Encouragement for Lucifershammer

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Let's say Organisation O is responsible for 100,000 witch burnings. Saying that it's responsible for 5 million witch burnings would still be slander, wouldn't you say?

Yes, but I'm saying nobody should give a damn about it. You should come to court with clean hands. The scales of justice are still weighing heavily in favor of the church. It takes a lot of slander to balance even one murder.

Originally posted by Churlant
You really should get out of the habit of misrepresenting someone else's posts.

I did not say I believed the 9 million figure (in fact, I specifically stated I don't believe it), however that was the highest number I found on a "5 minute Googling".

I also have not stated I am anti-Catholic. Your inference in this regard is incorrect.

As far ...[text shortened]... , more novel display instead of what appears to be your trade-mark flippancy.

-JC

You really should get out of the habit of misrepresenting someone else's posts.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I did not say I believed the 9 million figure

I did not say you did. But you apparently thought it credible enough to put as an upper limit.

however that was the highest number I found on a "5 minute Googling"

Are you telling me that, if there had been a web-page out there that had a 10 billion figure, you would've posted that here?

I also have not stated I am anti-Catholic. Your inference in this regard is incorrect.

Really? I apologise. How would you classify yourself, then?

The book review isn't bad, but the Religioustolerance site doesn't really reflect too well on the RCC.

I deliberately chose sites that have no love lost for the Church. As I said, if you're going to be anti-Catholic (and maybe you're not going to be), you should at least rely on somewhat credible sources.

Obviously it offers evidence to lower the Church's direct impact, and further reduces the numbers (50,000), but there are still many references to the church's role in the atrocities being mentioned.

Quite obtuse ones, IMO. But at least we're dealing with facts, not DVC claims.

It is nice to see you at least post a link or two (finally), even if you still won't bother to actually answer the questions you are repeatedly asked.

Your question requires me to state my judgment of historical data. If we can't agree what the data is, there is no point in me stating my judgment - that just gives the reader an opportunity (excuse?) to reject the data as well.

Since I do you the consideration of providing a moderately original response to your own inquiries, I would appreciate it if you would at least humor me with a broader, more novel display instead of what appears to be your trade-mark flippancy.

Actually, flippancy is Scribbles's trademark. Mine is, apparently, "insufferable snotnosery"[TM]. If you want a "novel" response to your question, how about this - I think that, ultimately, the Romans were responsible for the witch trials. Witchcraft (and sorcery) as a capital crime was part of Roman Law that predates Christendom.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Yes, but I'm saying nobody should give a damn about it.

Nobody should give a damn about factual accuracy? You surprise me, Doctor.

You should come to court with clean hands.

Meaning - what exactly?

The scales of justice are still weighing heavily in favor of the church. It takes a lot of slander to balance even one murder.

You still did not tell me whether and why you thought the Church was responsible/not responsible for the deaths of 100,000 (an upper limit, really - the accepted figure is about half that) supposed "witches".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think that, ultimately, the Romans were responsible for the witch trials.

LOL. I knew zero was going to be the best estimate.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm


13
8 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20
15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Nobody should give a damn about factual accuracy? You surprise me, Doctor.

[b]You should come to court with clean hands.

Meaning - what exactly?

The scales of justice are still weighing heavily in favor of the church. It takes a lot of slander to balance even one murder.

You still did not tell me whether and why you thought t ...[text shortened]... 100,000 (an upper limit, really - the accepted figure is about half that) supposed "witches".[/b]

They shouldn't give a damn about the Church being slandered.

You aren't familiar with the principle of coming to court with clean hands?
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c202.htm
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=211&bold=

In short, if the scales of justice are already tipped in your favor, you have no business coming to court to seek remedy. The court is only interested in balancing the scales, not tipping them further.

For example, suppose I steal $100 from a bank robber. He would be laughed out of court on the principle of unclean hands if he attempted to bring a civil case against me to recover the stolen money.

I hold the Church responsible for those deaths. They do not have the clean hands to bring an action against somebody mischaracterizing or exaggerating their wrongs.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew16.htm


13
8 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
...[text shortened]... 20
15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Thanks for the irrelevant quote!

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Thanks for the irrelevant quote!

The quote is very relevant.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Oh yes, please remind me how "free expression" works again. "It's not free if Big Daddy can tell you what you can and cannot say" - except when economic interests are at stake. Enlightenment philosophy alright.

Now, if only we could convince Locke to give up his silly ideas about fundamental rights being the means to an end and get him to treat them as ends in themselves...

You show you don't understand Locke when you make such asinine statements. According to Locke, the State is formed for the primary purpose of protecting Fundamental Rights. There is no other "ends" that rights are a "means" to. You really need to actually read Locke and Paine.

You first sentence is deliberate mis-statement of something I said. I wish you'd stop being so blatantly deceitful.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You show you don't understand Locke when you make such asinine statements. According to Locke, the State is formed for the primary purpose of protecting Fundamental Rights. There is no other "ends" that rights are a "means" to. You really need to actually read Locke and Paine.

You first sentence is deliberate mis-statement of something I said. I wish you'd stop being so blatantly deceitful.

MMBS

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The quote is very relevant.

For once in your godforsaken life would you actually explain what the hell is going on in your head.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I did not say you did. But you apparently thought it credible enough to put as an upper limit.

Honestly... you asked me to Google it. I did. I gave you what I found. I even indicated I didn't believe either the smallest or largest numbers since truth often lies somewhere in between.

If I had found "10 billion" as a number I would indeed have included it. Again - you asked, I presented. That's it. Why do you insist on making this particular point so difficult?


Really? I apologise. How would you classify yourself, then?

I am anti-fundamentalism. Not all catholics are fundamentalists. Based on this fact it would be extremely difficult to be "anti-catholic".


I deliberately chose sites that have no love lost for the Church. As I said, if you're going to be anti-Catholic (and maybe you're not going to be), you should at least rely on somewhat credible sources.

I appreciate that. Eventually we need to return to the initial point of the church's historic role in the suppression of women. Whether or not you believe the church was responsible for even one witch trial is irrelevant to the base claim. There is more than enough additional evidence to lend weight to the claim without including the hunt for witches.


Quite obtuse ones, IMO. But at least we're dealing with facts, not DVC claims.

As obtuse as finding the need to point out that most witches weren't burned to death (as if this matters to the point)?


Your question requires me to state my judgment of historical data. If we can't agree what the data is, there is no point in me stating my judgment - that just gives the reader an opportunity (excuse?) to reject the data as well.

Why would I ask you to give me your opinion, then slam you on it because it is your opinion? Of course we won't completely agree on the data - this is why we are debating instead of slapping each other on the back - that doesn't mean you should take the easy way out and post links rather than full responses.


Actually, flippancy is Scribbles's trademark. Mine is, apparently, "insufferable snotnosery"[TM]. If you want a "novel" response to your question, how about this - I think that, ultimately, the Romans were responsible for the witch trials. Witchcraft (and sorcery) as a capital crime was part of Roman Law that predates Christendom.

This is the answer I was looking for. Not sure why you felt it necessary to put me through three pages of spam to get it.

-JC

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you think people will have enough integrity and conviction to starve to death over this decision?

To get back on topic, do you think people will have enough integrity and conviction to starve to death over the decision to not ban the movie?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
LOL. I knew zero was going to be the best estimate.

Not really. Churlant wanted a "novel" response - I gave him one.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
They shouldn't give a damn about the Church being slandered.

You aren't familiar with the principle of coming to court with clean hands?
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c202.htm
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=211&bold=

In short, if the scales of justice are already tipped in your favor, you have no business coming to court to s ...[text shortened]... lean hands to bring an action against somebody mischaracterizing or exaggerating their wrongs.

For example, suppose I steal $100 from a bank robber. He would be laughed out of court on the principle of unclean hands if he attempted to bring a civil case against me to recover the stolen money.

I'm interested in finding out more about this. What happens in the following situations:

1. X steals $100 from a convenience store. Y steals $1000 from X. Is X entitled to recover anything at all from Y?

2. X (a female) steals $100 from a convenience store. Y rapes X. Is X entitled to a civil claim?

I hold the Church responsible for those deaths.

Why? What are your reasons for saying so?

They do not have the clean hands to bring an action against somebody mischaracterizing or exaggerating their wrongs.

I'll get back to this once you've responded to the two situations provided above.