That has nothing to do with cleverness. You asked which countries the Pope controlled and I showed you. Facts have nothing to do with cleverness. I’m not clever, I’m almost certainly far stupider than you. I just know history.
Also, I never said every Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope or even implied it, so why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you usually this dishonest?
I’m not accusing you of that (in fact I literally said that you understand its not that), but I’m guess you’re ignorant of how that is how it is taught in the British curriculum. The motif you’re talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context. British history is carefully curated with “that was a foreign plot and the British nation bravely survived it” vs “a foreign ally saved and restored our glorious nation”. For many, the presence of Catholicism is one of the primary deciding factors in that.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
You literally accused me of that. Now you’re gaslighting.
This is what you said: “Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.”
The motif you’re talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context.
You have presented zero evidence to the contrary. None whatsoever. “Trust me, bro, the British are wrong” is not how history works.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
You’ve been rude and insulting to people all over this thread, unprompted, so that’s pretty fucking ironic.
I genuinely don’t know how you interpret “I’m sure you understand the difference” as “you actually believe this”. But sure, I’m manipulating your mind.
The evidence - well, an argument, because this isn’t a paper - is exactly what you so helpfully brought up the Papal States for. Apart from literally his own domain, the pope did not turn any other nations into a Catholic theocracy because their monarch was Catholic.
It should be the other way around really - this idea of Catholic blind obedience to the pope is advanced as an assumption hy British historians despite having no example or evidence that it would be the case other than “that’s what Catholics are like” despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.
You saying things is not evidence that the Gunpowder Plotters did not want a Catholic theocracy.
And I already said that Catholics do not have blind obedience to the Pope so stop putting words in my mouth. Apparently you think lying about me is a way to the truth. It is not.
despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.
Yes, that’s the whole fucking point. The Anglicans were oppressing the Catholics and the Gunpowder Plotters tried to commit mass murder in order to not just end that oppression, but bring back Catholicism by force. They were literally forming an army. Both sides were in the wrong here, which was also Moore’s reason for using the Guy Fawkes mask. To show that people fighting oppression can also be oppressors.
And if you think any of that is untrue, present some evidence. Don’t insult, don’t be rude, don’t just tell me I’m wrong, don’t tell me the British are liars, present some evidence.
I didn’t put any words in your mouth… I really don’t understand how you’re not getting that. I said you understand that it’s not true. Literally just read the part you quoted.
Actually none of what you said just now was untrue. The leap that is unexplained is that bringing back a Catholic monarch would turn the UK into a papal theocracy where no other Catholic kingdom was (except the Papal States!).
And that specifically is the part that I’m arguing has no basis in fact - you’re asking me to provide evidence that something wasn’t going to happen. Usually we ask for evidence of speculation, not against speculation. It doesn’t help that the people that could have said so were hung drawn and quartered, and the history written by people who immediately brought in further anti-Catholic legislation.
Actually, you have made multiple claims and have backed none of them up. Like how the British are lying.
Of course, if you actually know what Guy Fawkes wanted, then you know he wanted a theocracy. Why you think it matters if he would have achieved it, I don’t know.
Catesby and his co-conspirators had an ambitious but simple goal: dig a tunnel under the parliament building, fill the tunnel with gunpowder, set it off and murder the entire English government. Then create a Catholic theocracy by kidnapping the King’s nine-year old daughter and installing her as a Catholic queen.
Do you really think they wanted a nine-year-old in charge?
You are welcome to dismiss that, but it’s your claim that it isn’t true, so it’s up to you to back that claim up. It is no one else’s job to prove you are telling the truth, just yours.
That has nothing to do with cleverness. You asked which countries the Pope controlled and I showed you. Facts have nothing to do with cleverness. I’m not clever, I’m almost certainly far stupider than you. I just know history.
Also, I never said every Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope or even implied it, so why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you usually this dishonest?
I’m not accusing you of that (in fact I literally said that you understand its not that), but I’m guess you’re ignorant of how that is how it is taught in the British curriculum. The motif you’re talking about Alan Moore using - the Gunpowder plot and therefore Guy Fawkes wanting to replace the noble British monarchy with a foreign theocracy - relies entirely on that context. British history is carefully curated with “that was a foreign plot and the British nation bravely survived it” vs “a foreign ally saved and restored our glorious nation”. For many, the presence of Catholicism is one of the primary deciding factors in that.
Are you usually this unable to take criticism without insulting people? (Yes, daily)
You literally accused me of that. Now you’re gaslighting.
This is what you said: “Yes, very clever, the area the pope literally was sovereign of was under his control. I’m sure a clever guy like you understands the difference between that and the idea that literally any Catholic is 100% subservient to the Pope at all times regardless of their own rank and power, which is the sort of nonsense you’re usually railing against when it’s your flavour of old-timey god-stuff.”
You have presented zero evidence to the contrary. None whatsoever. “Trust me, bro, the British are wrong” is not how history works.
You’ve been rude and insulting to people all over this thread, unprompted, so that’s pretty fucking ironic.
I genuinely don’t know how you interpret “I’m sure you understand the difference” as “you actually believe this”. But sure, I’m manipulating your mind.
The evidence - well, an argument, because this isn’t a paper - is exactly what you so helpfully brought up the Papal States for. Apart from literally his own domain, the pope did not turn any other nations into a Catholic theocracy because their monarch was Catholic.
It should be the other way around really - this idea of Catholic blind obedience to the pope is advanced as an assumption hy British historians despite having no example or evidence that it would be the case other than “that’s what Catholics are like” despite the Anglican church literally arising from a Catholic English monarch disobeying the pope.
You saying things is not evidence that the Gunpowder Plotters did not want a Catholic theocracy.
And I already said that Catholics do not have blind obedience to the Pope so stop putting words in my mouth. Apparently you think lying about me is a way to the truth. It is not.
Yes, that’s the whole fucking point. The Anglicans were oppressing the Catholics and the Gunpowder Plotters tried to commit mass murder in order to not just end that oppression, but bring back Catholicism by force. They were literally forming an army. Both sides were in the wrong here, which was also Moore’s reason for using the Guy Fawkes mask. To show that people fighting oppression can also be oppressors.
And if you think any of that is untrue, present some evidence. Don’t insult, don’t be rude, don’t just tell me I’m wrong, don’t tell me the British are liars, present some evidence.
I didn’t put any words in your mouth… I really don’t understand how you’re not getting that. I said you understand that it’s not true. Literally just read the part you quoted.
Actually none of what you said just now was untrue. The leap that is unexplained is that bringing back a Catholic monarch would turn the UK into a papal theocracy where no other Catholic kingdom was (except the Papal States!).
And that specifically is the part that I’m arguing has no basis in fact - you’re asking me to provide evidence that something wasn’t going to happen. Usually we ask for evidence of speculation, not against speculation. It doesn’t help that the people that could have said so were hung drawn and quartered, and the history written by people who immediately brought in further anti-Catholic legislation.
Yes, I am. Because you made a claim and that’s how the burden of proof works. It is not my fault if you made a claim you can’t prove.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Actually, you have made multiple claims and have backed none of them up. Like how the British are lying.
Of course, if you actually know what Guy Fawkes wanted, then you know he wanted a theocracy. Why you think it matters if he would have achieved it, I don’t know.
https://insertphilosophyhere.com/guy-fawkes-terrorist/
Do you really think they wanted a nine-year-old in charge?
You are welcome to dismiss that, but it’s your claim that it isn’t true, so it’s up to you to back that claim up. It is no one else’s job to prove you are telling the truth, just yours.