In Medieval Europe, No Outfit Was Complete Without a Personal Eating Knife
atlasobscura.com
atlasobscura.com
On the other hand, I think it's generally true that social solutions come up to problems that regularly present themselves, but we tend to forget about those formalisms that aren't often used. That doesn't imply the social solutions are particularly fair or globally effective.
Imagine a situation where you almost never have to worry about another driver cutting you off in traffic, but you know your chance of being shot in a road rage incidence goes up 5x. Is it worth it and does the implied threat really more polite (eg in an emergency) ?
However, there is one such city for me, it's the only city I ever got bumped into twice in a single day by (seemingly sober) busy pedestrians: Prague
>I mean we're still talking about very low absolute levels.
So no, I don't see how it logically follows, whatever that means, that people Turkey or Croatia would be more likely to resort to violence to solve problems:
-Germany's crime rate is very low, and even 3.5x a very small amount is still very small. Croatia's is lower, but it apparently doesn't count because reasons. (For information, the US has never had any war on its own soil since 1865 and still sports higher homicide rates than all three of these countries).
-Unless a country is literally at war or does lynchings or something, most violence typically happens within an underclass and rarely spreads to the middle to upper classes and becomes a cultural trait affecting the general population.
-Cities are often more developed than the countryside, and the original poster was mentioning Istanbul. I get that there may be dodgy areas like in every city in the world, but does it logically follow that a whole culture shift in the entire city (or even country) stemmed from that specific number increase, and led to a peculiar general attitude when bumping people in the street? Here I'm lost.
And I didn’t discount Croatia at all, if you read my comment you’ll notice that I explicitly mention Croatia has lower per capita homicides. You’d then notice that I speculate as to why some people may have a mistaken impression of them, based on their history. You’re trying to argue against claims that I explicitly introduced contradictory evidence against, as if I support them.
As for Turkey, I’m saying that a higher per capita homicide rate is indicative that more people commit homicide on a per capita basis. People who look at a country with a higher Per Capita homicide rate may come to the conclusion that there are more people there who may commit a homicide - that is what I mean by logically follows.
I don’t know how the US, or it’s wars, factors into this discussion at all, but I think the per capita homicide rate of a country is a heuristic to the countries relative acceptance of violence. I think American culture is very violent, but that’s irrelevant to the question at hand.
Germany's homicide rate (per 100,000 people) is approximately 1. Turkey's is 4. If you lived in a city with population 100,000, would the extra three homicides be so impactful that the remaining 99,996 people would shift their whole attitudes so that they'd be careful not to bump people in the street? What I'm arguing is: no, they wouldn't. I'm not arguing anything else, so please don't shift this away from the original point.
Correlation is not causation, and definitely not logic. A high homicide rate is not indicative of a trend in problem solving, it is indicative of a safety issue.
Specially, a high homicide rate is often the result of warfare. In the absence of conflict with a different nation, usually this means gang warfare. In that case, homicide is sometimes a business tactic, and sometimes tribal.
In some societies, human life isn't as valuable, or there is a precedent for settling disputes with violence, or insignificant problems are dealt with harshly, and so homicide sometimes is a problem solving tool. But it's also sometimes a cultural quirk.
My example is Baltimore, Maryland. Often the city with the highest murder rate, this is a result of gang disputes and the drug trade. The people are friendly and neighborly, and it's got a similar culture to a liberal Southern city.
(1) Chivalry evolved as a code of behavior between noble European families. It did not protect the man in the field. Some versions of the code even included the "duty" for nights to terrorize the peasantry in order that they respect their lords and continue working the fields.
(2) Japan. The modern, early-modern, samurai codes developed during the tokugawa period ... which contrary to legend was actually very peaceful. Basically held prisoner in Edo (see "sankin kotai") the samurai class was bored. Lots of people with swords all sitting around. Some became authors who wrote about being samurai, but many were often just drunk. Rigid codes kept the peace. But samurai were basically free to slaughter commoners.
One could argue that rather than reduce violence, such codes succeed only in channeling violence towards the poor, to those without weapons. Arming everyone might seem an answer, but historically removal of the weapons was more effective.
However what is absolutely true is that a violent society has very strong notions around honor and respect. You have to when failure to respect others is grounds for getting killed, and failure to get others to respect you leaves you liable to get assaulted yourself.
That kind of honor and a high murder rate go hand in hand. Whether we are talking medieval nobles or organized crime today.
Did you mean “pleasing the king,” or were you perhaps referring to bonded serfs? ;)
There are places in the world where keeping a full-auto Kalishnikov at home is considered normal. They're much more violent than the US is.
Guns aren’t really for self defense, so much as self direction. If Trump decided he wanted to make an executive order forcefully sending people to retention centers... you don’t think those guns would come in handy? It’s the last line of defense.
This is different than the knives which were literally part of every meal. Most people keep their guns in their home, often locked
There aren't a lot of public environments where one draws and uses a gun, without that being the essential purpose of the event, with injunctions towards due caution being made over and over. Gun ranges are pretty strict about eating, drinking and making merry on the premises. Eating knives were brandished casually and in the presence of alcohol.
I've also used for food in a pinch (mostly cutting things up to share with others).
I see a lot of people carry pure folding knives (Spyder, etc). Honestly I use the screwdriver, etc at least as much as the blade. Not sure why anyone would forego a little extra utility.
FWIW, I really like my multitool... but the reason why I carry just a folding knife is that the multitool is quite heavy by my standards, compared to the small oldtimer that I used to carry or the single blade ones that I've owned.
I've been eyeing some Kershaw knives, but haven't pulled the trigger yet - I have several knives already and none of them are in danger of wearing out anytime soon, so it's hard to justify another.
* CA Penal Code §21510 Carrying switchblades > 2 inches illegal * CA Penal Code §171 Knife with locking blade > 4 inches illegal in public buildings or meetings * CA Penal Code §626.10 Knife with blade > 2.5 inches or any locking knife illegal in schools
also in any Federal facility (e.g., Post Offices): * 18 USC §930 Knife with blade >= 2.5 inches considered "dangerous weapon," possession of which is illegal
Also: I'm a lifelong nail-biter and I'm basically screwed for lots of little tasks if I don't have some kind of blade on me. (The struggle is real <wink>).
¹— a new habit is keeping a pair of work/utility gloves in my bag at all times. I have enough pairs so I don't have to shuffle them around. When SHTF/The Big One/WOROL happens, being able to protect your hands will be a huge differentiator.
In a pinch I might have to use it to break down a box, here and there.
Here's that ~$6 knife:
https://morakniv.se/produkt/basic-511/
...or a somewhat more fancy model for ~$15
I don't know why. It comes in handy sometimes.
My dad grew up on a farm. He was also career military, as was my ex who was not a redneck and did not grow up on a farm.
For some folks, guns and knives are meaningful tools and not everyone is a hot head who would readily knife someone.
I always find discussions of such subjects on HN uncomfortable. It's not a criticism of you. It's a criticism of "Why does anyone have to self deprecatingly identify as a redneck (or something) to admit on HN that this is a part of their life?"
Never had to struggle cutting a steak in restaurant.
I often joke that in Alaska, one would only leave the house without a knife if not planning to make it back. While that's not strictly true, visually scanning peoples' pockets even in cities and towns, a pocket clip for a knife can be seen more often than not.
I'm in Germany most of the time lately, but I still don't go out without a knife. The use cases are different, as is the knife I usually carry, but it sees about as much use.
With these terror attacks you are searched whenever you enter a big shop/mall/whatever so it's less practical.
[[blunt knives] and forks]
[blunt [knives and forks]]Stab them in the head, or the neck, or the gut.
Only in the movies, unless you use a grill or pitch fork.
Are you trying to argue with the idea that forks are safer than knives?
Like yeah you can kill someone with a push-pin or a howitzer, but what's your point?
The difference is more like the difference between a sharp kitchen or steak knife and a dulled butter knife (even if it has a point). Sure, you can kill someone with the dull butter knife, if it doesn't bend and you hit the right spots, but it is going to be more difficult than the proper knife.
> The trouble is that the socialist bourgeoisie, most of whom give me the creeps, will not be realistic and admit that there are a lot of working-class habits which they don't like and don't want to adopt. E.g. the typical middle-class socialist not only doesn't eat with his knife but is still slightly horrified by seeing a working man do so.
That's hard to put in words but it's not hard to do at all.
https://www.forbes.com/2005/08/31/technology-tools-knife_cx_...
Socialization seems to be turning knives into taboo things to carry and use out of the kitchen.
Got a bunch of odd looks from folks in the crowd around me, but got my card back.
http://www.ragnarsmarket.co.uk/product/medieval-eating-knife...
or
"A dagger is a knife with a very sharp point and one or two sharp edges, typically designed or capable of being used as a thrusting or stabbing weapon."
I often carry a swiss army knife, opinel, or bushcraft knife with me.
