"DeSantis with Trump's head" refers to the first post of the day, "Why is DeSantis peeling an orange?"
२० मे, २०२३
"Did you send this because it's like DeSantis with Trump's head?"
I ask — it's my second question — after Meade texts me this:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२८ टिप्पण्या:
You should hide his gardening tools...
"Sooner or later you`ll make a mistake
I`ll put you in a chain that you never can break
Legs and arms and body and bone
I pay in blood, but not my own"
Talk about your contested divorce! I wonder how often it actually happened. I wonder how often it ended in sex.
The first thing that popped into my head was Kathy Griffin with Trump's head, not DeSantis. There is no resemblance with that medieval Xena. Kathy's way uglier.
It's not anything like either of those men.
The media has trained our eyes and brains to see nothing but negative in the R candidates.
This reminds me of something ages ago. I was at MCRD San Diego for an interservices conference and they had a coed pugil stick demo for grins. From afar it seemed like it should've been a fair fight but it wasn't even close. The male instructor could've won that contest one-handed regardless of how aggressive she was. Maybe if he had been one-handed AND in a hole she mightve had a shot.
Divorce as trial by combat - as depicted - isn't a bad metaphor for our current society when you think about it. If women have a chance it's because men must be hobbled. Even today, our culture's hand must push down the scales for her version of justice to prevail.
A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine, Althouse!
Would it have been better if DeSantis was grinding the juice out of half an orange, using one of those old Torquemada-esque manual juicers?
As to spousal battle to settle domestic issues, I suspect the performance of the trial by combat was quite a spectator sport for the rest of the villagers. Who was the referee for the fight?
Beheaded: quick and painless.
Buried alive: a particularly horrible way to go, as the Mafia knew.
Misogyny.
My divorce, though difficult, was relatively amicable. There are some divorces I'm aware of, including a couple of friends, where the medieval approach would have been the better way.
The man fought with one arm tied behind his back in a hole, while the woman wore weighted clothing and used a sack filled with rocks as her weapon.
Maybe a way to even things out with trans athletes competing in women's sports?
I did a little looking on the internet. This appears to be one guy's suggestions for managing judicial combats. It's not clear that he was specifically referring to divorce, or that his ideas were ever put into practice.
Here we go.
Trial By Combat between a Man and a Woman
In the final scene the woman attacks the penis. Dirty play.
But I like the jump suit. I think Althouse wears something like that on her morning jogs.
Death by snu snu...
I prefer Mark Twain's idea of a duel:
Shotguns at 5 paces.
Strangely, the picture shows the guy with non-combattant hand in front.
Though..you can argue that IS behind the back.
Reading this arrangement, gotta wonder what suggestions the designing committee surfaced that were rejected as too...medieval.
Reminds me of a middle school bully in my youth who picked a fight with a gentle giant in the class. Gym teacher spotted this and had them duke it out with boxing gloves.
The thing about boxing gloves is the back of the hand is unpadded.
The gentle giant made full uise of this and broke the bully's jaw.
Bully never attended that school again.
Gym teacher had some splaining to do..
"The media has trained our eyes and brains to see nothing but negative in the R candidates."
Tip of the iceberg of what they've taught folks to hate. It's their bread and Earth Balance.
"Who was the referee for the fight?"
Her mother of course.
Let's not assume because someone made a rather crude drawing accompanied by some rather lurid text that such a thing happened more than once, if ever. The whole thing comes off as the risible product of an idle mind. The Medievals were just as capable of satire and parody as we Moderns.
Laws regarding trial by combat and trial by ordeal persisted in England into the 20th century, though records of such procedures are scant and questionable, at best. The concept has its origins deep in the shadows of antiquity, probably long before the advent of Christianity or even the Roman conquest of Britain. There was considerable debate in the Church regarding trial by combat, particularly the foundational idea that God would always uphold the righteous cause. Contradictory examples from history and the canonical biographies of the saints of the Church were decisively fatal to the proposition. Royal authority was similarly skeptical of such proceedings, mainly deriving from its hostility to baronial power, though there are examples of what amounted to duly authorized brawls staged in public as humiliating examples of anarchy.
Is this where the "till death do us part" bit comes from? Or was it the result of Henry VIII's notorious behavior?
Meade's head on a platter? Meade better hide all of the veils before she starts dancing.
A back... black hole... whore h/t NAACP.
It resembles an abortionist extracting a baby... fetal-baby from her mother's womb. Disarm, Decapitate, perchance to Disembowel (DDD).
Or, a butterfly struggling to emerge from her pupa, where a caterpillar is waiting to cannibalize her.
More proof that we are only just-barely civilized.
Spiros writes, "Is this where the "till death do us part" bit comes from? Or was it the result of Henry VIII's notorious behavior?"
The sanctity of marriage in the Christain tradition dates back to the earliest history of the Church and is based on several Biblical examples, among them the Adam and Eve story in Genesis and the role of Jesus in the wedding feast at Cana. However, the current RC doctrine derives from the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, predating Henry VIII by almost three centuries. According to dogma, divorce is only valid if the former partners remain celibate after they separate, in other words, no re-marriage. However, the Church found ways to accommodate the demands of the powerful through the process of annulment. Theologically, annulment is derived from the example of Abraham. Abraham's wife Sara being evidently barren, Abraham begot a lawful heir through Sara's maid, Hagar. The Church used that example to allow unfruitful marriages to be dissolved as invalid from the inception, which was seen as an aid to prevent dynasty wars.
Another case justifying annulment was consummation, or more specifically the absence of consummation, which was the crux of the argument in the petition to Pope Julius II. Briefly, it went like this: Catherine of Aragon married Henry's elder brother, Arthur, Prince of Wales, in 1501 but barely seven months later Arthur died. As a lawful widow, Catherine was free to remarry, however, she could not marry Prince Henry due to the bounds of consanguinity. Since the Church considered a brother-in-law to be effectively a brother in fact, a marriage of Catherine to Henry would be incestuous. To counter this fatal impediment, the petition claimed that Catherine's first marriage was never consummated, backed up with sworn testimony from several witnesses, including Catherine herself. While not directly argued in the petition, Henry VII's ambassadors reminded the papal court of England's recent history of dynastic war as a further consideration toward granting the petition.
Pope Julius granted the dispensation by issuing a decree of annulment, which invalidated the impediment of consanguinity. His motives were complex, but the politics involved were probably decisive. The marriage of Catherine to Arthur was part of a formal alliance of Spain and England directed against France. Pope Julius himself had been directly or indirectly at war with France since his election. Granting the petition would fulfill the terms of the Anglo-Spanish treaty, and thus provide Rome with additional allies. The papacy's huge debt owed to the Spanish crown was also a factor.
The second petition for annulment, this time to free Henry from Catherine, argued the exact opposite by claiming Julius had no authority to grant the original annulment. Consequently, Henry was and remained Catherine's brother, making their union incestuous and invalid. As evidence, the testimony cited in the first petition was repudiated under oath by every living witness, except Catherine herself. (We may speculate on their motivations at our leisure.) The fact that all of Catherine's male children were stillborn or died in infancy was also cited as evidence of God's condemnation of the union, referencing Leviticus 18:9 and Leviticus 20:21. The fact of a healthy and vigorous daughter was ignored.
Unfortunately for Henry VIII, the pope being petitioned was Leo X, who was too preoccupied with religious revolution in Germany to countenance such sophistry. Shut up, Henry. No divorce. Get a bastard on Anne Bolyne if you can and legitimize him. That's within your lawful authority. Leave me out of it. Or words to that effect. Henry finally got his divorce in 1533 from Thomas Cranmer, the new Primate of the Church of England. Catherine's daughter, Mary Tutor, got her revenge by burning Cranmer at the stake in 1556.
Ironically, it was Henry who earned the title "Defender of the Faith" for his -defense- of certain RC doctrines, which Popes felt useful against the arguments of the Monstrous Monk.
Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, 1521
Do we need a safe word for Meade?
These articles on medieval laws are always questionable. The middle ages lasted a thousand years
, so asking when is important, and Germany is a big place that was full ofmany seperate governments, thus where in Germany is important.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा