Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Aikenhead: When Mouthing Off Could Get You Killed

By coljac in Culture
Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:23:16 PM EST
Tags: etc (all tags)
/etc

In 1696, a Scottish university student opined on theology, "[It] was a rapsidie of faigned and ill-invented nonsense, patched up partly of the morall doctrine of philosophers, and pairtly of poeticall fictions and extravagant chimeras."

He probably should have kept his mouth shut.


Thomas Aikenhead, freethinker, is a little-known historical figure whose claim to fame is being capitally sarcastic. He was an undergraduate student at the University of Edinburgh at the end of the 17th century, and had just had his mind awoken to some of the ideas of the Enlightenment. He shared his thoughts with others, and for thus speaking his mind met a gruesome end. While he doesn't have the profile of some other well-known heretics, his wit, his utter fearlessness and his most excellent 17th-century spelling make him instantly likable. Even if you don't agree with his philosophy, you have to admire his pluckiness.

Aikenhead had indeed a rather scornful attitude towards Christianity, whose dogmas permeated almost every stratum of the society in which he lived. Too far ahead of his time as a freethinker, Aikenhead was not shy about airing his views. According to a contemporary, he damned theology as "worse than the fictiones of the poets, for they had some connexione, but the scriptures had none." This was hot stuff for the day, and word soon got around.

For his recklessness in making his opinions known Aikenhead was brought before the Scottish Privy Council in November 1696 and indicted for blasphemy. It was alleged that he "scoffed at, and endeavoured to ridicule the holy scriptures," claiming them to be "so stuffed with madness, nonsense, and contradictions, that [he] admired the stupidity of the world in being soe long deluded by them." He was said to have described the Old Testament as

Ezra's fables, by a profane allusione to Esop's fables, and saying that Ezra was the inventer thereof, and that being a cunning man he drew a number of Babylonian slaves to follow him, for whom he had made up a feigned genealogie as if they had been descended of kings and princes in the land of Canaan, and therby imposed upon Cyrus who was a Persion and stranger, presuading him by the devyce of pretendit prophecy concerning himself.

As for the New Testament, Aikenhead was accused of calling it

the History of the Imposter Christ, and affirming him to have learned magick in Egypt, and that coming from Egypt into Judea, he picked up a few ignorant blockish fisher fellows, whom he knew by his skill in phisognomie, had strong imaginations, and that by the help of exalted imaginatione he play'd his pranks as you [the accused] blasphemously terme the working of his miracles.

Of Moses, on the other hand, he said "Moses, if you ever say there was such a man, to have also learned magick in Egypt, but that he was both the better arteist and better politician than Jesus."

Reportedly he even added that "man's imaginatione duely exalted by airt and industry can do any thing, even in the infinite power of God". Truly a radical humanist view, and perhaps the most blasphemous of the lot.

Other accusations levelled at him included a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity, labelling it "not worth any man's refutation"; Christ's God/Man duality he considered "as great a contradictione as Hircus Cervus," the mythical goat-stag, or as squaring the circle. His prosecutors further alleged, "as to the doctrine of redemptione by Jesus, you say it is a proud and presumptuous devyce, and that the inventars thereof are damned, if after this life ther be either rewaird or punishment."

Finally, to top it all off, Aikenhead was accused of remarking, on a cold August day, that he had "wished to be in the place that Ezra calls Hell, to warme yourself there." One can only try to imagine the reaction of the courtroom to this heinous charge.

Thus in December 1696 he was charged under two Scottish Blasphemy laws. The trial was somewhat of a sham; the conviction of Aikenhead as blasphemer was a foregone conclusion. Several religious authorities pleaded for mercy, but in order to combat "the abounding of impiety and profanity in this land", the Church of Scotland wanted to make an example of him, and he was sentenced to death. A hanging date was set for a few weeks later. The poor undergraduate recanted, but to no avail; he was executed on January 8th, 1697. Some of his last words were: "It is a principle innate and co-natural to every man to have an insatiable inclination to the truth, and to seek for it as for hid treasure."

The hanging was, however, not without controversy. While religious persecution did not end, this was the last execution for blasphemy to take place in Britain.

Thomas Aikenhead, pioneer freethinker, I salute you.

Some further details can be found here.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o other well-known heretics
o be found here.
o Also by coljac


Display: Sort:
Aikenhead: When Mouthing Off Could Get You Killed | 67 comments (45 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
A letter was found in his cell after the hanging. (3.36 / 11) (#19)
by kaemaril on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 04:40:28 PM EST

It simply said "Worst. Execution. Ever."


Why, yes, I am being sarcastic. Why do you ask?


He sounds like dvchaos (2.44 / 9) (#20)
by Emissary on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:01:52 PM EST

An ass who didn't know when to keep his mouth shut, or how to spell.

"Be instead like Gamera -- mighty, a friend to children, and always, always screaming." - eSolutions
And for this he deserves hanging? nt. (3.00 / 1) (#38)
by trane on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 05:23:48 AM EST



[ Parent ]
doh :*) (4.00 / 1) (#40)
by Squid on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 06:38:05 AM EST

Or, alternatively, he can spell perfectly well, you just don't know how to read 17c English.

[ Parent ]
I wonder if it was him (none / 0) (#48)
by coljac on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:05:34 PM EST

Actually, I think most of the recorded quotes are from his trial, so it's the court's clerk who's to blame.



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

Damn straight! (none / 0) (#53)
by Wiglaf on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 11:22:15 PM EST

I don't know about dvchaos but I can agree about the guy in the submission not know when to keep his mouth shut.

If something you say is going to piss off your nieghbors/firends/etc.. enough that you will probably put to death then you really need to think about what you are fixing to say. Is it reallly worth it kinda questioning needs to go on. A lot of people, even today, needed to do that kinda questioning. Now before anyone shouts at me, I ain't saying the majority is always right but what I am saying is that the majority has the power. Don't let anyone sugar coat it for you. You want to piss off the majority, fine. But at least make it over a worthwhile point.

Tired of some people saying things just to be the anti-establishment kinda person.

Paul: I DOMINATE you to throw rock on our next physical challenge.
Trevor: You can't do that! Do you really think Vampires go around playing rock paper sissors to decide who gets to overpower one another?
[ Parent ]
Keeping your mouth shut? (none / 0) (#63)
by kaeru on Sun Feb 02, 2003 at 09:48:07 AM EST

If something you say is going to piss off your nieghbors/firends/etc.. enough that you will probably put to death then you really need to think about what you are fixing to say.

Maybe this isn't what you intended, but this sounds dangerously close to blaming women who are raped for dressing too provocatively.  Mr Aikenhead sounds like a bit of a jerk (20 year olds have a tendency to do that), but I think you might be taking the wrong moral from this story.

We don't need to teach people to keep their mouths shut, we need to teach people that you can't go around killing other people for their opinions.

[ Parent ]

How the world is and how it ought to be. (none / 0) (#65)
by Wiglaf on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 03:23:53 PM EST

I can see where you may get that incorrect assumption from my post. Allow me to explain a bit more to clear it up.

I am tired of the belief that a person has the right to do/say what ever they want without facing the consequences of those actions. I believe you should do/say what ever you want but don't complain when you call a Hell's Angel's mom a cunt and he breaks you. The Hell's Angel is gonna have to face the consequences of beating the living shit out of you but as long as he is willing to face those consequences then I have no problem with his actions.

I guess it comes down to my personal belief that you make your own bed. It sucks that if a woman walks down a street buck naked odds are that some asshole is going to try and say/do something to her. It also sucks that even though I am a pacifist people have clutched their children closer to themselves when I ask for some directions. I am 6'7" weigh 300 Lbs have a shaved head and a goatee. Needless to say I apparently have the look of I will rape, pillage and burn small woodland creatures like bambi for fun and profit.



Paul: I DOMINATE you to throw rock on our next physical challenge.
Trevor: You can't do that! Do you really think Vampires go around playing rock paper sissors to decide who gets to overpower one another?
[ Parent ]
Standards (none / 0) (#66)
by kaeru on Thu Feb 06, 2003 at 08:26:05 PM EST

I can see where you may get that incorrect assumption from my post.

Why is it incorrect?  You seem to be suggesting exactly that women who dress provocatively are "facing the consequences," even if you generously admit that that "sucks"  Regarding your other example:

The Hell's Angel is gonna have to face the consequences of beating the living shit out of you but as long as he is willing to face those consequences then I have no problem with his actions.

