotional illnesses or
deficiencies on historical figures isnt appropriate when it comes to professional academia. Especially when theres zero proof.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Changshi
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:46 am

In the right context can I use circlejerk(slang)?


Off the top of my head the only two times I can see that happening is 1) explaining the phrase, 2) using it as a politer term when describing the actual sexual act. Which seems unlikely to be a situation where that is appropriate in a 3kingdom context

I am obliged as a moderator to read all posts under my section (or reported to me) thoroughly and I did with all of yours in this thread Han. I just chose, as a member, not to give a full reply to a particular post. You are entitled to argue your case in front of others and to defend yourself, I have not blocked you from trying to or reprimanded you for doing so. I hope that provides reassurance about your posts being read but this will be my last post on the subject as a member

For Lady Xiahou? Labelling mental/emotional illnesses or
deficiencies on historical figures isnt appropriate when it comes to professional academia. Especially when theres zero proof.


I know not addressed to me but hoping this provides clarity on the matter:

This isn't professional academia (though it does happen there, Ni Heng for example), this is a forum with no connections to academia and nobody getting paid, coming here on there are own free time so there are different standards to academic world.

In terms of what is allowed on here: if discussing mental health of a historical figure, do so with care and sensitivity, treat it as a health matter. Any attempt to portray it as the person being deficient or using it to mock/belittle/undermine the figure or to troll/attacks others, any such abuse of of mental health at all will be clamped down hard. If one ever sees mental health being used in such a way, report it.

Jia Nanfeng and Fordanan's posts haven't crossed a line for this forum.
“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

my tumbler

my officer analysis
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 16546
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: Best/Favourite Kingdom (and Why?) Discussion

Unread postby Han » Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:45 am

Off the top of my head the only two times I can see that happening is 1) explaining the phrase, 2) using it as a politer term when describing the actual sexual act. Which seems unlikely to be a situation where that is appropriate in a 3kingdom context

I am obliged as a moderator to read all posts under my section (or reported to me) thoroughly and I did with all of yours in this thread Han. I just chose, as a member, not to give a full reply to a particular post. You are entitled to argue your case in front of others and to defend yourself, I have not blocked you from trying to or reprimanded you for doing so. I hope that provides reassurance about your posts being read but this will be my last post on the subject as a member


No, words contain different meanings, in this case it means

In the metaphorical sense, the term is used to refer to self-congratulatory behavior or discussion among a group of people


Aka mutual gratification.

Sure, and I intend to defend myself against adhominem rheotorics and baseless accusations without zero context or proof.

I know not addressed to me but hoping this provides clarity on the matter:

This isn't professional academia (though it does happen there, Ni Heng for example), this is a forum with no connections to academia and nobody getting paid, coming here on there are own free time so there are different standards to academic world.

In terms of what is allowed on here: if discussing mental health of a historical figure, do so with care and sensitivity, treat it as a health matter. Any attempt to portray it as the person being deficient or using it to mock/belittle/undermine the figure or to troll/attacks others, any such abuse of of mental health at all will be clamped down hard. If one ever sees mental health being used in such a way, report it.

Jia Nanfeng and Fordanan's posts haven't crossed a line for this forum.


Ok.

Of course it isnt. Im providing some context on the 'mental state' discussions.

And Im confronting the situation with special care.

I have never argued or even implied that. All Im doing is providing context and request clarification.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.
User avatar
Han
Changshi
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:46 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Sanguo Yanyi Symposium

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved