I agree with everything more or less.
On ad hominem, I dont see me using Ad hominem. I was accused of being biased in favour of Liu Bei even though I was trying to argue in favour of Cao Cao forces. Thats standard Ad hominem. Attacking my character instead of my stand which has nothing to do with the discussion on hand in the first place.
And also
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.
This is standard Ad hominem. Zero context or examples to back up claims. I would actually agree with a few - specifically the aggresive, rude, and disrespectful, which I apologised for btw - But the rest was standard Ad hominem with no clarification whatsoever.
---
Actually, it was possible(and likely) that they married first AND THEN a daughter was produced if Liu Shan's age was used as an indicator. And when Zhang Fei's reasoning is taken into consideration.
The dynamic of the relationship was husband and wife not rapist and rape victim as detailed in the r/askhistorians thread and the base history.
Could be? Sure, like how Cao Cao could be a vampire? Reasonably so? No.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... confidenceCredit to u/_dk
It's true that Zhang Fei basically abducted Xiahou. However, it's not quite honest to say all their children were born out of rape. There is evidence that Lady Xiahou was actually quite well-treated for a niece of an enemy general. When Xiahou Yuan was killed on Dingjun Mountain, Lady Xiahou pled with Liu Bei to grant Xiahou Yuan a proper burial, and that was granted. Liu Bei would have no other reason to grant a request like this if she was just some woman Zhang Fei raped, but Zhang Fei had no other recorded wives - she was the only one. Even the record of her abduction used the word 妻, which meant Zhang Fei took her as a principal wife, not a concubine. When Xiahou Ba defected from Wei to Shu, Liu Shan happily brought up the fact that they were actually related (his wife is the daughter of Zhang Fei and Lady Xiahou). Certainly Liu Shan didn't think this was something shameful for the Xiahou. Also consider tangentially how Sun Shangxiang married Liu Bei but then managed to go back to Wu. Why hadn't Xiahou Yuan or the Caos arranged for Lady Xiahou to come back?
Food for thought.
Uhhh no. Thats not how rape works. Rape has a very subjective definition. Some countries constitute rape as simply molestation others(more common) constitute it as sexual assault. The kidnapping and the dynamics of their relationship is a whole another matter that cannot be confirmed as one of sexual assault. This is like saying Cao Cao was known for his pillages and so all his wealth came from banditry. Yes, there is a link, an extremely miniscule one, but not a convincing and verifiable one.
And the same more or less apply to the various Caos. Arguing that Zhang Fei or the various Caos 'raped'(again, kidnap NOT rape) when there are zero historical sources and especially when the sources implies otherwise would be going against academic vigor.
The concept of 'consent' was seldom applied in Han China. Especially among the military and gentry class where marriages were usually as a political weapon. Jia Nanfeng went into depth there.
Yes, and filling in the blanks with proper citations, logic and capable moderation was my request instead of echo chamber~ing. Btw, the job of a historian/academic is NOT to fill the blanks, but to go indepth into what is already filled with whats avaliable to us. The only moment blanks are filled is when new archeological or textual evidence pop up to fill the blanks. That is not to say filling in the blank is strictly non academic but that one must take proper care and concern when doing so, especially a sensitive topic like rape.
So now, whats avaliable to us is that, Zhang Fei kidnapped. He then married her. His reasoning was not beauty like Cao Cao but because of gentry background. Liu Bei was known to fulfill a request from his surbodinate's wife instead of say... dismissing her as a rape victim. He then arranged a marriage of his heir to their child. And finally, his child was pleased with the union.
So the scholarly consensus would be Zhang Fei KIDNAPPED. Not rape. Why? Because if so, Liu Bei would simply dismiss her, Liu Bei definitely wouldnt marry her child(a byproduct of rape) to marry the future Emperor and Liu Shan would neither be pleased with the marriage nor point it out to Xiahou Ba.
We do not know if Lady Du/ and Lady Zou were against entering Cao Cao's harem. Just saying.
Again, rape has a very subjective definition which was I requested the various users on their definition of rape in the very first place.
Anyone who studied history, especially an Ancient one would understand that their teachers/professors has specifically warned against viewing history with a modern lens. An example of this is Rafe De Crespigny 'On Loyalty' where he discussed the evolution of the various appraisals of Xun Yu by the many Ancient historians without taking a stand or putting out his views.
The rest of this paragraph I more or less am fine.
Source, that I used circlejerk to discredit?
I dismissed with the 'collective disagreement' by first requesting clarification (definition of rape), second discussing the background(Zhang Fei KIDNAP), third providing context(their relationship using the r/askhistorian user) and then fourth pointed out the fallacies and echo chamber of this thread(faulty logic like kidnapping one woman means 'like raping young girls' and 'douchebag bros')
What I used circlejerk for was to CRITICISE their structure of arguments(small talk/irrelevant/non academic). Aka an echo chamber. NOT their arguments by itself.
Its cool.
Liu Bei did nothing wrong.