The justice system isn't about purchasing the right to do violence with jail time.  Since people always justify initiating violence against non-violent opponents with some sort of excuse, when would you cease to have "no problem" with it?  Neo-Nazis are at times willing to risk jail to attack or kill Jews/Gypsies/Turks etc (for various reasons that are absurd to us, but apparently not to them).  Do you have a problem with that, or is it ok so long as they realize they're going to jail?

Simply put, you have every right to say or do whatever you like (without infringing the rights of others).  That may sound idealistic, but anything else is setting the bar too low for everyone but thugs, rapists, and other assorted criminals.  On a practical level you have a point, in that you should try to avoid situations that might result in violence.  But we can't equivocate about who is in the wrong.

[ Parent ]

Sorry about not clearing it up. (none / 0) (#67)
by Wiglaf on Fri Feb 07, 2003 at 01:19:22 PM EST

But I don't advocate that someone who dresses provoctively should get attacked. That is a passive action taken upon themselves. At no point are they initiating any action that says violate my personal properties.

You do not have the right to say whatever you wish in our society. There is a limited subset of speech that is not legally allowed. There is an even larger subset of speech that is not socially allowed. In either case I feel that if a person still wishes to persue those subsets of speech then they should. But they also must feel free to reap the consequences of their actions.

As to your Neo-Nazi's example. Just because their belief system differs from mine does not mean that their's is wrong. I find it reprehensive since their views run counter to some of my core beliefs. It is only when they act upon their beliefs in a manner that violates anothers rights that I feel that they should be punished for their actions. In your example they would probably be violating a person's peace of mind, property and health. All of which I feel fall under basic human rights. Under current penal code where I am from the punitive punishment levied against them would be a fine and jailtime.

Perhaps I am wrong in my view that anything less than an eye for an eye is not enough. Why should pity be taken upon someone who choose to initiate an act of violation against another. Needless to say if a grouping of their peers feel that they have violated someone's basic rights then the punishment should be on the level of making them understand on some basic level that they were wrong and should not do it again.

An enlightened society always has the weak point of expecting everyone to rise from a lower sensibility of vengence to a higher level of the idea of justice. Vigilante justice is wrong but removing the punitive damage from justice and approaching only with rehabilitation doesn't seem to work. There needs to be a balance between rehab and punishment. The punishment aspect must ensure that the law breaker is made quite aware of their crimes so that they will be less likely to commit those crimes again. Once they can accept that there actions have direct dire consequences then the process of rehab can be started to help avoid/curb/stop future actions of the same sort.

Paul: I DOMINATE you to throw rock on our next physical challenge.
Trevor: You can't do that! Do you really think Vampires go around playing rock paper sissors to decide who gets to overpower one another?
[ Parent ]
+1 FP (4.57 / 7) (#21)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:11:49 PM EST

I hope I can become friends with him after I matriculate into Hell.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
Your sig: Ann Rand? (none / 0) (#58)
by baba on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 01:37:54 AM EST

Do you mean Ayn Rand?

[ Parent ]
I incline more towards Nietzsche's comment... (4.60 / 5) (#22)
by the on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 05:21:21 PM EST

...that dying for your beliefs is just plain stupid. After all, you might just be wrong.

--
The Definite Article
I disagree (4.33 / 3) (#27)
by CtrlBR on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 08:54:50 PM EST

It's killing for your beliefs that is just plain stupid.

Dying for your belief is a case of "How fuck they look serious". If you take Tibetan monks out of the equation most people that die for their beliefs did not ask for it...

If no-one thinks you're a freedom fighter than you're probably not a terrorist.
-- Gully Foyle

[ Parent ]
I don't think killing for your beliefs is stupid (3.00 / 3) (#29)
by the on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:42:28 PM EST

But it's certainly not a nice thing to do.

--
The Definite Article
[ Parent ]
Far less stupid than *dying* for them, anyway (NT) (3.00 / 1) (#31)
by pla on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:51:51 PM EST



[ Parent ]
less STUPID, more abhorrant (n/t) (3.00 / 1) (#33)
by deadcow on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:09:12 PM EST



[ Parent ]
But you might be right (3.00 / 1) (#28)
by acheon on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:41:44 PM EST

Thinking with 'ifs' and 'maybes' as only arguments is just plain stupid.

[ Parent ]
Sure, but (3.00 / 1) (#35)
by epepke on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 11:21:47 PM EST

Nietzsche's comments were in reference to Galileo, who was given a choice. I don't see anything from the referenced material that shows this guy had the same choice.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Aha! Do you remember where the quotation is? (none / 0) (#46)
by the on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 11:59:23 AM EST

I read it years ago and damnit I've been through a large chunk of my fairly extensive Nietzsche collection without seeing it again!

--
The Definite Article
[ Parent ]
No; I don't (none / 0) (#59)
by epepke on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 04:23:53 AM EST

I have tried in vain to find a satisfactory quotation rememberance system. I tried putting business cards in books, but the only result was when I re-read things I'd find a lot of old, yellowed business cards.


The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.--Terry Pratchett


[ Parent ]
Beliefs vs Principles (2.50 / 2) (#50)
by hollo on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 08:09:21 PM EST

I think Galileo died for his principles rather than his beliefs though. Possibly a bit of a shaky distinction, but what do you think was more important to him - that the earth really did go around the sun, or that he should be allowed to think beleive and teach as he wanted?

I could accept an argument that dying for your beliefs doesn't gain enough to make it worth dying, but Nietzsche's argument misses the point. Dying for a belief makes a statement not just about the belief you die for, but more importantly about the system that wants to kill you for believeing it.

[ Parent ]

As far as I know... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by the on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 08:29:14 PM EST

...Galileo died at a ripe old age. He was under house arrest but it was a pretty lenient house arrest. He certainly didn't die for either his beliefs or his principles.

--
The Definite Article
[ Parent ]
Right. Galileo got house arrest, not death. NT (none / 0) (#62)
by spiffariffic on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 03:12:21 PM EST



[ Parent ]
last killed, maybe, but not last persecuted (4.60 / 5) (#30)
by danny on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:44:54 PM EST

For a fascinating study of 19th century blasphemy in law and literature, I recommend Joss Marsh's Word Crimes: Blasphemy, Culture, and Literature in Nineteenth-Century England.

Danny.
[900 book reviews and other stuff]

Does Thomas get a mention? (3.00 / 1) (#32)
by coljac on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 09:59:29 PM EST

Even though it's 19th Century, perhaps he got a footnote. I found it difficult in the past to find out a lot about him.



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

And in 2003 (4.28 / 7) (#34)
by smallstepforman on Wed Jan 29, 2003 at 10:45:26 PM EST

I would have loved to have a beer with Aikenhead, but alas, I wouldn't be able to tell him the great news that persecution has disappeared in the societies of the 21st century. People are still subjected to intolerance when their beliefs differ from the perceived notion of the norm. I'll give several examples to illustrate my point: - Patriotism. In todays society, it is still considered noble to die for ones country, and dessertion is a serious offense. Desserters can still be shot. Since wars are a continuation of politics using radical means, refusal to participate in the local beaurocracies crusade of the day will get you into serious trouble. - Ethnicity. No need to say much, just check out what's happening in the Balkans, MiddleEast, etc. Membership to certain ethnic groups can mean the difference between life and death, especially if you live in a disputed region. - Religion. Sadly, certain societies are still governed by religious taboos. Enforcement of wardrobe and body mutilations still happen today. - Political beliefs. If the powers that be think that your political beliefs will endanger their cushy jobs, they will persecute you. Tienanmen, Chauchescu, Bolschevics etc. Its still happening today.

There's been a ton of progress (4.00 / 1) (#45)
by Jman1 on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 11:46:05 AM EST

Yes, there's still persecution. Yes, blacks and women and Jews and atheists and Muslims and people with nose-rings are descriminated against. But, it's much much rarer (at least in some countries) that they are beaten, killed, or prevented (even if limited) from earning and keeping money. For every Matthew Shepherd, there are tens of thousands of gay people who are "only" shouted and jeered at. There are people who actually call themselves witches who aren't burned at the stake. In many jurisdictions, a black man accused of killing or raping a white woman isn't automatically found guilty. Oh, and blacks, women, and poor people are allowed to vote in most democracies.

[ Parent ]
Persecution will never go away (none / 0) (#55)
by D Jade on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 12:42:29 AM EST

Without tolerance, persecution will never go away.

Religion will always rule the day... Be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Capitalism.

I mean, look at the red hunts after WWII!!! How's that for persecution?!?

The fact that my Australian government places refugees in detention centres, calling them "illegal" immigrants... which btw is impossible. How can anything be illegal if you come from a lawless country?

Look at the way kids treat each other in the schoolyard.

Sometimes I think that the only thing that is tolerated is the actual persecution!!!

Messy messy world we live in!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Patriotism (none / 0) (#56)
by 42 on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 02:03:34 PM EST

Dissent is an important part of free society. Dissent however needs to be done appropriately and cannot take precedence over everything. For example, if your society has laws against child-pornography, and you like child-pornography, then dissent will most likely not be permitted (and with good reason too, IMHO). Just like free speech, the needs of the nation needs to outweigh the individual needs. And such is the case with patriotic duty. You may dissent against the political leadership - but if you (as a member of a democracy) have elected them, then you get to live with their decisions. And when the time comes, you, like your countrymen, are expected to be loyal to one side - your country's. Why is that so hard to grasp?

[ Parent ]

Re: And in 2003 (none / 0) (#61)
by danceswithcrows on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 02:36:15 PM EST

dessertion is a serious offense. Desserters can still be shot.

...It was in 1845, during the Big Trout Rebellion in East Rouen, that brave, outnumbered pâtissières took to the barricades in the hopes that gateaux by the people, for the people, and of the people should not perish from this earth. Their sacrifices should not be held lightly. Proclaim to the world that they shall take your Twinkies and Ho-Hos from your cold, dead hands, and that dessert is the right of all freethinking, upstanding people with an extra $2.50 in their pockets and a sweet tooth.

But seriously... executing people for saying "God is a stupid idea" seemed perfectly normal to people back in the 1700s. Lots of things we do today will seem totally bizarre/stupid to a visitor from 2300. WRT dissent, it's much easier if you work below the system's radar as much as possible. Think samizdat, GPG-encrypted mailing lists, and tacking subversive posters up in large urban areas for spreading ideas. Think joining the Quakers and declaring yourself as a conscientious objector for pacifism. Think moving to Idaho and living in caves for fullbore loony survivalism. Adjust for the particular geographic hellhole you find yourself in.

And if you can swing it, lob a banana cream pie at a representative of the Powers That Be. Make sure the media sees it.

Matt G (aka Dances With Crows) There is no Darkness in Eternity/But only Light too dim for us to see
[ Parent ]

hbullshit (2.22 / 9) (#36)
by turmeric on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 03:24:21 AM EST

i wrote a brilliant satire about how having a tequila and porn party is equivalent to having a tequila and jew killing party. it didnt EVEN REGISTER. this new 'spam' feature has made it so i cant even goddamn look at my own goddamn writing that got voted down or see any comments.

Save a copy, post to diary, link to comments...nt. (3.00 / 1) (#39)
by trane on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 05:27:39 AM EST



[ Parent ]
turmeric the odd (none / 0) (#49)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 01:24:42 PM EST

turmeric, you're like some some sort of strange troll everyone is familiar with and no one seriously considers anymore. you will continue to invoke the wrath of noobs, but why do continue so with your odd little rambling exercise? you are either brain damaged or socially malformed. either way, you fail to add to any arguments here, you are merely a self-serving toadstool.

here's an exercise for you: less negativity, more constructive thought. if you can manage that, then all of your infamy here will be instantly converted into fame. try it out. you have nothing left to lose, really. if i have ever said "you have nothing left to lose" to anyone else ever before, i have never meant it more than right now! lol ;-P

sound familiar? see how it works?

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

SHOULD>!?!??! (2.00 / 3) (#37)
by turmeric on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 03:24:49 AM EST

should have kept his mouth shut? Now we know which side you were on, you goddamn coward.

Dumb (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by Squid on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 06:46:36 AM EST

That's not cowardice. That's just not being dumb. You'd have to be exceptionally stupid to want to lose your life, and any opportunity you may have to extoll your views, just to be able to make public statements about them. If he had survived a little longer, maybe he would have learned prudence. Maybe he would have lived long enough to try and actually do something about the situation, rather than throwing his life away on worthless vitriol.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by coljac on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 12:01:57 PM EST

Aikenhead's death didn't do much for any cause. I think the world would have been better off if he had survived and been able to write a book that we could all read.

Of course, what I meant by the remark was "He would have been better off keeping his mouth shut", but I know it's a troll.



