Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Henry VIII of England

Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 1:48:04 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:
Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Well he became the Head of his own church, the Anglican Church, so having both military and religious supremacy of a large island is a perk. His poor wives though ...
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 1:57:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:48:04 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:
Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Well he became the Head of his own church, the Anglican Church, so having both military and religious supremacy of a large island is a perk. His poor wives though ...

I appreciate your comment, but I'm not sure you answered the question posed??
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 2:01:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:57:43 AM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:48:04 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:
Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Well he became the Head of his own church, the Anglican Church, so having both military and religious supremacy of a large island is a perk. His poor wives though ...

I appreciate your comment, but I'm not sure you answered the question posed??

I thought you were asking 'Why would King Henry VIII so violently betray his former religion, Catholicism'. My response was essentially to mean 'For Power.'
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 2:19:08 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:
Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

probably lust for power.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 2:28:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 2:01:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:57:43 AM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:48:04 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:
Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Well he became the Head of his own church, the Anglican Church, so having both military and religious supremacy of a large island is a perk. His poor wives though ...

I appreciate your comment, but I'm not sure you answered the question posed??

I thought you were asking 'Why would King Henry VIII so violently betray his former religion, Catholicism'. My response was essentially to mean 'For Power.'

I missed it. I stand corrected, thank you.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 7:19:22 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:

Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Perhaps it was the same flaw as that in the Catholic population of France in 1572:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The common people began to hunt Protestants throughout the city, including women and children. Chains were used to block streets so that Protestants could not escape from their houses. The bodies of the dead were collected in carts and thrown into the Seine. The massacre in Paris lasted three days despite the king's attempts to stop it.

Estimates of the number that perished in the massacres, "have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death".[29] Accurate figures for casualties have never been compiled,[30] and, even in writings by modern historians, there is a considerable range, though the more specialised the historian, the lower they tend to be. At the low end are figures of about 2,000 in Paris[31] and 3,000 in the provinces, the latter figure an estimate by Philip Benedict in an article in 1978.[32] Other estimates are about 10,000 in total,[33] with about 3,000 in Paris[34] and 7,000 in the provinces.[35]

The Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 (Latin for "overthrow" or "slaughter," "of the Huguenots") showing an angel bearing a cross and sword before which are the felled Protestants.[41]

On hearing of the slaughter, Philip II of Spain "laughed for the only time on record".[44] In Paris, the poet Jean-Antoine de Baif, founder of the Academie de Musique et de Poesie, wrote a sonnet extravagantly praising the killings.[45]
tarantula
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 7:24:54 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
The Catholic church certainly hasn't done itself any favours over the centuries with many crimes again humanity.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 1:00:48 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 7:19:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:

Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Perhaps it was the same flaw as that in the Catholic population of France in 1572:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The common people began to hunt Protestants throughout the city, including women and children. Chains were used to block streets so that Protestants could not escape from their houses. The bodies of the dead were collected in carts and thrown into the Seine. The massacre in Paris lasted three days despite the king's attempts to stop it.

Estimates of the number that perished in the massacres, "have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death".[29] Accurate figures for casualties have never been compiled,[30] and, even in writings by modern historians, there is a considerable range, though the more specialised the historian, the lower they tend to be. At the low end are figures of about 2,000 in Paris[31] and 3,000 in the provinces, the latter figure an estimate by Philip Benedict in an article in 1978.[32] Other estimates are about 10,000 in total,[33] with about 3,000 in Paris[34] and 7,000 in the provinces.[35]

The Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 (Latin for "overthrow" or "slaughter," "of the Huguenots") showing an angel bearing a cross and sword before which are the felled Protestants.[41]

On hearing of the slaughter, Philip II of Spain "laughed for the only time on record".[44] In Paris, the poet Jean-Antoine de Baif, founder of the Academie de Musique et de Poesie, wrote a sonnet extravagantly praising the killings.[45]


I pose a serious question and instead of answering you decide to respond with a fantastic lie. Well played.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 5:12:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:
Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Catholicism.
Or misinterpretation of scripture.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 7:42:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:
Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

