NorthWolf Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) I don't disagree with you in any of that (well, the politics are medieval enough to me, but that's not really important). I just don't think you need to be rude to someone who has different expectations from the piece than you. I can't disagree with him because if Bethesda took the issue of sexism, considered it, and actually made conflicts in the game world based on it, their setting would have been stronger. Why? Would've felt easier to see as being a real world, where sometimes that kind of thing does happen. But I don't think it would've added that much, not when they could have focused on the far more prominent racial tensions and Nordic/Thalmor supremacy issues or a plethora of other lore/realistic expectations issues that you never even get to see. Edited January 21, 2012 by NorthWolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faifh Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I guess we must be thankful already not to see the women in steel bikini armors once in a while in a fantasy setting - suppose that may be more "believable" to some anyway :facepalm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganon2020 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Uh....muscle is strength, what on Earth are you smoking. That is a blatantly false statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthWolf Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I can definitely agree to that. :unsure: I was glad they made the armor (and clothing) for women at least somewhat believable, which is more than most fantasy games nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khorak Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 That is a blatantly false statement. I have biology on my side. What's your evidence? Muscle is your locomotive force. It's where all your energy for movement comes from. Your muscle works, your limbs move. Greater muscle mass/density means you put out more energy. Positioning and leverage, generally things falling under the heading of technique, can allow the best possible use of what you have have, but claiming that muscle is not strength is the most ignorantly ***king stupid thing I have ever heard. I dread to think what utterly facile idea you're going to be using to support the idea that muscle isn't strength, or semantic bull**** to squirm around the idea of 'strength' instead, but it's going to be a real doozy to avoid the basics of human locomotion and power. No matter what is happening, whatever you distribution of type I and type II muscle fibers is, no matter how perfect your technique, everything always, still, comes down to muscle. And having a vast pile more muscle means having a vast pile more strength. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3Q Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 It's not like there's a divine (Dibella) devoted to female kind or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanchan05 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 That is a blatantly false statement. I have biology on my side. What's your evidence? Muscle is your locomotive force. It's where all your energy for movement comes from. Your muscle works, your limbs move. Greater muscle mass/density means you put out more energy. Positioning and leverage, generally things falling under the heading of technique, can allow the best possible use of what you have have, but claiming that muscle is not strength is the most ignorantly ***king stupid thing I have ever heard. I dread to think what utterly facile idea you're going to be using to support the idea that muscle isn't strength, or semantic bull**** to squirm around the idea of 'strength' instead, but it's going to be a real doozy to avoid the basics of human locomotion and power. No matter what is happening, whatever you distribution of type I and type II muscle fibers is, no matter how perfect your technique, everything always, still, comes down to muscle. And having a vast pile more muscle means having a vast pile more strength. I'm with Khorak on this one. The larger the muscle mass, the greater the force that the muscle is able to apply on a surface. Strength = muscle. A big guy would be able to carry more and heavier objects while travelling than a smaller guy. A small guy lifting something big using technique won't be able to do that while travelling at the same time. A big strong guy would just shrug off the weight. That Manny Pacquiao may be able to punch stronger than a random body builder twice his size has nothing to do with Manny's strength but rather the technique in boxing. Untrained people usually punch from the shoulder, boxers punch from the waist or lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganon2020 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Muscle is your locomotive force. It's where all your energy for movement comes from. Your muscle works, your limbs move. Greater muscle mass/density means you put out more energy. Positioning and leverage, generally things falling under the heading of technique, can allow the best possible use of what you have have, but claiming that muscle is not strength is the most ignorantly ***king stupid thing I have ever heard. I dread to think what utterly facile idea you're going to be using to support the idea that muscle isn't strength, or semantic bull**** to squirm around the idea of 'strength' instead, but it's going to be a real doozy to avoid the basics of human locomotion and power. No matter what is happening, whatever you distribution of type I and type II muscle fibers is, no matter how perfect your technique, everything always, still, comes down to muscle. And having a vast pile more muscle means having a vast pile more strength. It's good to see you've done at least a little research, but I stand by my point.Muscle determines strength, you're right, but muscle is NOT strength. Meaning that, to say "more muscle = more strength" is false, and not quite so simple. If you can't see the difference between the two, then I can't help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanchan05 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Muscle is your locomotive force. It's where all your energy for movement comes from. Your muscle works, your limbs move. Greater muscle mass/density means you put out more energy. Positioning and leverage, generally things falling under the heading of technique, can allow the best possible use of what you have have, but claiming that muscle is not strength is the most ignorantly ***king stupid thing I have ever heard. I dread to think what utterly facile idea you're going to be using to support the idea that muscle isn't strength, or semantic bull**** to squirm around the idea of 'strength' instead, but it's going to be a real doozy to avoid the basics of human locomotion and power. No matter what is happening, whatever you distribution of type I and type II muscle fibers is, no matter how perfect your technique, everything always, still, comes down to muscle. And having a vast pile more muscle means having a vast pile more strength. It's good to see you've done at least a little research, but I stand by my point.Muscle determines strength, you're right, but muscle is NOT strength. Meaning that, to say "more muscle = more strength" is false, and not quite so simple. If you can't see the difference between the two, then I can't help you. I just realized, I think you two are just arguing over semantics. Strength is defined by Webster as "the capacity for exertion or endurance". Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology states that "muscle strength is determined by its size..,thus a man who is well supplied with testosterone or has enlarged his muscles through an exercise program will have correspondingly increased muscle strength." Now that is talking about raw strength of a muscle. More muscle = more strength, however, as I read Ganon2020's replies, it seems what he calls strength is actually what physiologist would refer to as power, or basically as Guyton again defines it, the "force applied by an action of muscles". Basically, power is determined by muscles, but not that simple since the movement, the technique of how you exerted that power differs, so a smaller man with smaller muscles may exert more power than a bigger man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingGsterUK Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) To the original poster. Imperials are sexist, you're right. For a reason, and that reason was pretty well summed up by the guy talking about gorillas. Kind of an amplification of what you see in the human race making the differences a lot more obvious. On the subject of muscle being strength or technique being strength, both is right and wrong. If you take the construction of the human arm, and measure pulling force, the more muscle mass means more strength. However, if you take the construction of the chimpanzee arm, with the same muscle mass as the human arm, the chimpanzee arm can pull significantly more due to the way it's built. They say chimpanzee's are 5 times stronger than a human, I think that's an over statement myself but pound for pound they do exceed our strength. In this sense, you could have fairly large muscles and think you're stronger than a Chimpanzee that has slightly smaller muscles than you. You're most likely wrong. However, humans share the same muscle structure. So generally speaking, the more muscle mass a human has. the stronger it is. You could keep attacking the idea and compare Cardiac muscle to Bicep muscle. Major difference in quality, strength and endurance at an equal mass. Some people will have slightly leaner muscle and are slightly stronger than others of the same size. Oh and also, it just depends what you feed these muscles. A car isn't going to run without fuel and a race car will run better with better fuel. Edited January 21, 2012 by KingGsterUK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts