153434 réponses à ce sujet

[MoonDrummer]

The stone is love the stone is life

[Rabbitonfire]

The stone is love the stone is life

Possibly, we don't know if the stone molested dwarven minds that they had to be disconnected from the stone eventually. Like a restraining order. 

[Avejajed]

This is what I know about Freud.

Because I wasn't breastfed, (adopted), I have as an adult an oral fixation.

True. I like all kinds of things in my mouth.

[Siha]

How do you classify me now? Cuz I classify you as bff.

 

I love you.

 

Actually yes, as far as I know from my bf being a psychology graduate, Freud's theories are largely dismissed by modern therapies, even if his work as a pioneer is of course acknowledged. I guess this is different in countries with a strong psychoanalytic tradition such as the States or Argentina. 

 

No, your boyfriend is right. His theories as theories are not usually considered scientific, hence are dismissed. We cannot operate on a non-scientific basis. Still, his findings are confirmed by other approaches. As I said, we do not know why. Probably he was simply really lucky and hit the nail on the head in a pitch black room.

I know that psychoanalysis is largely practised, though it is called differently now (usually something along the lines of talk therapy). His theories can also be separated from his therapeutical approach (question/answer scheme in order to make the patient realize his own motivations).

However, yes, maybe it differs between countries and, in any case, I only studied cognitive, not analytical psychology. I know too little about treatment therapies to oppose anything.

 

I just want a definitive answer: Were the Huns Turkic, Mongolian, Germanic, related to the White Huns, Xiongnu, or WHAT? JUST TELL ME! WE MUST PUT AN END TO THE TURKEY-HUNGARY YOUTUBE WARS OF 2015! (The Mongols are pretty chill about it, in my experience.)

 

Freud says: maybe.

[R2s Muse]

Morning folks... so I'm finally dragging myself out from under the Solas rock of despair and trying to process everything I learned during our ill-fated date. :sob: 

 

Is there a consensus on what Lavellan says to him whens he tells him off? The 'your loss, @sshole' response? 

 

"Banal'abelas, banal'vhenan!"  I was hoping it was going to be a good takedown... but all I can find is 'no sorry, no heart' ?? 

[Caddius]

Morning folks... so I'm finally dragging myself out from under the Solas rock of despair and trying to process everything I learned during our ill-fated date. :sob: 

 

Is there a consensus on what Lavellan says to him whens he tells him off? The 'your loss, @sshole' response? 

 

"Banal'abelas, banal'vhenan!"  I was hoping it was going to be a good takedown... but all I can find is 'no sorry, no heart' ?? 

"There is no sorrow, there is no heart!"

Is how I've heard others translate it.

Basically, "I'm not sad! You meant nothing to me! I'm not your love, you dirt-bag! You were nothing to me, you hear?!"

[Maria13]

I'm agnostic myself. I used to despise religion with a passion for all the wars and pointless deaths over whose god is better even though it's all the same thing. It's incredibly stupid to me. I still strongly dislike institutionalized religion for their abuse of power.

However, I envy people who believe in something. I don't believe in a god, I can't. But I want to believe *insert X Files poster for comic relief*. It's not a good way to live life. Spirituality of some kind is important for our emotional wellbeing, I believe. We all want to feel connected to something bigger. Some people join radical groups to emulate this sense of belonging. To feel a sense of purpose.

 

What would happen if religion was taken away from people? I think the world would descend into chaos. People would be even more lost than they already are. Murder would soar. I used to think we don't need religion to tell us how to be good people. To me it seems obvious what is right and what is wrong. But that's just my personal moral code. To somebody else it's morally right to kill people who insult them.

Religion offers guidance to people. Not everyone is held back from harming others because of their conscience. We have laws to enforce a society's morality. But to some people religion is just as valid a set of rules. Religion was probably the first law mankind had. To some people it's still the only valid authority.

 

Take away religion and people lose all hope. And usually when people lose hope they lose all decency. Sad, but true imo. I don't want to imagine a world where people no longer fear the wrath of god for killing people. It's a nice ideal, thinking people are all so self-reflective and educated and tolerant enough to live peacefully and find meaning in life without god. That's assuming morality is universally the same, which is not the case. So whose rules should we follow? It's not like atheists are all the same, either.

 

The way I see it, we'd gain nothing from proving there is no god or a cosmic order of some kind. I couldn't think of anything more awful. I agree that it's important to reflect and not blindly follow any belief/group. But shatter people's world view completely and you don't know how they'll react. It's dangerous.

 

That's all I have to say about it from my point of view. I'll come back when the bickering is done...

 

Totally on topic:

 

I really don't believe that people need religion to prevent them from doing evil and need it to give them hope... Just by the very fact that people kill and perpetrate evil acts in the name of religion. 

 

As for hope, if religion fails you, as it invariably does, we all die, we all get ill, horrible stuff happens every day to good people and bad people's behaviour is rewarded every day, wouldn't you lose even more hope than if you didn't believe in the first place?

[Vorathrad]

No, your boyfriend is right. His theories as theories are not usually considered scientific, hence are dismissed. We cannot operate on a non-scientific basis. Still, his findings are confirmed by other approaches. As I said, we do not know why. Probably he was simply really lucky and hit the nail on the head in a pitch black room.

I know that psychoanalysis is largely practised, though it is called differently now (usually something along the lines of talk therapy). His theories can also be separated from his therapeutical approach (question/answer scheme in order to make the patient realize his own motivations).

However, yes, maybe it differs between countries and, in any case, I only studied cognitive, not analytical psychology. I know too little about treatment therapies to oppose anything.

 

Just to add in case you're interested and want to investigate: latest studies on therapy efficiency show psychoanalytic therapy is the least efficient in terms of patient recovery, and it's even shown to be harmful if applied for a long time. But I'm just quoting what by bf said, he's the one who knows the facts so I can't really discuss the issue. Just repeat what he said in case it's interesting.

 

Regarding the Krem thread, I don't see a person wanting to be educated, I see a person making an affirmation and wanting to be challenged and proven false. I'm not going into that discussion because it touches me personally. But it outrages me how many people forget that transgender people do have feelings, usually undergo a lot of suffering and reject in their lives, and deserve a little bit of respect. Just like every person.

 

Ok, I'll just leave it here.

[Maria13]

Actually yes, as far as I know from my bf being a psychology graduate, Freud's theories are largely dismissed by modern therapies, even if his work as a pioneer is of course acknowledged. I guess this is different in countries with a strong psychoanalytic tradition such as the States or Argentina. 

 

Liz thank you for mentioning Joseph Campbell, I'll try to read his works as soon as I can (lots of books still waiting on the shelf since Christmas) But literary criticism, and I assume film criticism as well, has been employing other approaches for years. That may be, again, because I studied literary criticism in a Spanish university; but psychoanalytic analysis was never given much importance.

 

I guess some interesting things may be concluded by analysing things from a psychoanalytic pov, but I personally dislike it and generally don't find its conclusions interesting. Just my opinion though, feel free to continue Freuding and Junging things

 

Huh, I went to uni in Spain too, and you know why psychoanalysis wasn't very much appreciated there?

 

Catholicism, sorry, but true, the Catholic church has a terribly uncomfortable relationship with sexuality and psychoanalysis is all about sexuality.  Many of my university lecturers at the time were rumoured to be members of Opus Dei and that was a state uni... One of my acquaintances actually stayed in an Opus Dei run university residence.

 

PS. There was also not much feminist criticism... Errrr, not much, none! Because ironically a lot of feminist criticism came about as a way of responding to psychoanalysis.

[CapricornSun]

Art again.

 

Creepy Solas artwork... Kind of reminds me of that Solas pic Janesutin posted earlier (the one of Solas with multiple eyes).

 

Spoiler

http://juliandroid.t...ry-in-character

-----

Comic of Solas with the quartermaster. Kind of NSFW. xD (No they're not doing anything naughty, don't worry.)

 

Spoiler

http://galoogamelady...good-of-a-grasp

-----

Just Solas. 

 

Spoiler

http://officialpajam...efs-for-me-more

-----

Edited to add: Dorian doing an impression of Solas.

 

Spoiler

http://rocks0cks.tum...st/111167379349

-----

Edited to add 2: Solas' Hierophant card but with Solas based on his concept art.

 

Spoiler

http://bittersiha.tu...cause-it-needed

Modifié par CapricornSun83, 26 février 2015 - 01:12 .

[tsunamitigerdragon]

. 

[Siha]

I really don't believe that people need religion to prevent them from doing evil and need it to give them hope... Just by the very fact that people kill and perpetrate evil acts in the name of religion. 

 

As for hope, if religion fails you, as it invariably does, we all die, we all get ill, horrible stuff happens every day to good people and bad people's behaviour is rewarded every day, wouldn't you lose even more hope than if you didn't believe in the first place?

 

I think Kappa meant it a bit different. When we look at the world, not everybody has the benefit of higher education. Some people don't receive any, live in suppressive regimes etc. Religion is what gives them both hope and a basic guideline to go by. The more intelligent you are, the more you know such humanist approaches and guidelines implicitly. But if you are less gifted or were raised in a (in our eyes) unhealthy environment, things are a bit different. If a child is raised by Nazis it surely will consider these points of few "right" and "good", because it believes that the source of all "evil" are the <insert respective group here>. Social norms and standards are a consensus of society, and religion has been a way to teach a particular mindset.

 

You are right, people would not need religion, if they learned these rules differently. But that requires education, care, support. And not everybody receives that. And because religious missionaries often are the ones who go to very poor, underdeveloped countries and help the people, they are also what gives them something to hold on to. And so, in many parts of the world, religion still is what makes the difference.

 

I agree with what you say, but I also know that it is an educated, academic point of view. And I think that is what Kappa meant. Religion catches those people who fall through the net otherwise (or at least some of them). Maybe even because religion does not require you to understand. It gives you a simplified story which you can go by, which you can understand even if you are not too smart. It is nothing but a metaphor, maybe, but it can help.

 

To make this on topic: I compare it to old fables. The story of the big bad wolf in the forest. There usually is no big bad wolf, but children are told the story. Why? Because it is a metaphor, an allegory if you like. The wolf represents what dangers a forest really holds. But while the child might not understand the abstract notion of dangers, it does understand the image of a snarling wolf. And so it will stay out of the forest, even though the wolf is not really there.

(on topic being wolf!)

 

Edit: I would like to fav your last post but I am out of likes. So I mention it here.

[Maria13]

No, your boyfriend is right. His theories as theories are not usually considered scientific, hence are dismissed. We cannot operate on a non-scientific basis. Still, his findings are confirmed by other approaches. As I said, we do not know why. Probably he was simply really lucky and hit the nail on the head in a pitch black room.

I know that psychoanalysis is largely practised, though it is called differently now (usually something along the lines of talk therapy). His theories can also be separated from his therapeutical approach (question/answer scheme in order to make the patient realize his own motivations).

However, yes, maybe it differs between countries and, in any case, I only studied cognitive, not analytical psychology. I know too little about treatment therapies to oppose anything.

 

 

I would say Freud's largest contribution was to highlight the importance of sex and sexuality in everyday life, it had only been hinted at before but he had the audacity to bring it to the forefront.

 

One of the things I find most interesting about him was his very first theories were premised on the basis of sexual abuse in childhood... He then recanted on that and modified his theory (he was unashamed to admit he was wrong or to adopt new approaches) and said that what gave origin to neurosis was actually the "fantasy of abuse" (that the child imagined that they had been abused), probably because he just couldn't believe that abuse in childhood was so prevalent, especially among the nice, decent middle classes where his patients came from...

 

And moving on to the XXI century in the West we are suddenly finding that child abuse, especially at the hands of authority figures is more widespread that we could imagine...

 

Today in the UK where I now live a report has been published saying that one celebrity abused at least sixty patients, many of them children, in a single hospital.

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaand... To make this relevant following Siha's lead, you wish to construct a product that has mass narrative appeal that engages people emotionally, that scares them, perhaps? You could do much, much worse than dabbling in a little psychoanalytical criticism... It is especially adept at pinpointing what causes us fear and revulsion...

[Siha]

And moving on to the XXI century in the West we are suddenly finding that child abuse, especially at the hands of authority figures is more widespread that we could imagine...

 

Today in the UK where I now live a report has been published saying that one celebrity abused at least sixty patients, many of them children, in a single hospital.

 

And it's a shame he is not treated as he'd deserve. Or at least my impression is that while he is being prosecuted, people still see him as that funky glam singer who might just have done a bit wrong. But I don't live in the UK so I'm not informed enough. (And assuming I am actually right about who I think you mean.)

[vierrae]

I happen to like Jung's theories better than Freud's but I'll be the first to admit I'm an artist and a storyteller first with absolutely no background in psychology (unlike your boyfriend or Siha! ) . My love for Jung stems from my passionate love for Joseph Campbell whose monomyth concept drew heavily from Jung's collective unconscious and archetypes. 

 

 

 

Actually yes, as far as I know from my bf being a psychology graduate, Freud's theories are largely dismissed by modern therapies, even if his work as a pioneer is of course acknowledged. I guess this is different in countries with a strong psychoanalytic tradition such as the States or Argentina. 

 

Jung was more of a mystic, than a psychologist. Though I highly enjoyed The SecreT Life of Carl Jung.

Being a clinical psychologist, I dismiss any real benefit coming from Freud's psychodynamic models, but I enjoy constructing new theories, based on his and his collegues' work, you know, for the sake of training my thinking. Cognitive behavioral therapy is the most effective thing nowadays.

 

On topic: Solas somethingsomething

[Maria13]

And it's a shame he is not treated as he'd deserve. Or at least my impression is that while he is being prosecuted, people still see him as that funky glam singer who might just have done a bit wrong. But I don't live in the UK so I'm not informed enough. (And assuming I am actually right about who I think you mean.)

 

No actually. It's someone else... Yes, we are finding that our celebrity culture is riddled with abuse.

[Caddius]

 

Posts like this is why you're one of my favorites. 

Kind of going off that, I was reading more of my Ancient History book this morning. It had some very interesting bits about how ancient religions developed to meet the needs of their people. For example:

 

Sumer: The gods are meant to be bargained with, with wealth and food and sacrifices. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers made the land fertile, but they were also destructive and unpredictable. The Sumerians were divided into many city-states that quarreled with one another, but all of this conflict made them tenaciously intelligent, designing magnificent agricultural systems to control the damage of the rivers and the gods' wrath, inventing writing* to keep track of tributes as well as trade. The afterlife was a shadow realm where people wandered hopelessly, naked and exposed to the elements, both kings and priests and peasant alike.

 

Egypt: The gods are worshiped, sure, but their earthly representative is the Pharaoh. The Nile is fertile but stable, the deserts protected them from invaders, and only the Sinai peninsula connected them to the turbulent east. Old Kingdom Egypt was stable, powerful, and incredibly centralized. They didn't really lecture on morality, they lectured on rules not to break, procedure to follow, to go into the afterlife. Which was basically Egypt all over again, because that was enough, wasn't it? Akhenhaten's attempt at monotheism failed because of the priesthood's failure and the common people's attachment to the old ways with a lot of interesting gods.

 

Babylon: ALL HAIL MARDUK! Trying to one-up Sargon of Akkad, who basically invented the concept of the Evil Empire, Hammurabi decided to invent state religion and forced worship and acknowledgement of Marduk upon subjugated cities, but let them continue worshiping their old ones. He justified his conquests as conquering land for Marduk and the glory of his chosen city, Babylon. The Babylonian translation of The Epic of Gilgamesh, itself a tale of a Sumerian king, is fatalistic, but also pushes for Babylonians to see themselves as something other than materialistic, land-grabbing jackwagons, who did things like enslave the...

Hebrews: While starting off as the Chosen People destined to claim the Holy Land, as the Hebrews' were enslaved and conquered and fought among themselves, it seemed a questionable position to take. They're notable in that it's one of the first times that religious figures met discord and disaster with, "God is disappointed in us. We haven't been living a holy life, and so he has abandoned us," rather than, "Marduk wants more delicious steak fumes on his fire. He wants more wine! How shall we appease him?"

 

Zoroastrianism: As the Iranians rose up and overthrew the Medes, Zoroastrianism became the new hot thing. To people's astonishment, Iranian proclamation of Zoroastrianism's being totally awesome was followed up with, "The Temple is at 4th Street, if you're interested. Anyways, here's your tax forms, welcome to the Empire," rather than, "You must worship at the Altars of Ahura-Mazda, or we'll show you just how much holy fire we've got,". The general Achaemenid tendency toward leniency and tolerance was a very well calculated means of control. Zoroastrianism itself portrays life itself as a struggle of good verses evil, and makes every adherent a participant in a cosmos-deciding conflict. It made all of the failures and successes in life that much grander.