The reason Henry VIII chose to start his own religion and abandon ties to the Catholic church was he wanted to divorce his wife, Catherine of Aragon and the pope refused him permission. His primary reason for wanting a divorce was the failure of Catherine to produce a make successor to the throne. Henry got frustrated with the pope and decided that as God had chosen him as king he had a divine right to head the English church as well. He calculated by ending ties to Catholicism he could purge the church, seize its valuable assets, marry the woman he desired (Anne Boleyn), get a male successor to the throne, control the church and remove those within in he disliked while presenting the entire operation as a way of reforming the church to the benefit of ordinary people.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 10:43:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 1:00:48 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/28/2016 7:19:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:

Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Perhaps it was the same flaw as that in the Catholic population of France in 1572:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The common people began to hunt Protestants throughout the city, including women and children. Chains were used to block streets so that Protestants could not escape from their houses. The bodies of the dead were collected in carts and thrown into the Seine. The massacre in Paris lasted three days despite the king's attempts to stop it.

Estimates of the number that perished in the massacres, "have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death".[29] Accurate figures for casualties have never been compiled,[30] and, even in writings by modern historians, there is a considerable range, though the more specialised the historian, the lower they tend to be. At the low end are figures of about 2,000 in Paris[31] and 3,000 in the provinces, the latter figure an estimate by Philip Benedict in an article in 1978.[32] Other estimates are about 10,000 in total,[33] with about 3,000 in Paris[34] and 7,000 in the provinces.[35]

The Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 (Latin for "overthrow" or "slaughter," "of the Huguenots") showing an angel bearing a cross and sword before which are the felled Protestants.[41]

On hearing of the slaughter, Philip II of Spain "laughed for the only time on record".[44] In Paris, the poet Jean-Antoine de Baif, founder of the Academie de Musique et de Poesie, wrote a sonnet extravagantly praising the killings.[45]


I pose a serious question and instead of answering you decide to respond with a fantastic lie. Well played.

The St. Bartholomew massacre was a lie?
Denial has a new champion.
Irascible_Me
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 11:12:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 10:43:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:00:48 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/28/2016 7:19:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:

Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Perhaps it was the same flaw as that in the Catholic population of France in 1572:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The common people began to hunt Protestants throughout the city, including women and children. Chains were used to block streets so that Protestants could not escape from their houses. The bodies of the dead were collected in carts and thrown into the Seine. The massacre in Paris lasted three days despite the king's attempts to stop it.

Estimates of the number that perished in the massacres, "have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death".[29] Accurate figures for casualties have never been compiled,[30] and, even in writings by modern historians, there is a considerable range, though the more specialised the historian, the lower they tend to be. At the low end are figures of about 2,000 in Paris[31] and 3,000 in the provinces, the latter figure an estimate by Philip Benedict in an article in 1978.[32] Other estimates are about 10,000 in total,[33] with about 3,000 in Paris[34] and 7,000 in the provinces.[35]

The Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 (Latin for "overthrow" or "slaughter," "of the Huguenots") showing an angel bearing a cross and sword before which are the felled Protestants.[41]

On hearing of the slaughter, Philip II of Spain "laughed for the only time on record".[44] In Paris, the poet Jean-Antoine de Baif, founder of the Academie de Musique et de Poesie, wrote a sonnet extravagantly praising the killings.[45]


I pose a serious question and instead of answering you decide to respond with a fantastic lie. Well played.

The St. Bartholomew massacre was a lie?
Denial has a new champion.

If I am reading this thread correctly, this is a perfect straw man. The original question was about the failings of a mass murderer, and it appears this response would turn it against his victims rather than answer it.

If I may answer, yes, the way that is represented is a lie, and I most vehemently champion denial of untruths. Another example of an untruth which has been rewritten as a truth is the legacy of Henry's daughter, Bloody Elizabeth. As the result of slanderous lies against her cousin Mary Stuart, the drink named after Elizabeth's behavior has been given Mary's name instead. Centuries of lies have left people doubting the accurate accounts of Mary's life, as well as Bloody Elizabeth's, who made her father look a rank amateur at torture and murder. But the lies, being repeated over and over, have replaced the truth. Do yourself and us a favor; if you are sourcing wikipedia, don't admit it. It's embarrassing.

Deny if you wish. Falsification has a new champion.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 11:53:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 11:12:53 PM, Irascible_Me wrote:
At 7/28/2016 10:43:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:00:48 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/28/2016 7:19:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:

Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Perhaps it was the same flaw as that in the Catholic population of France in 1572:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The common people began to hunt Protestants throughout the city, including women and children. Chains were used to block streets so that Protestants could not escape from their houses. The bodies of the dead were collected in carts and thrown into the Seine. The massacre in Paris lasted three days despite the king's attempts to stop it.

