Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

someterriblethrills t1_iwbpjg9 wrote

A strange quantifier in the title. I can't think of a way to brand a living creature that isn't brutal.

Fun fact, the British navy only abolished branding as a punishment for desertion in 1871.

Article on the topic

100

pgm123 t1_iwbukw8 wrote

>A strange quantifier in the title. I can't think of a way to brand a living creature that isn't brutal.

I was thinking the same thing. It's brutal and cruel. For some reason, adding the qualifier brutal has the unintentional effect of making it seem like there are instances of branding that isn't brutal?

40

HerbertWest t1_iwc9moc wrote

The word "brutal" implies enacted violence. Consensual ritual branding is arguably not "brutal." Something isn't brutal just because it's painful; it's the presumably nonconsensual nature of the branding plus the pain that would make it so.

44

someterriblethrills t1_iwcuwdd wrote

The lack of consent is already in the title, given that it's describing an action inflicted on a slave.

Edit: Threads been locked so I can't reply but thanks for clarifying, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were talking about the title.

6

HerbertWest t1_iwcxtcn wrote

>The lack of consent is already in the title, given that it's describing an action inflicted on a slave.

I was responding to this bit in your post: "I can't think of a way to brand a living creature that isn't brutal."

14

TeamRedundancyTeam t1_iwcgn3t wrote

Well, in modern times we have ways to brand that isn't. In ancient times? Various levels of brutality was definitely your only option. I'm guessing ancient tattooing was probably the least painful way to brand someone?

5