 

Hellenic: The Greeks took fatalism to an art form. Their gods were largely uninterested in mortals except for the occasional Trojan War, or trouncing someone who was feeling full of themselves. Stoicism started in Greece for good reason. They largely believed that life itself was a tragedy, and that every great hero falls, horribly. Homer's Illiad was largely a mourning call for the days of the Mycenean kings, made during the Dark Age of Greece, where ninety percent of the population died. This gave way to the Archaic Age, with Greek city-states, tyrannies, and even a semi-sorta democracy forming. Greek philosophers really started to criticize things, and there were even some arguing for the existence of gods only as tropes to understand the world with. Socrates, on the other hand, seemed to argue that the myths portraying Zeus as a serial rapist and the rest of the gods as jerks were the result of humans trying to project their own failures onto their gods.

 

And that's my rant for the morning.   

 

*This basically makes the Sumerians the original Badass Nerds.

[Caddius]

I think a moderator went Civ Gandhi on the 'Krem is Female' thread.    

[Vorathrad]

Huh, I went to uni in Spain too, and you know why psychoanalysis wasn't very much appreciated there?

 

Catholicism, sorry, but true, the Catholic church has a terribly uncomfortable relationship with sexuality and psychoanalysis is all about sexuality.  Many of my university lecturers at the time were rumoured to be members of Opus Dei and that was a state uni... One of my acquaintances actually stayed in an Opus Dei run university residence.

 

PS. There was also not much feminist criticism... Errrr, not much, none! Because ironically a lot of feminist criticism came about as a way of responding to psychoanalysis.

 

I don't think that's the reason, tbh Most public Spanish universities are not Catholic and the majority of professors are not from the Opus Dei (probably there's someone, but certainly not most of them) Maybe that's true for private universities. The main reason I think is what Siha said: because psychoanalysis is not scientifically validated, and the emphasis is on scientific theories.

 

Btw I did studied feminist criticism at my university; I must argue about it as a response to psychoanalysis; as far as feminist literary criticism goes, it mainly started in the 70s as a way to recover female writers and the female voice in literature, not specifically as a response to psychoanalysis.

[Siha]

Posts like this is why you're one of my favorites.  

 

And I didn't even know! 

You know how to suck up, man. I even went on reading the rest of your post with real concentration and I must say: I have no clue what you are talking about.

I cannot contribute much, not knowing about ancient Greece etc., but I do get the basic notion of how religions reflected a particular mindset and need of the respective era. And, of course, I am impressed by your knowledge.

 

On topic: this should be obvious. The elven pantheon clearly borrows from Greek, Roman, and Germanic mythology, and the aspect of religion is stressed throughout Dragon Age. Solas (here we go) himself represents a "trickster god", seen as a deity by some and dismissed by others, himself seeming rather resentful of the whole issue. He prefers people to think for themselves, while still expecting them to follow a particular mindset. How this relates to this discussion is trivial and needs no further proof of concept. qed.

(Man, really, I don't know if I can keep this up, those thread rules are burning me out.)

[Delphine]

Spoiler

-snip-

 

1/ I think there are ways, and speculations to be made about how it would be treated. I don't see it quite like you described, but I guess my idealism always hopes for the best in times of crisis such as this. But I agree, it'll make for such a huge challenge that it could be handled in poor ways a billion different times and be offensive in even more ways. But still, I guess you have low expectations about how creative people can get on such subject, and I personally think Bioware has the talent, the insight and the tact to drop such a story in ways that could still make up for a wonderfully handled one. It will probably be more nuanced that what you think I want to witness, but we already are dealing with characters having personal crisis of faith in DA:I, handling it their own way. Doing that on a much bigger scale, while still retaining subtlety and a wide range of reactions, would be, to me, SO interesting. And to be quite honest, the schadenfreude would only last a short moment, until the will to witness how such news will be dealt with on a social and anthropological level is stronger. The schadenfreude is at best just a residue of my arrogance, put at display to make anyone tick over it a spark a debate over the whole thing, and is not the feeling that lasts in the long run.

 

2/ I most definitely am making my own picture of the lore an universe, mind you, mine isn't one that always aligns with my boyfriend's, even if we agree on a lot of points. I remember spending an afternoon arguing with him about whether Cole should be made Spirit or Human. And we both were very passionate about our point of view, as we most often are, which leads to interesting debates. None of us changed opinions, but both of us could see valid reasons as to why the other could have another one.