Estimates of the number that perished in the massacres, "have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death".[29] Accurate figures for casualties have never been compiled,[30] and, even in writings by modern historians, there is a considerable range, though the more specialised the historian, the lower they tend to be. At the low end are figures of about 2,000 in Paris[31] and 3,000 in the provinces, the latter figure an estimate by Philip Benedict in an article in 1978.[32] Other estimates are about 10,000 in total,[33] with about 3,000 in Paris[34] and 7,000 in the provinces.[35]

The Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 (Latin for "overthrow" or "slaughter," "of the Huguenots") showing an angel bearing a cross and sword before which are the felled Protestants.[41]

On hearing of the slaughter, Philip II of Spain "laughed for the only time on record".[44] In Paris, the poet Jean-Antoine de Baif, founder of the Academie de Musique et de Poesie, wrote a sonnet extravagantly praising the killings.[45]


I pose a serious question and instead of answering you decide to respond with a fantastic lie. Well played.

The St. Bartholomew massacre was a lie?
Denial has a new champion.

If I am reading this thread correctly, this is a perfect straw man. The original question was about the failings of a mass murderer, and it appears this response would turn it against his victims rather than answer it.

His victims? Where did you get that from? The St. Bartholomew massacre was in France, not England, and several decades after the death of Henry VIII. Did you even bother opening the link?

If I may answer, yes, the way that is represented is a lie, and I most vehemently champion denial of untruths.

Sorry, where is the lie exactly? I draw a parallel between the flaw in one human being who persecutes a group of people and the flaw in other human beings who do the same thing (and worse) to another group of people. You may disagree on the nature of that flaw, intolerance and lack of empathy for others, but I don't think you can accuse me of lying.

Another example of an untruth which has been rewritten as a truth is the legacy of Henry's daughter, Bloody Elizabeth. As the result of slanderous lies against her cousin Mary Stuart, the drink named after Elizabeth's behavior has been given Mary's name instead. Centuries of lies have left people doubting the accurate accounts of Mary's life, as well as Bloody Elizabeth's, who made her father look a rank amateur at torture and murder. But the lies, being repeated over and over, have replaced the truth.

Irrelevant to anything in my post.

Do yourself and us a favor; if you are sourcing wikipedia, don't admit it. It's embarrassing.

How so?

Deny if you wish. Falsification has a new champion.

I'm genuinely puzzled. What have I falsified exactly?
Irascible_Me
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2016 11:58:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 11:53:16 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 11:12:53 PM, Irascible_Me wrote:
At 7/28/2016 10:43:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:00:48 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/28/2016 7:19:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:

Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Perhaps it was the same flaw as that in the Catholic population of France in 1572:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The common people began to hunt Protestants throughout the city, including women and children. Chains were used to block streets so that Protestants could not escape from their houses. The bodies of the dead were collected in carts and thrown into the Seine. The massacre in Paris lasted three days despite the king's attempts to stop it.

Estimates of the number that perished in the massacres, "have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death".[29] Accurate figures for casualties have never been compiled,[30] and, even in writings by modern historians, there is a considerable range, though the more specialised the historian, the lower they tend to be. At the low end are figures of about 2,000 in Paris[31] and 3,000 in the provinces, the latter figure an estimate by Philip Benedict in an article in 1978.[32] Other estimates are about 10,000 in total,[33] with about 3,000 in Paris[34] and 7,000 in the provinces.[35]

The Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 (Latin for "overthrow" or "slaughter," "of the Huguenots") showing an angel bearing a cross and sword before which are the felled Protestants.[41]

On hearing of the slaughter, Philip II of Spain "laughed for the only time on record".[44] In Paris, the poet Jean-Antoine de Baif, founder of the Academie de Musique et de Poesie, wrote a sonnet extravagantly praising the killings.[45]


I pose a serious question and instead of answering you decide to respond with a fantastic lie. Well played.

The St. Bartholomew massacre was a lie?
Denial has a new champion.

If I am reading this thread correctly, this is a perfect straw man. The original question was about the failings of a mass murderer, and it appears this response would turn it against his victims rather than answer it.

