[Serious] Giordano Bruno

[brewer]

Wow, thanks for the recap and claiming the win, because none of the rest of us can think for ourselves or come to our own conclusions about something that doesn't mean squat in the real world. It's just so much mental masturbation that the internet is known for.

Do you feel better now, or at least better than me?

If you're going to be arguing about facts in history, it's generally better to read the sources. 

It's clear that you didn't read the Stanford page carefully. You've announced that you're not willing to read Tim O'Neill's writing. You didn't read the carefully presented research on the Renaissance Mathematicus blog that I linked to. You haven't read the books by Yates or Rowland. You clearly haven't read Bruno's original work. You haven't given us any reason to think that you have researched this at all. 

Now you've switched over into personal insults.

A comment on your assumed superiority. If you want to consider it an insult, not my problem.

I don't have to read anything you post to have an opinion. As far as I'm concerned your and Tim are wrong and the catholic church did include his science positions/thought in their inquisition.

I will insult you with this, much of what you consider important does not mean squat in the real world. I came to the forum mostly for shits and giggles, apparently you came to pump up your self esteem.

[Belacqua]

As far as I'm concerned your and Tim are wrong and the catholic church did include his science positions/thought in their inquisition.

Yes, I know this is your opinion.

What I'm addressing is the way you reached your opinion: by not reading anything relevant.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Moderator Notice
This is a ‘Serious’ thread, in which insults are prohibited.  Please, EVERYONE bear this in mind, as things have gotten a little heated.

[Belacqua]

Moderator Notice
This is a ‘Serious’ thread, in which insults are prohibited.  Please, EVERYONE bear this in mind, as things have gotten a little heated.

Thank you.

I wondered if the [Serious] thing meant anything any more.

---

This is the anniversary of the murder of Malcolm X. Another example of how someone who tries to challenge existing power structures is likely to be met with violence.

It's not clear whether he was killed by rivals or by COINTELPRO involvement. Either way, it shows that violence is not merely a method of the bad old days.

For clear FBI involvement you can look up Fred Hampton's murder by the government. I suppose drugging someone and then shooting him while he's half awake is a less painful method of execution than burning.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Moderator Notice
This is a ‘Serious’ thread, in which insults are prohibited.  Please, EVERYONE bear this in mind, as things have gotten a little heated.

Thank you.

I wondered if the [Serious] thing meant anything any more.

---

This is the anniversary of the murder of Malcolm X. Another example of how someone who tries to challenge existing power structures is likely to be met with violence.

It's not clear whether he was killed by rivals or by COINTELPRO involvement. Either way, it shows that violence is not merely a method of the bad old days.

For clear FBI involvement you can look up Fred Hampton's murder by the government. I suppose drugging someone and then shooting him while he's half awake is a less painful method of execution than burning.

We really don’t want to ban anyone from the thread. Hopefully, we can get past what’s gone before so things don’t get to that point.

Boru

[brewer]

As far as I'm concerned your and Tim are wrong and the catholic church did include his science positions/thought in their inquisition.

Yes, I know this is your opinion.

What I'm addressing is the way you reached your opinion: by not reading anything relevant.

What I have said is that I don't believe the catholics were honest and truthful for all of their reasons for conviction. Just as catholics are not honest and truthful even today about issues/actions that make them look bad. There is to much stink from the church over the Bruno being burned at the stake.

There is nothing to read about them having nondisclosed motives. What part of this can't you understand?

And I read what I considered relevant. I don't have to read a slanted version that you consider relevant.

Mods: You can ban me from this thread anytime my find my behavior any worse than Bels.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not looking to ban anyone.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes, I know this is your opinion.

What I'm addressing is the way you reached your opinion: by not reading anything relevant.

What I have said is that I don't believe the catholics were honest and truthful for all of their reasons for conviction. Just as catholics are not honest and truthful even today about issues/actions that make them look bad. There is to much stink from the church over the Bruno being burned at the stake.

There is nothing to read about them having nondisclosed motives. What part of this can't you understand?

And I read what I considered relevant. I don't have to read a slanted version that you consider relevant.

Mods: You can ban me from this thread anytime my find my behavior any worse than Bels.

Here here 

[Belacqua]

What I have said is that I don't believe the catholics were honest and truthful for all of their reasons for conviction.

What I have said is that you haven't pointed to any sources to back this up. People who have actually read the prosecutor's reports have told us what the stated motives were. 

You can say over and over that they were hiding something, or that the real motives were different, but without some evidence this is just mind-reading. 
What history shows about how the church operated in those days makes your accusations unreliable. 

There is to much stink from the church over the Bruno being burned at the stake.

Too much stink made by whom? Frances Yates, Ingrid Rowland, other scholars with no connection to the Vatican who have examined the original documents?

There is nothing to read about them having nondisclosed motives. What part of this can't you understand?

I agree there is nothing to read about them having non-disclosed motives. This means that there is no documentation for non-disclosed motives. Which means that we have to find good reasons, other than mind-reading, to conclude that they had non-disclosed motives. 

This requires that we put the whole thing into context. I have mentioned several times now that a Cardinal in good standing with the church, a hundred years before Bruno, suggested a non-geocentric infinite universe with aliens on other planets. Bruno acknowledged that he got the idea from this Cardinal. The Cardinal was never reprimanded. 

So I think we'll need some good reason, argument, or evidence to conclude that you have insight into non-disclosed motives. Other than your a priori assumptions. 

And I read what I considered relevant. I don't have to read a slanted version that you consider relevant. 

This is an excellent way to pre-select sources that won't contradict your pre-judgment. 

You don't know that a source is slanted if you haven't read it. 

In my opinion, Yates and Rowland are not slanted. I have read their books. You haven't. 

Is the Stanford article that you pointed us to slanted? Because it doesn't say that Bruno used "science thought," or was in any way a working competent scientist.

---

Here here 

English speakers say "hear hear." Not "here here."

[The Architect Of Fate]

English speakers say "hear hear." Not "here here."

Don't care