---
Whether or not life is discovered there I think Jupiter should be declared an enemy planet. - Jack Handey
[ Parent ]

turmeric the odd (4.60 / 5) (#42)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 09:16:04 AM EST

turmeric, you're like some some sort of strange troll everyone is familiar with and no one seriously considers anymore. you will continue to invoke the wrath of noobs, but why do continue so with your odd little rambling exercise? you are either brain damaged or socially malformed. either way, you fail to add to any arguments here, you are merely a self-serving toadstool.

here's an exercise for you: less negativity, more constructive thought. if you can manage that, then all of your infamy here will be instantly converted into fame. try it out. you have nothing left to lose, really. if i have ever said "you have nothing left to lose" to anyone else ever before, i have never meant it more than right now! lol ;-P

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

in case u didnt notice (2.50 / 4) (#43)
by turmeric on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 11:25:54 AM EST

'constructive' gets voted down

[ Parent ]
you are right, but not completely (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by circletimessquare on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 11:40:26 AM EST

i can see why you perceive constructive as getting voted down. i get constructive stuff voted down constantly. it is true.

but there is more than reflexive negativity here. if constructive never worked, what would be the whole point? reflexive negativity not only gets old after awhile, it threatens the whole of kuro5hin. if all anyone found here was reflexive negativity, then kuro5hin would die, as it would cease to be appealing to anyone.

but: you do find constructive here. i get it all the time. not the majority of the time, but i do get it. and that is why i continue to post. because it is finding those gems that makes it worth working through, worth working through the chafe to get to the wheat.

i also get excessively negative at times myself, but not all the time.

i'll put the odds at your constructive comments getting voted down at 2 in 3, while i'll give the odds of any of your continued negativity at getting voted down at 9 in 10. it's a game of small differences that add up.

don't stop being negative, but work in more constructive.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

if i cared about the votes (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by turmeric on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 01:37:38 AM EST

.... i would write about how much i love directing porn films for my personal anti-war website

[ Parent ]
self-serving (none / 0) (#64)
by circletimessquare on Tue Feb 04, 2003 at 05:28:52 PM EST

like i said, that attitude makes you a self-serving toadstool.

if you didn't care what other people thought, you would not post comments.

obviously you do, because you post in a public forum.

ergo, you do care.

but you only care in this sort of kneejerk negative backlash sort of way.

like some pavlovian experiment in masochistic feedback, you have discovered a perverse pleasure in people's negative feelings towards you.

that makes you sociopathic at best.

fortunately, you actually respond to my criticisms, so there is a ray of hope in you yet.

listen to me carefully turmeric: you are already a laughable character. you have a chance at redemption. i have taken a quaint interest in your trollish ways. why? because you are actually infamous here. grand troll on yonder hill. everyone point and laugh. you are a tourist site. a shrine to trolls. the best of the worst.

but my bet is you will choose to remain some sort of interesting toadstool on the landscape of kuro5hin, known by all, set in your ways, more of a tourist site than an actual valuable member of kuro5hin. a shame. you could be so much more.

i feel like i am lecturing a fallen superhero. lol ;-P

the troll's redemption: less negativity, all of the criticism. use your critical mind to slice positively, not negatively. you are critical power squandered on ego humping. your power is still there, just use it more constructively.

and ye shall set yourself free.

sigh

but all i expect really though, is more kneejerk negative backlash.

C:\>tracert life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness
[ Parent ]

grunt (none / 0) (#60)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 01, 2003 at 07:20:04 AM EST

drooool...

   -- Signed, Lev Andropoff, cosmonaut.
[ Parent ]

1697. (4.00 / 2) (#52)
by Apuleius on Thu Jan 30, 2003 at 10:18:10 PM EST

For some context, keep in mind that was 5 years after the Salem witch trials and the misadventures of Captain William Kidd.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by D Jade on Fri Jan 31, 2003 at 12:33:31 AM EST

I can see this context, but I don't think that this goes to show that it was the common thing of the day to go around hanging people for saying that God sucked...

The motive behind the two incidents looks entirely different.

To me, it seems that Aikenhead was made an example in order to control the masses (Intellectuals in particular). This was done by a well established church in an aged society.

As I understand it, Salem was a rather isolated town populated by Puritans (AKA Religious Fantatics) and the trials occurred in a cass of mass hysteria. Their motives were more ideological than those of the church of Scotland.

Interesting point though. To think that not so long ago all of the so-called "intelligent" or "individual" people in our world today would have been "burned at the stake"!!!

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Aikenhead: When Mouthing Off Could Get You Killed | 67 comments (45 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!