His victims? Where did you get that from? The St. Bartholomew massacre was in France, not England, and several decades after the death of Henry VIII. Did you even bother opening the link?

If I may answer, yes, the way that is represented is a lie, and I most vehemently champion denial of untruths.

Sorry, where is the lie exactly? I draw a parallel between the flaw in one human being who persecutes a group of people and the flaw in other human beings who do the same thing (and worse) to another group of people. You may disagree on the nature of that flaw, intolerance and lack of empathy for others, but I don't think you can accuse me of lying.

Another example of an untruth which has been rewritten as a truth is the legacy of Henry's daughter, Bloody Elizabeth. As the result of slanderous lies against her cousin Mary Stuart, the drink named after Elizabeth's behavior has been given Mary's name instead. Centuries of lies have left people doubting the accurate accounts of Mary's life, as well as Bloody Elizabeth's, who made her father look a rank amateur at torture and murder. But the lies, being repeated over and over, have replaced the truth.

Irrelevant to anything in my post.

Do yourself and us a favor; if you are sourcing wikipedia, don't admit it. It's embarrassing.

How so?

Deny if you wish. Falsification has a new champion.

I'm genuinely puzzled. What have I falsified exactly?

You are trying desperately to be witty, but you have no care whether or not you are honest. You know exactly what I meant regarding blaming his victims. The rest speaks for itself. However, as you are more interested in funnies than honesty, I don't really care what is offered henceforth. You wouldn't admit the facts if they unfolded before your very eyes, so you frankly just bore me.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 12:23:35 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 11:58:50 PM, Irascible_Me wrote:
At 7/28/2016 11:53:16 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 11:12:53 PM, Irascible_Me wrote:
At 7/28/2016 10:43:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:00:48 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/28/2016 7:19:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:

Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Perhaps it was the same flaw as that in the Catholic population of France in 1572:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The common people began to hunt Protestants throughout the city, including women and children. Chains were used to block streets so that Protestants could not escape from their houses. The bodies of the dead were collected in carts and thrown into the Seine. The massacre in Paris lasted three days despite the king's attempts to stop it.

Estimates of the number that perished in the massacres, "have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death".[29] Accurate figures for casualties have never been compiled,[30] and, even in writings by modern historians, there is a considerable range, though the more specialised the historian, the lower they tend to be. At the low end are figures of about 2,000 in Paris[31] and 3,000 in the provinces, the latter figure an estimate by Philip Benedict in an article in 1978.[32] Other estimates are about 10,000 in total,[33] with about 3,000 in Paris[34] and 7,000 in the provinces.[35]

The Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 (Latin for "overthrow" or "slaughter," "of the Huguenots") showing an angel bearing a cross and sword before which are the felled Protestants.[41]

On hearing of the slaughter, Philip II of Spain "laughed for the only time on record".[44] In Paris, the poet Jean-Antoine de Baif, founder of the Academie de Musique et de Poesie, wrote a sonnet extravagantly praising the killings.[45]


I pose a serious question and instead of answering you decide to respond with a fantastic lie. Well played.

The St. Bartholomew massacre was a lie?
Denial has a new champion.

If I am reading this thread correctly, this is a perfect straw man. The original question was about the failings of a mass murderer, and it appears this response would turn it against his victims rather than answer it.

His victims? Where did you get that from? The St. Bartholomew massacre was in France, not England, and several decades after the death of Henry VIII. Did you even bother opening the link?

If I may answer, yes, the way that is represented is a lie, and I most vehemently champion denial of untruths.

Sorry, where is the lie exactly? I draw a parallel between the flaw in one human being who persecutes a group of people and the flaw in other human beings who do the same thing (and worse) to another group of people. You may disagree on the nature of that flaw, intolerance and lack of empathy for others, but I don't think you can accuse me of lying.

Another example of an untruth which has been rewritten as a truth is the legacy of Henry's daughter, Bloody Elizabeth. As the result of slanderous lies against her cousin Mary Stuart, the drink named after Elizabeth's behavior has been given Mary's name instead. Centuries of lies have left people doubting the accurate accounts of Mary's life, as well as Bloody Elizabeth's, who made her father look a rank amateur at torture and murder. But the lies, being repeated over and over, have replaced the truth.

Irrelevant to anything in my post.

