A measured look at a difficult situation

The reality is in the thousands,

I'm talking about the Salem witch trials, what are you talking about? I remembered the number from something I read a while back, but here's a Google page on the subject that shows sites saying 20 were executed, and one saying only 12 were executed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I know nothing? Oh but I do know what you were answering. I know the IRA initiated attacks on Protestants in Ireland, and the Irish Rebellion was also an attack on defenseless Protestants. That one is mentioned in the link I gave in Message 103. I understand that you want to talk about all the details of Irish history but I'm really only interested in the fact that the RCC was the aggressor there as well as in other places I listed. No Protestant settlers rose up and attacked the Catholics, right?abe: Here's what that article says about the Irish Rebellion: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I'm talking about the Salem witch trials, what are you talking about

---

You SAID that you were talking about the "grand total" of "witches" executed by Protestants. So that is what I was talking about. The Salem witch trials were not the only trials conducted by Protestants that lead to executions!And, just for your information, when I tried your search, the figure of 12 did come up - but when I looked at it in context, it was the number of people executed in New England BEFORE the Salem trials. The same article (Wikipedia) names all twenty executed. You'll see a figure of 19 hanged because one was pressed to death.So, your "grand total" only accounts for the Salem trials - not even all the executions in New England! And you didn't even get that right. Do you really think that you should be boasting about your "discernment"?

Yes I thought Larni was talking about Salem so I talked about Salem. Who cares? Yes, discernment I have, doesn't mean I read a whole Google page. Anything under 50 or even 500 is inconsequential in the big picture. So Salem had 20 rather than 12, fine, great, big deal. Who cares. If you are talking about other Protestant executions of witches that amounted to a much larger number as you claimed, please produce that information. You're just wasting time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes I thought Larni was talking about Salem so I talked about Salem. Who cares?

---

But you didn't claim to be talking about Salem alone. You claimed to be giving the "grand total" of "witches" executed by Protestants. And what would the point of talking about Salem alone?

quote:

---

Yes, discernment I have, doesn't mean I read a whole Google page.

---

You didn't have discernment enough to realise that the figure of twelve might refer to something else and check it, or leave it out. You didn't even have the discernment to tell that the number executed at Salem might be a small fraction of those executed by Protestants.

quote:

---

Anything under 50 or even 500 is inconsequential in the big picture.

---

The "grand total" is certainly more than that.

quote:

---

You're just wasting time

---

Attempting to educate you in the basics of research and intellectual honesty might well be a waste of time. But, at the least, you can serve as an example of how not to argue.

I'm not interested in your ditherings about the "basics," I don't CARE about the number of witches in Salem, I don't CARE about your opinion of me, you said the number was much higher for the "grand total" which has to include more than Salem according to you, SO PLEASE PRODUCE THAT GRAND TOTAL ALONG WITH YOUR SOURCES. Thank you very much.

Then what you are desribing is not a moral authority but an authority based on force of arms.Is that really what you mean?A question for you: how many Catholics did Henry VIII, Edward VI kill during their reign? Have you actual had any formal education in that time period in UK (not just surfing the World Wide Web)?Even though I was educated in a C of E school we were taught who killed who in history lessons.All the best.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : added 'kill' to second paragraph

Really? Because most people haven't managed even a single execution.But just to keep things in perspective, here is your original claim. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The comparison was with millions of witches executed by the RCC. Now we're talking about Catholics, not witches, being "burnt" by Protestants, which I said I don't think ever happened, but perhaps you have information to the contrary? Burning at the stake was very much a Catholic thing I thought. But perhaps you can correct me. My understanding is that, let's keep it to England for now though feel free to specify other contexts, Protestant monarchs had Catholics executed for treason and not for being Catholic, unlike Catholic monarchs who burnt Protestants at the stake for being Protestants.Do please address what has actually been said. Thank you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was very very very very very very clear that I'm NOT talking about moral authority, I'm talking about ACTUAL authority, period. You know, like the Roman Empire's authority over Judea. Was it moral authority, I don't know, they had some wisdom in how they governed, but of course the Jews didn't think they had a right to be there. Same as the Irish gthinking the DEnglish didn't have a right to be there. I DON'T CAREA. The \English had the authority befcause they WERE there, same as the Rojman EMPIRE> Read for cry8ingh outr loud,.

Your post is totally garbled. If you have something to say about Henry the eigth and Edward whatever, SAY IT.

I understand Faith. Whether you are blinded by pride or just don't care about the truth you say things that you have no real knowledge of and can easily be seen to be wrong. Assuming that the Salem Witch trials accounted for all the "witches" killed by Protestants is one such case, and sadly you'd rather try to bluster your way past it than address your errors and try to do better. Do you have any good excuse, when you must know that there were many Protestsnts in Europe? When you've been involved in discussion of witch hunting under King James of Scotland and England? And when the point of the post you were replying to was that you ignored killings by Protestants? A good way to make your opponent's point for him!There is no good figure for the total number of "witches" killed - your "millions" are on the extreme even there, though. This page estimates 1700-2000 in (Protestant) Scandinavia, and it tends to the lower end. Enough to substantiate a figure of over 500, I think.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

First off, it wasn't an attack on only defenseless Protestants, but also on the defenders of the city and those who refused to surrender. According to your statements supporting Cromwell, the Irish were simply following the era's rules of war and when the defenders refused to surrender, no quarter was required to be offered. If it is allowed for Cromwell, then the same rules of war apply for the Irish fighting for their freedom. So, just like Cromwell, the Irish rebellion killed some civilians along with killing the Defenders. It was not, by any means, all innocent Protestants.What that article says about the Irish Rebellion is packed full of lies written to move a Protestant cause forward. No serious scholars give any credence to the propaganda that was written by John Temple. Most scholars put the total death count for the Irish Rebellion between 4,000 and 12,000 (with a majority leaning toward the number 4,000).Let's unpack this statement from the article: First off, John Temple's book is entitled The Irish Rebellion, not the "True Impartial History of the Irish Rebellion" and it was published in 1646, not 1644. We have already discussed the total death counts and, outside of his assumption of numbers, it is important to note that most scholars do not accept his counts as accurate (or even anywhere close to accurate). Also, with John Temple we are dealing with an individual who expressed disgust at the Irish race, should we expect him to be impartial? According to Kathleen Noonan's "Martyrs in Flames": So, what is the next step in Plaisted's analysis of the death toll: Here we have Hassell citing 400,000 as the number but without any evidence (or link to where he is getting this information from contained in the document). One good point to mention is how many the rebellion was said to kill in a specific town, such as Portadown, which is considered the worst massacre during this time period. Portadown is considered to have the highest death toll for any activity during the Irish Rebellion. So, what was the death toll for Portadown? 100 Protestants. Now, even if there was a battle in every single city, borough and town that currently exists in the Republic of Ireland (hint, there are 85 Source) and if each battle equaled the massacre at Portadown, there would be a death toll of less than 10,000 for the entire rebellion. So again, I ask you, where are these individuals getting these numbers from? The 100 death toll from Portadown was included in those thousands of documents that were recently released for review, which you had posted as evidence earlier in the thread. According to the BBC, which gives a higher total number than most scholars accept: Now, how are these two groups of scholars getting such a huge disparity on these numbers and why are the ones who return extremely high numbers (especially for the population density in the 1600's) always Protestants? Could they possibly have some reason to mask the truth or to make the Irish look worse (or more savage) than they actually were? Again, this is a great calculation, other than the fact that he does not show where any of his variables are pulled from, with the exception of starting population. Why should there be such a consistent population increase, when we are dealing with the Little Ice Age, or a time known to be rife with famine and war. SourceSo, apparently it was not only Ireland that was suffering from situations which led to increased death rates, as all of Europe saw a reduction in population of 1/3. Where was the rest of Europe's 30% population increase that Temple places as a requirement on the Irish?Finally, Faith, this was their land and the British Protestants were an invading force who had come to take this land from them. Why should they greet these conquerors as friends? If China invades the United States and implements a new government, would you fault a militia that fought to have their freedoms restored? Why is it only Catholics fighting for their freedom that you have an issue with, yet when the Protestants fight back violently against a Catholic ruler you consider it just?Other Sources:
Irish Rebellion of 1641Martyrs in FlamesBBC History - Wars and Conflicts - Plantation of UlsterEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Then why do you speak of the American Revolutionaries as good individuals? They were exactly the same as the Irish in wanting to be in charge of their own destinies and wanting to have the same freedoms afforded to others who were under the Crown. The Americans even began fighting before war was declared against the Crown, so they were attacking those who had actual authority. According to you, England should have sent all of her forces and decimated the Americans as a lesson, just as they did with Cromwell in Ireland.