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.
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.