Do yourself and us a favor; if you are sourcing wikipedia, don't admit it. It's embarrassing.

How so?

Deny if you wish. Falsification has a new champion.

I'm genuinely puzzled. What have I falsified exactly?


You are trying desperately to be witty, but you have no care whether or not you are honest. You know exactly what I meant regarding blaming his victims. The rest speaks for itself. However, as you are more interested in funnies than honesty, I don't really care what is offered henceforth. You wouldn't admit the facts if they unfolded before your very eyes, so you frankly just bore me.

I gather that you can't identify any lie or any falsification.
As I thought. Okay, you are dismissed.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2016 3:20:01 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/28/2016 11:58:50 PM, Irascible_Me wrote:
At 7/28/2016 11:53:16 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 11:12:53 PM, Irascible_Me wrote:
At 7/28/2016 10:43:47 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:00:48 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/28/2016 7:19:22 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/28/2016 1:34:46 AM, Throwback wrote:

Which flaw of Henry VIII do you think figured the most prominently in his turn from Catholicism to pillage and murder of members of the faith he had held so dear?

Perhaps it was the same flaw as that in the Catholic population of France in 1572:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

The common people began to hunt Protestants throughout the city, including women and children. Chains were used to block streets so that Protestants could not escape from their houses. The bodies of the dead were collected in carts and thrown into the Seine. The massacre in Paris lasted three days despite the king's attempts to stop it.

Estimates of the number that perished in the massacres, "have varied from 2,000 by a Roman Catholic apologist to 70,000 by the contemporary Huguenot duc de Sully, who himself barely escaped death".[29] Accurate figures for casualties have never been compiled,[30] and, even in writings by modern historians, there is a considerable range, though the more specialised the historian, the lower they tend to be. At the low end are figures of about 2,000 in Paris[31] and 3,000 in the provinces, the latter figure an estimate by Philip Benedict in an article in 1978.[32] Other estimates are about 10,000 in total,[33] with about 3,000 in Paris[34] and 7,000 in the provinces.[35]

The Pope ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after) and had a medal struck with the motto Ugonottorum strages 1572 (Latin for "overthrow" or "slaughter," "of the Huguenots") showing an angel bearing a cross and sword before which are the felled Protestants.[41]

On hearing of the slaughter, Philip II of Spain "laughed for the only time on record".[44] In Paris, the poet Jean-Antoine de Baif, founder of the Academie de Musique et de Poesie, wrote a sonnet extravagantly praising the killings.[45]


I pose a serious question and instead of answering you decide to respond with a fantastic lie. Well played.

The St. Bartholomew massacre was a lie?
Denial has a new champion.

If I am reading this thread correctly, this is a perfect straw man. The original question was about the failings of a mass murderer, and it appears this response would turn it against his victims rather than answer it.

His victims? Where did you get that from? The St. Bartholomew massacre was in France, not England, and several decades after the death of Henry VIII. Did you even bother opening the link?

If I may answer, yes, the way that is represented is a lie, and I most vehemently champion denial of untruths.

Sorry, where is the lie exactly? I draw a parallel between the flaw in one human being who persecutes a group of people and the flaw in other human beings who do the same thing (and worse) to another group of people. You may disagree on the nature of that flaw, intolerance and lack of empathy for others, but I don't think you can accuse me of lying.

Another example of an untruth which has been rewritten as a truth is the legacy of Henry's daughter, Bloody Elizabeth. As the result of slanderous lies against her cousin Mary Stuart, the drink named after Elizabeth's behavior has been given Mary's name instead. Centuries of lies have left people doubting the accurate accounts of Mary's life, as well as Bloody Elizabeth's, who made her father look a rank amateur at torture and murder. But the lies, being repeated over and over, have replaced the truth.

Irrelevant to anything in my post.

Do yourself and us a favor; if you are sourcing wikipedia, don't admit it. It's embarrassing.

How so?

Deny if you wish. Falsification has a new champion.

I'm genuinely puzzled. What have I falsified exactly?


You are trying desperately to be witty, but you have no care whether or not you are honest. You know exactly what I meant regarding blaming his victims. The rest speaks for itself. However, as you are more interested in funnies than honesty, I don't really care what is offered henceforth. You wouldn't admit the facts if they unfolded before your very eyes, so you frankly just bore me.
The poor dears cave in so readily, don't they?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin