It is your job, since you made the charge of frequently posting false statements and in numerous enough places, but as expected, you cannot prove such, and true to form, will labor to find a technicality whereby you may excuse yourself.
No. I already posted an example of your errors. Also, in my last post I showed an error in your judgment.
Only in your imagination, as your mind reading was false.
Let’s get right to the heart of the matter: Have you ever read even one book about the inquisition
No, else why would i post something that invited correction, but which is irrelevant unless you deny that the SI did kill some Prots.
If you have never actually read anything worthwhile about the inquisition, then doesn’t that mean you know essentially nothing about it?
That is a false assumption and argument. I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it.
1) “Killing of prots.” - and those are your words - was never an “official means” (your words) of the inquisition.
"Official" as meaning what? Such being obviously sanction by by king Phillip is official enough.
2) Of course supporting an institution DOES NOT mean supporting everything that institution might do. I am a loyal American citizen. I do NOT support everything my nation does...The inquisition was effective against Protestant Revolutionaries in Spain by shutting down their propaganda machine, rooting out their secret groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected heretics
Which hardly has impact unless there are penalties for doing so, which included Death. By thanking God for the SI, esp. without any qualifiers, you are supporting its effective means.
The number of cases involving Protestant Revolutionaries in Spain was incredibly small. Henry Arthur Francis Kamen points this out in the 2014 edition of his book The Spanish Inquisition on page 100. I doubt you’ll ever take the time to read it, however, right?
I will, as a physical copy is on order , while i have before posted from Kamen, including from the following:
..in the presence of Phillip, who had now returned to spain and for whom an impressive ceremony was mounted. Of the thirty accused, twenty-six were considered Protestants, and of these, twelve (including four nuns) were burnt at the stake.
.The first great auto there [Seville] was held on Sunday, 24, September 1559. Of the seventy-six accused present, nineteen were burnt as Lutherans, one of them in effigy only. This was followed by the auto held on Sunday, 22, September 1560..fourteen were burnt..forty of the accused were Protestant....The whole of that year 1562 saw eight-eight cases of Protestants punished: of these, eighteen were burnt in person.. ..the tribunals of the Inquisition devoted themselves to hunt for Lutheran heresy, and drew into their net scores of Spaniards.... (pp. 96)
The great auto de fe up to 1562 served to remind the populations of the gravity of the crisis and to identify Lutherans in their midst. As a consequence, .the tribunals of the Inquisition devoted themselves to hunt for Lutheran heresy, and drew into their net scores of Spaniards who i an unguarded moment had made statements praising Luther or attacking the clergy. p. 97
In perspective, the Protestant crisis in Spain, often presented as a singularly harsh period of repression, was somewhat less bloody than the ferocious religious persecution in other countries.. ...it has been calculated that no more than eighty-three persons....died at the hands of the Inquisition between [just] 1559 and 1663. (p. 107)
Thus capital punishment does have a deterrent effect, though you somehow imagine you can support the SI but not killing Prots!
Support does not mean blanket support of all possibilities. Again, I am a loyal American citizen. I do NOT support everything my nation does.
No, but the devil is in the details, and supporting the war on terror but not the ultimate effective means of combating them is hardly credible. So you want to settle for just imprisoning Prots for their beliefs?
never said I do “not support a single killing”. You once again have to twist my words to suit your purposes, right?
No, I honestly misunderstood, "That doesn’t mean a single “killing” need result." But which is absurd, as the power of the state is ultimately the use of its sword, which SI did use to deterrent effect, but which we are to believe you do not support but have not yet stated. Thus my incredulity.
“So again you thank God for the killing of Prots.” So again you’re equating two things that are not the same. How honest is that of you?
Again, how honest is to support the SI in preventing the Reformation by merely going so far as rooting out their secret groups and meetings yet not support the ultimate deterrent that was used? Are we do imagine that you imagine that this would be effective if there was no killing of convicted Prot? In any case, thus far you have affirmed that you support SI, as a RC state, shutting down Prot publishing, rooting out their groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected Prot and instructing them in the faith. Or do you also reject these means which your credit with being effective against Protestant Revolutionaries while yet thanking God for the SI?
Like I said, you make false statements repeatedly.You can keep making up things, but then that would be the weaseling and it would be all your own.
There is no false statements as it is unreasonable to assume supporting the SI against Prots while not supporting its ultimate effective means, while refusing to state, however equivocal, that you do not support the killing of Prots by the SI.
“But tell you what, if you will state that you do not support the killing of any Prots by the Spanish Inquisition then i will apologize for presuming your support of the Spanish Inquisition included that. Fair enough?”
No. You posted false statements - and quite frankly there is no logical possibility that a person posting them would not know they were false.
Wrong, as it is logical that supporting the SI means supporting its effective means, which included death, esp. when you refuse to deny it.
Also, if a Protestant was a murderer why would I have to say I “do not support” his execution under the law by the proper authorities apparently just to salve your conscience about posting things that are objectively false? And what kind of person would demand a statement specifically denouncing the execution of ONLY Protestants as if non-Protestants did not matter? What does that sort of bizarre view tell us about a person who apparently only cares about Protestants being executed???
That is what weaseling is, for Prots were obviously the focus, which does not mean others are do not matter, and it would not be hard to simply qualify that you do not support killing of Prots by the SI for their faith. How simple, and your refusal to do so only indicates that you do so support this, which is what support of the SI in squashing Prots indicates. So there is my offer: simply state that you do not support the killing of Prots for their faith, at least by the SI, and i will apologize for assuming what seems most logical in such a case.
But as said, given enough rope, at the least you do manifest support for a RC state shutting down Prot publishing, rooting out their groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected Prot and instructing them in the faith. It that what you hope for America as the ideal (not that the liberals are any better)?
“It is your job, since you made the charge of frequently posting false statements”
It’s NOT my job - but I keep doing it anyway in post after post. The errors are there for everyone to see.
“Only in your imagination, as your mind reading was false.”
There was no mind-reading - and that’s why you will not make any logical argument against what I said: Because the facts are not on your side.
“No, else why would i post something that invited correction, but which is irrelevant unless you deny that the SI did kill some Prots.”
You didn’t “invite correction”. You posted it for our “consideration”. Also, you keep changing numerically qualifying words as if you’re changing your story. First, it was killing “of” Protestants - which could mean many, few, most, who knows? Then it was killing of “any” Protestants. Now it’s killing “some” Protestants. This sort of changing of your story may be one of the reasons why you make so many errors.
“That is a false assumption and argument. I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it.”
The false assumption is yours. Let’s face it, you’re seemingly now hedging things by saying “never read a complete account”. Why can’t you just be honest and answer the question by saying: Correct, I’ve never read a single book on the inquisition. That’s the case is it not? Same thing for scholarly articles too, right? None, zip, nada. Also, since the inquisition is a specialized topic of research requiring skills and training most people don’t have (Latin, Roman Law, Canon Law, etc) your assumption that not having read a book on it doesn’t mean your ignorant on the topic is logically impossible.
“”Official” as meaning what?”
Are you now saying you don’t know how to define a word YOU chose to use? Here’s what you said: “So supporting the inquisition does not mean supporting all its official means?” This is clearly another reason why you make so many errors. You use words and you must not understand them if you have to ask the definition AFTER you used them.
“Such being obviously sanction by by king Phillip is official enough.”
I don’t think you even know what you’re TRYING to say.
” twenty-six were considered Protestants”
Which, of course, means they might not have been Protestants - and Kamen and others make the same point in a number of places.
“Thus capital punishment does have a deterrent effect, though you somehow imagine you can support the SI but not killing Prots!”
Your logic is so bizarrely twisted. You’re actually saying that because capital punishment is a deterrent (which it is) that that means I imagine something. The one has NOTHING to do with the other logically. No matter how good or bad capital punishment is as a deterrent it has nothing to do with anything I might imagine about supporting or not support all actions taken by the state in executing anyone after an inquisition trial. This is yet another logic error on your part: error after error.
“Which hardly has impact unless there are penalties for doing so, which included Death.”
Which was almost never used - thus proving my point.
“By thanking God for the SI, esp. without any qualifiers, you are supporting its effective means.”
That isn’t the death penalty. Historians disagree on what the most effective tool was in stopping the spread of Protestantism but they all agree it wasn’t executions. And thus, your grand point crashes into pieces. If you read some history - and you have already admitted you’ve read not even a single book on this subject - you would know that:
“Despite much popular myth about the Spanish Inquisition relating to Protestants, it dealt with very few cases involving actual Protestants, as there were so few in Spain.[54] The first of the trials against those labeled by the Inquisition as “Lutheran” were those against the sect of mystics known as the “Alumbrados” of Guadalajara and Valladolid. The trials were long, and ended with prison sentences of differing lengths, though none of the sect were executed.” (wikipedia on Spanish Inquisition)
See that? A group that was labelled - perhaps incorrectly - as Protestant (specifically Lutheran although that was a general/blanket term) fell apart and yet there were no executions. See that?
“No, I honestly misunderstood, “That doesn’t mean a single “killing†need result.” But which is absurd, as the power of the state is ultimately the use of its sword, which SI did use to deterrent effect, but which we are to believe you do not support but have not yet stated. Thus my incredulity.”
Your “incredulity” has everything to do with how you “honestly misunderstood” and nothing to do with me. Stop making error after error. It’s not that hard.
“Again, how honest is to support the SI in preventing the Reformation by merely going so far as rooting out their secret groups and meetings yet not support the ultimate deterrent that was used?”
Very honest. As shown with the “Alumbrados” it worked. The Spanish state believed differently in other cases. Again, however, entire groups of heretics were dealt without anyone being executed. Thus, I have been right all along. That won’t change. If you had spent time doing research you would have known this to be the case.
“Are we do imagine that you imagine that this would be effective if there was no killing of convicted Prot?”
