3 ms·

> harm to humans and animals was commonplace Again, "commonplace" is kinda misused here. You can find examples of cruelty in the historical record, not so many

> harm to humans and animals was commonplace Again, "commonplace" is kinda misused here. You can find examples of cruelty in the historical record, not so many of the opposite. Because no one kept statistics.

samatman 4y ago
It is not misused in the slightest, particularly where animals are concerned. This article talks about medieval England in particular, which has excellent survival of detailed records of many things, including the bloodsports which were popular occurrences everywhere in the kingdom. It doesn't sit right with me that watching roosters and dogs maul each other, often to death, was among the most popular of entertainments in the era. But it was.
- dionidium 4y ago
  Ultimately, this squares the circle, because what's happening, I think, is that human beings are pretty good at defining other creatures to be outside of their circle of empathy. Historically, animals were obviously right out, but so were foreigners and surely criminals, too.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  > It is not misused in the slightest, particularly where animals are concerned Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not, in any way, shape, or form defending mistreatment of animals or humans, in this era or any other. With that out of the way: yes, it IS misused. What you are saying is "it happened a lot." But "commonplace" would means it happened all the time, everywhere. There are records of it happening, as you said, but there are no records, or very few, of it NOT happening: criminal acts which were not severely punished, say. Here's an example of what I mean: If you look at "murders in Chicago" you find a lot, typically hundreds per month. Yet if you ask the random Chicago resident "How many people did you know who were murdered?" they might have one, or none. (Unless they live in certain neighborhoods.) I actually knew three, but that was over the course of an entire childhood.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > But "commonplace" would means it happened all the time, everywhere. Definition of commonplace (Entry 1 of 2) commonly found or seen : ORDINARY, UNREMARKABLE https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commonplace https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commonplace Compared to modern times it happened a lot. And no, violence and harm doesn't only mean murders.
  - samatman 4y ago
    You can try to define "commonplace" to win the argument, much as someone might define "blue" to win a "stop signs are blue" argument, in their own mind. If you went looking for a human in medieval England who had never seen animals fighting each other to injury or death, surrounded by (indeed part of) a crowd yelling enthusiastically and enjoying the spectacle, you might find orphans raised in monasteries. Or infants who died before getting a chance, there was more of that, but I feel it's fair to discount that entirely. Easily 99.9% of these people would have experienced that. It was commonplace, your protestations notwithstanding.

samatman 4y ago

It is not misused in the slightest, particularly where animals are concerned. This article talks about medieval England in particular, which has excellent survival of detailed records of many things, including the bloodsports which were popular occurrences everywhere in the kingdom. It doesn't sit right with me that watching roosters and dogs maul each other, often to death, was among the most popular of entertainments in the era. But it was.

dionidium 4y ago
Ultimately, this squares the circle, because what's happening, I think, is that human beings are pretty good at defining other creatures to be outside of their circle of empathy. Historically, animals were obviously right out, but so were foreigners and surely criminals, too.
UIUC_06 4y ago
> It is not misused in the slightest, particularly where animals are concerned Mandatory disclaimer: I'm not, in any way, shape, or form defending mistreatment of animals or humans, in this era or any other. With that out of the way: yes, it IS misused. What you are saying is "it happened a lot." But "commonplace" would means it happened all the time, everywhere. There are records of it happening, as you said, but there are no records, or very few, of it NOT happening: criminal acts which were not severely punished, say. Here's an example of what I mean: If you look at "murders in Chicago" you find a lot, typically hundreds per month. Yet if you ask the random Chicago resident "How many people did you know who were murdered?" they might have one, or none. (Unless they live in certain neighborhoods.) I actually knew three, but that was over the course of an entire childhood.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > But "commonplace" would means it happened all the time, everywhere. Definition of commonplace (Entry 1 of 2) commonly found or seen : ORDINARY, UNREMARKABLE https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commonplace https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commonplace Compared to modern times it happened a lot. And no, violence and harm doesn't only mean murders.
- samatman 4y ago
  You can try to define "commonplace" to win the argument, much as someone might define "blue" to win a "stop signs are blue" argument, in their own mind. If you went looking for a human in medieval England who had never seen animals fighting each other to injury or death, surrounded by (indeed part of) a crowd yelling enthusiastically and enjoying the spectacle, you might find orphans raised in monasteries. Or infants who died before getting a chance, there was more of that, but I feel it's fair to discount that entirely. Easily 99.9% of these people would have experienced that. It was commonplace, your protestations notwithstanding.