That been said, I agree that I tend to want to ruffle some feathers with strong/harsh statements, but not really because I want to take whatever spotlight there is to gain, but because I enjoy debates, a great deal. On a majority of topics, I will never make such statements to being with, and remain less confrontational in my approach, because as an idealist, I only get truly passionate on subjects that I have strong opinions on, and matters a great deal to me.

We can go at length about how this confrontational approach might not be the best to begin with, though this is how I've managed to get into awesome debates and insightful conversations throughout my whole life, so in a way, it has its own rewards, and lets me see more in depth who the persons I'm debating with are. That been said, it also can be frustrating because sometimes people get stuck on the confrontational approach on a personal level, and can't get past it, missing my whole point altogether, thinking I'm mostly judging, and not open to talk about it. Although I can't deny the "J" in my INFJ (for whatever that's worth, probably not much), that is not who I am still. Not making my point understood being frustrating to me, I'm trying to learn how to engage in debates that matter to me, in less confrontational/offending ways. Doesn't always work, but bit by bit, maybe I'll find a way to do so that satisfies me as much as the confrontational one. (Also, if you thought this was confrontational, it would have been interesting to see how you'd have reacted to a five-years-ago me.)

 

That been said, glad you don't have any boxes, and I most definitely don't want to feel in anyway "special" by belonging in whatever villain ones there might be, I don't think I should belong in one to begin with. As far as I see, we have the same way of labeling people : forming opinion takes years, and even so, people change and evolve during that. I always take great joy in witnessing my own opinions and labels of people change as years go by, either because they're changing, or I am. Or both.

 

 

I think you'd do well to consider how you and others would react to such news of a god or gods being real, rather than thinking of others as these poor sods whose entire reality could be shattered to bits if they ever "looked up" so to speak.

 

Thank you for the offer, really, but if I decided to adopt an agnostic position on religion, it very well means that I've spent a long time considering how I'd react, in a very wide range of different options already. Whatever the news might be, I'd welcome it with open arms, as it'll surely open a new door that will leads towards more questions and thirst for understanding, and I fare quite well with unanswered questions. I doubt humanity will ever cease to have unanswered questions, it's how it deals with them, that sometimes baffles me.

 

-snip-

 

I find it quite sad, that you think being agnostic means not having spirituality. I'm never envying people having a faith related to religion, because I'm not lacking faith myself, in anyway. I may not be a religious being, but I am a highly spiritual one, the two of them aren't necessarily linked. The thought of them being inseparable is, quite frankly, one that frightens me, but one that is so spread in our culture, that people think it's true.

I have faith in many things, mainly in humanity, in science, in arts, in our capacity to change, in the marvel of the universe, in how little we know and how much yet there is to understand. I can entertain the idea of a god, but my definition of it would be nowhere near a man-made one. Still, I wonder at the possibility of it, just like I can entertain the idea of none at all.

 

Thinking that the world would descend into chaos if religion was taken away from people, is quite the pessimistic faithless view. One I don't believe in. I mean, sure some would be shattered, certainly, but I have absolutely no doubt that in the long run, some people might react in a way so extraordinary that we would never have thought of it. Just, one thing is sure : we will never know, if we never try.

 

On topic : How do people in Skyhold poop. Where. WHERE? Seriously, I've already been wondering how do they even sleep to begin with, since there's so little bedrooms, and so many people, but now, I haven't seen a single toilet in the whole castle. Or maybe they poop in buckets and throw it away down the undercroft's waterfall, or the jail's waterfall. But then, how do they poop in buckets if they don't have bedrooms to begin with? Is there a bedroom that works as the "bucket room", in which people go one by one every time they wanna poop. Man the queue must be long. And where does Solas sleep and poop?

I have legit questions about the logicality of Skyhold's sewage disposal and housing limits.

[Caddius]

 

You know how to suck up, man. I even went on reading the rest of your post with real concentration and I must say: I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

You spend your free time reading the inscriptions on monuments to Assyrian kings, you learn a thing or two. 

[Avejajed]

I think a moderator went Civ Gandhi on the 'Krem is Female' thread.

Burn it down and salt the earth.

[Caddius]

Burn it down and salt the earth.

Scipio Aemilianus works too.  

But I don't think anyone will ever forget the first time they were nuked by Gandhi.

[Delphine]

-snip-

 

What about prehistoric religions? I'm quite fascinated by religions, on a mythological point of view, and reading about them allows you understand so much about the society that used them, but somehow I found the thought of matriarchal prehistoric religion an entertaining one.