The problem with getting more explicit facts that is that its very time consuming.
Perhaps ill take the time to do so. Won't give you warranty on that one though.
As long as i don't or someone else does back it up a bit your point sure stands. (could be turned on you as well though since you have done nothing to scientifically back up your arguments or give any evidence. So we are more or less even here.)
But at least it helps to make you take note that it might be not the way you think and make you look on your own. (if you like.
Could very well understand if thats to tendious for you.) Might be you are inclined to look and check your opinion.
On social concensus: Well I do.
(I don't even see a point to argue with that base at all in an international forum. Since i am (one is) very likely to encounter people coming from a very different "social concensus" which was the main point of my post. That boils down to stating opinions all to fast. Again: There is no real worldwide "social concensus" agreed on even beyond the borders of ones country or even region.)
In that context the "you" was not directed to you in person but to "the one who makes an argument in a discussion" (could have used that word wrongly. Another possible language problem.
Although i do belive that it is ok to write it like that.). That passage uses the word "you" non-personalized. I confess that this one might be quite hard to get and very well might be language mis-use on my part ("one has the problem" instead of "you have the problem" might have been more appropriate and easier to understand i gues).
But thats not for the whole post, just for some paragraphs of it which could lead to further confusion. Given.
You are free to discuss that social concensus and its prognosis about scientific "evidence" which to my knowledge is nonexist in that regard (there are some thesis and perhaps even some theories but nothing! in the frame of modern scientific concensus to back up a prognosis from about why our societies are often patriarchal at all. Or why a given society is patriarchal / matriarchal at all.)
Prove me wrong with evidence if you can.
Also science doesn't dabble in prognosis of complex systems beyond its understanding anymore although it has done so in the past. Only moddeling anyomre (which fixes the parameters and evaluates the outcome on base of set fixed parameters).
Social concensus dabbles in prognosis. And alot. Another stark difference
(i for one dislike it the second the implications become rather severe and! no one! (or only a very tiny minority which i don't belong to
) gets anything! positive out ouf it on net.
Which is very much the case with: "Males are destined to lead by nature" argument or any argument trying to justify structures in gender inequality (no matter which way
) beyond that the society itself wants the structures to be like that.
And in dire misrepresentation of what scientific concensus offers. It fact this one is completely made up by "society" on assumptions + derivating biased observation to "knowledge" and science can't back that one up. At all.
Which does a lot of harm and helps no one! male or female but a "small clique of leaders" out there.
Oh and in adition its very offensive to many people. Especially women.
And i don't take joy in deliberately harming people. And no, "society" isn't always right. Even remotely.).
I very probably won't take part in that kind of discussion at all. Might do. Will see. Agree i won't, for sure.
Problem with the situation presented here from a scientific base: The "given parameters" for Doviello society are not known to a sufficient extent for you or me so theres nothing to base a model on for you and me.
Since no one has made a scientific investigation into how do the Doviello live.
But Kael knows the full extent (or at least a lot more than we do) and the result (what we are presented with) is that its a rather gender-equal society.
(so if anything we have to start from that outcome and have to ask: Why is it a gender equal society? If Kaels statements don't explain that enough for you more information is required on your part. But that doesnt change the reality of Erebus)
But the result is set.
Also remember Erebus is a world of fantasy and follows different rules. (So that a human from Erebus equals a human from our world is a very far fetched assumption. Even though they are not called "erebus sims"
Plants exist in Erebus as well as on Earth. But there they have no photosynthesis on Erebus (which is what makes them plants on our world in the first place. Lifeforms that don't do photosynthesis don't qualify as plants here if im not mistaken.). Now thats what i whould call a stark difference.)
Only that Kael stated very early in the discussion that it is exactly "a feature" (unfitting word here imo) and explained the way he saw it / why it was that way.
I belive we might agree that there is a difference between hard coding and world background, so an "error in the coding / bug" doesn't really apply here. Might we?
And the function of this section of the forum is not to report bugs but to inform oneself and discuss FFH lore (and at rare times Kael drops by and hands us some Lore to discuss.). As seen by the description of the subforum.