Why wouldn’t it be if it ALREADY WAS WITH THE FIRST GROUP THAT WAS CALLED LUTHERAN???? Seriously, it’s as if you know and understand NOTHING. Again, however, the Spanish government officials thought otherwise so the point is moot. In the end, you’re still wrong. That won’t change.
“In any case, thus far you have affirmed that you support SI, as a RC state,”
What? The Spanish Inquisition is not an “RC state”. It is a governmental institution used to ensure national unity through suppression of heresy and the reconciliation of heretics with the Church. I have no idea what you mean by “as a RC state”.
“shutting down Prot publishing, rooting out their groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected Prot and instructing them in the faith.”
And?
“Or do you also reject these means which your credit with being effective against Protestant Revolutionaries while yet thanking God for the SI?”
No, I do not reject those means for the era in which they were used.
“here is no false statements”
No, it’s false.
” as it is unreasonable to assume supporting the SI against Prots while not supporting its ultimate effective means,”
Another false statement. As we already saw, the death penalty - which the inquisition didn’t even administer - cannot be considered it most effective means since Protestant groups could be dealt with without it. Thus, everything falls apart for you again.
“while refusing to state, however equivocal, that you do not support the killing of Prots by the SI.”
Do you even see the hypocrisy of making such a statement as you just did when you can’t even simply say, “No, I have no read any books on the inquisition. No, I have no read any scholarly articles on the inquisition.” Seriously, the best you can do - even though you have been asked about this at least twice is: “ I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it.” I don’t remember you EVER asking me in this thread whether or not I actually “however equivocal, ...support the killing of Prots by the SI.” You never did - not even ONCE. Yet I have asked you at least twice if you have read a book - EVEN ONE BOOK - on the inquisition and you REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead play games with: “I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it.” Seriously, you cannot see the hypocrisy of that???? To keep it simple for you: you have made yet another error.
“So you want to settle for just imprisoning Prots for their beliefs?”
You know what? I’ll answer that question when YOU finally come clean about never having read a single book or scholarly article on the inquisition.
“Wrong, as it is logical that supporting the SI means supporting its effective means, which included death, esp. when you refuse to deny it.”
As we saw the most effective tool was not the death penalty. If it were, it would have been used far more often.
“That is what weaseling is, for Prots were obviously the focus,”
But they were NOT the focus. The vast majority of Spanish Inquisition cases were NOT about Protestants real or imagined. That’s just a fact.
“which does not mean others are do not matter, and it would not be hard to simply qualify that you do not support killing of Prots by the SI for their faith.”
Do you even see the hypocrisy of making such a statement as you just did when you can’t even simply say, “No, I have no read any books on the inquisition. No, I have no read any scholarly articles on the inquisition.” Seriously, the best you can do - even though you have been asked about this at least twice is: “ I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it.” I don’t remember you EVER asking me in this thread whether or not I actually “however equivocal, ...support the killing of Prots by the SI.” You never did - not even ONCE. Yet I have asked you at least twice if you have read a book - EVEN ONE BOOK - on the inquisition and you REFUSE TO ANSWER and instead play games with: “I have never read a complete account of the Civil War. WW1 or WW2, yet have read enough research to know facts about it.” Seriously, you cannot see the hypocrisy of that???? To keep it simple for you: you have made yet another error. I’ll point it out again - I WAS NEVER ASKED IN THIS THREAD THAT I CAN RECALL WHETHER OR NOT I “support killing of Prots by the SI for their faith.” Yet you imply twice in your most recent post that I have refused to do this WHEN NO ONE ASKED ME THE QUESTION. I, however, ASKED YOU AT LEAST TWICE if you have ever read even a single book or scholarly article on the inquisition and you have refused to answer both times. Hypocrisy.
“How simple, and your refusal to do so only indicates that you do so support this,”
I WAS NEVER ASKED. You were asked about reading books or scholarly articles on the inquisition at least twice. You never ONCE in this thread asked me what you’re claiming until the post I am responding to now. What you’re doing is not right.
“which is what support of the SI in squashing Prots indicates. So there is my offer: simply state that you do not support the killing of Prots for their faith, at least by the SI, and i will apologize for assuming what seems most logical in such a case.”
No. It is RIDICULOUS that I have to answer a question I was never asked while you have refused to answer a question you have been asked twice!!! Also, what you just said is another error on your part. You’re saying that, if I answer a question you never asked me until this post I am responding to now, you’ll apologize “for assuming what seems most logical in such a case.” Your assumption was not “logical”. And let’s face it: No one offers to apologize for something unless he is in the wrong. If you believe you’re in the wrong apologize. If you did it, own up to it.
“But as said, given enough rope, at the least you do manifest support for a RC state shutting down Prot publishing, rooting out their groups and meetings, banning associations of known and suspected Prot and instructing them in the faith. It that what you hope for America as the ideal (not that the liberals are any better)?”
When you answer the questions I have asked you on at least two occasions - and which you have repeatedly failed to answer - I’ll consider answering your question.
Until then you have an apology to mull over and you need to look up the definition of hypocrisy. Enjoy.
Supplemental: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/39443/what-was-the-death-toll-during-the-inquisition/39458#39458