1 2
#1401972
OhJohnNo
"Uneducated", more like.
5/13/2012 4:55:21 AM
#1401992
Reynardine
And we'd turn you into a toad, but that would be an undeserved improvement.
5/13/2012 5:23:58 AM
#1401994
Mister Spak
How do we know that even a single one was a witch?
I haven't seen any proof in those history books, The fundies are just assuming they are, based on mentally ill delusional ideation, because they've been mislead to believe that witches are real. Fundie wingnuttery is not proof.
5/13/2012 5:25:43 AM
#1401997
Brendan Rizzo
We don't need evidence that they weren't witches. Criminal justice doesn't work that way. The only evidence that they were was the word of their accusers; for some reason no one at the trials ever thought the prosecution was lying even though it was blatantly obvious.
Now, it is POSSIBLE that this man is European, because the countries in Europe have become so secular that all the really religious people are unable to cope and thus have adopted positions that make Generalissimo Franco seem moderate, but the main difference is that in Europe he'd be laughed out of the room. A VERY large percentage of Americans agree with every word this guy says. The fact that these views are not considered extremist in the U.S. damns this country.
5/13/2012 5:27:50 AM
#1402002
NearlySane
POE-try?
5/13/2012 5:33:08 AM
#1402013
SpukiKittyOh lordy, please be a.....
5/13/2012 5:51:05 AM
#1402014
Frelus
Hm, maybe we know because witches do not exist.
Maybe we know because your church was (and partly still is) the most corrupt organisation since the big bang.
If you would get in touch with what we call reality, you would understand.
5/13/2012 5:53:19 AM
#1402020
Indicible
Trial by ordeal? Why not.
Could you please test it on yourself and drown? Thanks in advance.
5/13/2012 5:55:52 AM
#1402042
breakerslion
"How do we know that not a single one of the accused was a witch?"
Um, because a "real witch" would have been able to use witchcraft to save themselves, or at least give the intolerant douchebag Puritan prosecutors and judges boils or the pox or something. Duh!
Edit: Witches exist. There are people who believe themselves to be witches and call themselves witches. Magic on the other hand, excluding stage magic.... The argument above is still valid because a self-proclaimed witch would have at least attempted to curse the oppressors. If voodoo has taught us anything, it is that a curse only works when a) the person being cursed knows about it, and b) said person believes in the power of the curse. Cotton Mather, etc. obviously believed, so where is the historical record of the attempt?
5/13/2012 6:33:24 AM
#1402049
Raised by Horses
5/13/2012 6:42:27 AM
#1402056
Papabear
"How do we know that not a single one of the accused was a witch?
I haven't seen any proof in those history books. The historians are just assuming that, because we've been mislead to believe that witches aren't real. Speculation is not proof."
There is no evidence that witches exist. It is not required that we prove a negative, you assertation that witches exist requires YOU to prove their existence.
"What evidence do I have?"
That everything they can be shown to have done can be explained without the supernatural.
"They put them on trial and found them guilty."
Because they floated in water? Because some ergot-influenced said they were witches?Because local authorities found it politically helpful to have them as scapegoats?
"Now, I admit trial by judge or jury isn't as fair as trial by ordeal because you are leaving it up to humans instead of God, but still most of the time the jury arrives at the right verdict."
You're a friggin' moron.
"It's only rarely that someone is falsely convicted,"
How could you possibly know this?
"and if those people lead virtuous lives oh well they went to heaven anyways."
As I said, how could you possibly know this?
1 or 2 may have been innocent, but they would've been spared if they had used trial by ordeal instead. Not necessarily the drowning test, but maybe having them scalded and seeing how fast the boils heal. When people are accused and you have a trial by ordeal to see if they are innocent or guilty so long as those people believe in God and are innocent then God will cause the boils to heal by the deadline for the verdict."
Unbelievably stupid. You fail at everything... except a**oholic delusions. You do those quite well.
5/13/2012 7:01:47 AM
#1402065
D Laurier
WTF?
5/13/2012 7:11:42 AM
#1402066
CelticPagan
Repost?
5/13/2012 7:13:26 AM
#1402068
Fundies Make Me Sick
Trial by ordeal was retarded and you're retarded for putting faith in it. Go back to the 1600s if you're so in love with the horrible torture of people. Dickwad.
5/13/2012 7:16:34 AM
#1402078
LAchlan
You shouldn't be allowed a computer if you believe shit like that. It's not the fucking 16th century anymore.
5/13/2012 7:26:08 AM
#1402083
John
The devil demands Jesus undergo "trial by ordeal":
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone."
And Jesus tells us what he thinks of the idea:
Jesus said unto him, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."
5/13/2012 7:39:46 AM
#1402084
Jessica
Has this person accidentally stumbled a time portal from the days of Kramer and Sprenger? Learned modern English through listening to people?
Trial by ordeal is fairer than trial by jury?
If the scalded flesh heals at the wrong speed, as determined by whom, the person is a witch and should be executed?
They are one of the following;
Joking.
Mentally confused.
Are part of a massive on line role playing game where they take the part of an Inquisitor and are in character.
Deadly serious.
I hope with every bit of me if it's the last point, they have no influence over any human being, not even down to voting. I also hope they have no access to young, unformed minds.
5/13/2012 7:43:35 AM
#1402104
Thinking Allowed
Wouldn't it be much easier if they just checked to see if the witches weighed as much as a duck?
5/13/2012 8:41:25 AM
#1402137
Canuovea
How do you knooooow she was a witch?
"Because we are stupid, gullible, fuckwits."
To be fair, most witch trials didn't get very far. Why? Because the standard of evidence was set so high! Not only was it necessary to prove that a person was working with the devil, but seeing images of people wasn't enough. That could be the devil trying to get innocent people hanged.
Read "Escaping Salem: the other witch trial of 1692" by Godbeer (yes, that is an awesome name), lots of wonderful info on this stuff.
5/13/2012 10:16:22 AM
#1402181
"most of the time the jury arrives at the right verdict"
OJ Simpson.
Casey Anthony.
You were saying?
5/13/2012 12:33:08 PM
#1402188
I guess it was just a coincidence, then, that many of the accusers had ulterior motives, like a desire to grab the land of those they accused.
5/13/2012 12:35:58 PM
#1402201
Renon
This simply HAS to be a poe.
5/13/2012 1:18:05 PM
#1402213
farpadokly
Someone... in the year 2012... in the wealthiest country in the world... is actually advocating trial by ordeal, a practice that was abandoned some time in the Middle Ages.
Someone... in the year 2012... is advocating torture... and thinking that witches might be real...
Surely this isn't real.
5/13/2012 1:35:33 PM
#1402223
Berny
Check out his site. This retard is either a Poe or an absolute moron.
5/13/2012 2:07:11 PM
#1402225
Doubting Thomas
I really can't say "Die in a fire" sincerely enough. Not only does this idiot think that witch trials are a good thing, but believes that the most barbaric means in which to determine innocence or guilt are the best ways to do it. Go back to the 1600's, you pile of human excrement.
I'm really wondering if "trial by ordeal" was invented to make the accused falsely confess to the "crime" of witchcraft rather than undergo whatever ordeal the judges thought up, for instance being scalded by water.
5/13/2012 2:13:37 PM
1 2