My father still carries a knife, and he still uses it for eating fruit.
> Lock knives are not classed as folding knives and are illegal to carry in public without good reason. Lock knives: * have blades that can be locked and refolded only by pressing a button * can include multi-tool knives - tools that also contain other devices such as a screwdriver or can opener
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents
The knife stuff starts here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/part/XI/crosshe...
That talks about the blade folding and being under 3 inches (you don't need a good reason to carry it in public), or the blade folding and being over 3 inches or not folding. It doesn't mention the mechanism of locking.
Knives that are illegal would be covered by section 141 - "offensive weapons".
The Knives Act 1997 covers marketing of knives: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/21/contents
The schedule to the Criminal Justice Act lists what weapons are currently illegal: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1988/2019/schedule/parag...
You'll see item 1 is a knuckleduster. If you're a child and you 3d print a knuckle duster a police officer is likely to tell you to stop fucking about and they'll confiscate and destroy the item. If you're a drug dealer with a history of violent offences they're likely to prosecute. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45275791
This is a cultural difference in law enforcement, and it's something that derails conversations all the time on HN. Discretion in charging and prosecuting offences are seen as a good thing in the UK. But it's really important to remember this element of discretion when talking about how the written law is applied.
And indeed, about discretion. So much of how things work is outside the written law, and of varying quality.
UK is extremely restrictive with their knife laws according to their own page. I don't know why you're trying to depict it otherwise. I'm not even taking a side here.
The link posted says you can't carry some knives in public unless you have a good reason.
That's different from "Locking knives are illegal in public".
The acceptable reasons for carrying a knife listed on that government article are:
Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:
- taking knives you use at work to and from work
- taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
- if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
- if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it
None of those mention carrying an Opinel to cut up an apple, and are so obscure.
In addition, you have the Mayor of London saying there is never any reason to carry a knife [1]. I suspect if you're on a hike in the Yorkshire moors, you could be ok. On the tube in London, probably not. Either way, you are gambling on a policeman's discretion.
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/mayoroflondon/status/982906526334...
Yeah it is lame, but unfortunately you can't challenge politicians to a duel anymore.
stealth knives - a knife or spike not made from metal (except when used at home, for food or a toy)
No they're not.
This law is not aimed at the few people who carry opinels, but the many football hooligans who were carrying eg stanley knives.
There are knives that are illegal in the UK. One example would be flick knives.
'I want to' should suffice. It's a general-purpose tool, and one oughtn't be required to have a specific reason to carry a general-purpose tool.
This applies in the software context, e.g. to cryptography.
Supposedly, Catherine de Medici brought the fork from Italy to France and popularized it:
https://www.cooksinfo.com/catherine-de-medici
http://www.courtneyprice.com/fork-you-said-catherine-de-medi...
Once my chop sticks competency reached the point where they started feeling like finger extenders I started using them quite often. I much prefer putting bamboo sticks in my mouth over anything metal or plastic.
If a restaurant brings out metal chopsticks with my food, the wood ones from my bag come out.
Telescoping metal chopsticks sounds like a solution looking for a problem personally. It's not like bamboo disposable chopsticks weigh much, just stick them somewhere.
i see you haven't been to china. the trick is to learn how to spit stuff out gracefully (bones, etc.)
If you enjoy that, then you'll enjoy this article. However I enjoyed this article but still rate that book as the most boring book that I've ever managed to finish.
If you look at his paintings then only the men are carrying knives. None of the women are. Why is this and can someone prove me wrong? I am not that familiar with his work and have not checked everything he painted yet I have not seen women with knives in his art.
"At many medieval dinner tables men and women ate in couples from a bowl shared between them, and when they did, men were expected courteously to serve their female partners, cutting portions of meat for them with their knives."
So that explains my observation of the paintings from the era that only show the men with knives.
---
Also when did atlasobscura become the new hotness?
Links to it pop up regularly on HN, and have been for some time. Usually there's something interesting on both ends.
A great book with many interesting topics (the personnal knife is just one of them) !
I can think of puncturing their eyes or their genitals if I wanted to make the thing painful, but that wouldn't kill them any faster I reckon.
In Jiu Jitsu, you're taught to squeeze on the sides of the neck for a choke. The goal is not to cut off the air supply via the throat so much as the blood supply to the brain via the carotids. Many people pass out in 20-30 seconds of directed relatively gentle pressure on the carotids.
http://the-toast.net/2015/02/11/two-medieval-monks-invent-di...