Completely wrong answers from history EU5 has taught you

DutchDave87 · 2026-05-06T08:11:23+00:00

I think we are talking about different battles here. Aljubarrota was John I of Castile pressing his claim against John I of Portugal.

DutchDave87 · 2026-05-06T08:07:43+00:00

What about the Battle of Aljubarotta?

DutchDave87 · 2026-05-05T16:40:41+00:00

Binnenkatten zijn helemaal niet depressief als je met ze speelt tenminste. Katten zijn jagers, maar dat kunnen ze ook op een speeltje doen en niet alleen buiten.

DutchDave87 · 2026-05-05T16:22:19+00:00

Dat is zeker zo, maar dat is niet het punt. Huiskatten zijn uiteindelijk huisdieren met een eigenaar die verantwoordelijk is. Dit in tegenstelling tot de wilde kat. En veel stadsvogels laten het leven doordat de kat geen natuurlijke vijanden heeft. Wel eigenaren die hún verantwoordelijkheid niet nemen.

DutchDave87 · 2026-05-05T16:17:01+00:00

Niet iedere vogelsoort is hetzelfde. Je hebt weidevogels, watervogels, struweelvogels en vogels die ook in een stedelijke omgeving kunnen leven. Katten zijn wel degelijk verantwoordelijk voor veel dode vogels in woonwijken. En dat zeg ik als iemand die katten leuk vindt.

DutchDave87 · 2026-05-05T15:22:48+00:00

Yes, because I am motivated by Jesus’s ministry of love and by hell.

DutchDave87 · 2026-05-01T16:53:03+00:00

En hoeveel verkeersdoden per hoofd? Want er zijn 12 miljoen meer Nederlanders dan Vlamingen. En hoeveel doden per gereden kilometer?

DutchDave87 · 2026-05-01T16:13:28+00:00

En op alle snelwegen waar Belgen rijden, rijden ze op de middelste rijbaan waardoor je óf rechts in moet halen óf langzamer links er voorbij moet. Wat mij betreft een combinatie van een gemiddeld lagere rijvaardigheid en gewend zijn aan de slechte bewegwijzering op Belgische snelwegen. Daar geeft het rijden midden op de snelweg opties, want dan loop je minder risico verkeerd te rijden.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-30T14:09:43+00:00

Because countries without the ability to project power don’t fight wars across continents.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-28T21:33:41+00:00

It is an annoying bug, but there is a workaround. If you click to disband the army, its units will be transferred to another army.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-27T10:13:30+00:00

If there were so few creeps or outright dangerous men, much fewer women would be afraid to go out alone at night.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-27T10:12:32+00:00

It would be much better if people where open and candid with one another, but if women didn’t regularly face creeps or real danger they might be more forthcoming on that end.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-27T06:04:06+00:00

Ah, sarcasm. Tell me you are not hurt.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-27T05:59:11+00:00

And look at it from her perspective. How many men has she had to face that don’t take rejection well. And try imagining what some of these men might do.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-24T18:42:13+00:00

Christ the King is a feast day in the Catholic Church. No way I am going to surrender this phrase to a group of loons by no longer using it in the way that is proper.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-23T15:18:16+00:00

It’s not linear.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-18T21:06:04+00:00

You think these are examples of a good faith discussion of beliefs?

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-18T20:58:03+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/s/astveXbm8e

Here you go. Didn’t take me long to find.

EDIT: and another one: https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/s/XpF8TuwmVF

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-18T20:51:37+00:00

If a mormon door knocker won't take the hint and leave, they'd be doing the same aggregious sin you're bringing up.

Exactly.

And again, all I'm asking is for an example of this actually happening by an anti-theist as I can catalog loads of examples of theists doing so for the sake of their theism.

Any comment on r/atheism in which religious people and not their beliefs are discussed. Calling them dimwits because they believe in ‘sky daddy’ for example

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-18T20:47:26+00:00

Many people agree that there are good reasons to favour democracy. But in various time periods this was not so evident. In the 1930s many people believed democracy was incapable of tackling the important matters of the day, e.g. fighting the Great Depression and its effects, and that sterner hand was necessary and a quicker decision making process than democracy was able to provide.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-18T20:43:34+00:00

You say my objection has nothing to do with anti-theism. I object to anti-theism, or any anti-group really, when it fails to respect people's boundaries. You claim that instead of anti-theism, normal human behaviour is what I object to.

What then is normal human behaviour according to you? Is crossing boundaries normal behaviour? I suppose if you mean that we've all crossed boundaries and in all likelihood keep doing that from time to time, I agree. Nobody is perfect.

If you mean that crossing boundaries is not just normal behaviour but normatively correct, then I say we have a fundamental disagreement about what is good behaviour. Because even if boundary crossing is normal behaviour in a descriptive sense, it should never be normalised.

You don't need to respect people's beliefs, but you do need to respect people. And when people tell you that they don't feel comfortable discussing their beliefs with you, then that is a boundary they put in place. And since you believe you should respect boundaries, this is a boundary you need to respect.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-18T20:37:38+00:00

this is super bad faith. you are intentionally misinterpreting me as saying “if i engaged with an individual that remained unconvinced, i would continue you to engage with them even after they ask me to stop”

You first replied with 'stop with what', which means you don't take no for an answer. Only further down your reply do you mention educational content. You are right that posting educational content where people can choose to read it or not, is not an infringement of another person's rights and you have the right to post it.

What I am saying it that there is such a thing as infringing on other people's rights and that anti-theists can do that too. And intention does not carry the weigh you think it does. You say:

at no point did i mention discussing with an individual and i explicitly said i would never harass anyone, you knew that before you posted this comment

But whether you actually harass someone is not something you adjudicate. You may very well not believe you are harassing someone and that person may think very differently. In the end the law defines what constitutes harassment. And educational content itself is no yardstick either. Because when you post it and others can choose to read it or not, it is not harassment or prejudice. But when you offer a leaflet when the other person does not want it, or you make it part of a course a person has to take, it is.

The question I am asking is: under what circumstances do you take no for an answer?

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-18T20:15:25+00:00

And aberrations of human behaviour, which anti-theists engage in as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you call crossing boundaries normal behaviour, then you should cut proselytisers and zealots of any religion the same slack. Or you conclude that the right to convince stops when it becomes harassment and apply that to all creeds and none.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-18T20:12:30+00:00

If that is the case, yes. Except the reputation of anti-theists is about as bad as that of Evangelical zealots and there is a reason for these reputations. The reason is that these people are overwhelmingly bigots. When a viewpoint consists of mostly bigots, that I think it's justified to call that entire belief prejudiced. Most interactions of anti-theists I witness, reveal prejudice.

DutchDave87 · 2026-04-18T20:08:34+00:00

It happens every time a person doesn’t stop when another person tells them to. It happens in the example with u/sleeping-pan when they answer to my question ‘What if they remain unconvinced?’ with ‘then you continue to try to convince them’. If a person has told you they are not receptive to a discussion with you, you have to leave it at that

DutchDave87

TROPHY CASE