But why?

>It's not, there's a statue in the altar that's baroque
exactly the thing in the picture you posted.
>the rest of the church is medieval gothic
but you didn't post the church you posted the altar. because you didn't knew it was post medieval and real medieval art isn't fancy enough for you
>and no an altar isn't an "interior"
Well it actually is but I don't expect you to have the minimal basic integrity to admit you were wrong.

thing in the background of overwhelmingly gothic image of gothic building
It's not the background it's the center piece of the picture YOU CHOOSE.
this must be a baroque image
Yes I noticed that. And instead of admitting to that mistake you are shitting and pissing yourself for half an hour.
>have a nice day moron
Wow you are really mad about that mistake you made huh? I mean it is pretty embarrassing so I get that.

>real medieval art isn't fancy enough for you
Frick off, moron
>Well it actually is
The hell it is, I've never seen anyone refer to an altar as the interior of the church

I'm not even that guy, he posted a picture of the interior of Chartres and you focused solely on the baroque altar as your argument, because you're a homosexual. If you ignore the fricking altar the point still stands, you absolute moron.

So you make shit up like the Black person you are. The picture was of the church and the altar is inconsequential, end of story.

Basically in the time of Galileo, books where published in the form of Dialogue. So your Science book was two guy talking, one asking questions and the other answering.

Galileo inserted a third guy ''Simplissio'' which was a priest. The chruch didnt liked it and asked him to retract and he did not. They killed him. But the real reason the church went so hard is that they were in the beginning of the reformation and loosing power, so they overreacted.

This is also why MSM and leftist today are getting more and more unhinge. They were the predominant ower since at least the 70s and are now loosing power to the new heretics and the new printing press.

they didn’t kill him where do you people get this shit from

I'm here, any questions?

It’s mad innit. In my schooling I was taught that the church tried to stop columbus sailing to america because they believed the earth was flat. Very weird that i’d get taught something I now know to be flagrantly false. I wonder how qualified the teachers even were

The Salamanca dispute, from when that myth originates, was real, but the funny thing is that the Salamanca sages were right: basically they knew the actual distance between Europe and India(Colombo original target) and told him he would have died of hunger and thirst by going that way; Colombo got lucky though, and found America in the middle.
But yes, take America out of the ocean and it would have been a massive failure.

>They killed him
Dude no, he was forced to abjure
The one who was killed is Giordano Bruno

Looking at his other post (this is 100% the guy behind

No its because the Catholic Church was burning scientists and books instead of learning from them so everyone was literally in "the dark"

), there is no fricking way he ever heard of Bruno. "Galileo was burned at the stake because he discovered the Earth is round and the dark age happened because the Church was holding back science" is typical pop history bullshit that morons heard once and will repeat again and again.

It was a monk that discovered genetics.
>they didn't believe in evolution!
They didn't believe in global warming, or gender psychosis, or the covid vaccine either.

Because it’s clear you don’t know what time periods are being talked about or the knowledge of anyone involved, it’s clear to anyone reading your posts that your opinions are wrong
1. Galileo was not burned at the stake
2. At the time of the controversy, Darwin had not been born and wouldn’t be for a couple hundred years

You’re projecting your views on modern ‘
conservatives into people four hundred years ago - stop talking about things you have no idea about, it’s like seeing somebody claim ‘all toothbrushes are red because mine is red today’

>its time you except

Women were actually far better off in the middle ages than they were in rome. They could own land in most places, that’s the only thing a progressive should actually like about the era. You start seeing powerful women. Also people didn’t die at 35 most of the time, that’s a statistic skewed by childhood and infant mortality. If you lived past 10 you would probably see 55. And most armies were made of mercenaries, they were about 10% peasantry.

I’m an atheist
You’re still projecting (and I say this because you call me a ‘tradcath’) and also you don’t know history (I say this because you confuse figures and centuries in each of your posts)
You don’t know what the dark ages are and you have strong opinions about them
to test this, without using google, what years do you believe are the dark ages?
Without referring to some secondary source, you don’t even know what time period you’re arguing about
You’re upset about a period you think is defined by ignorance but you’re the most glaring example of it in this thread now

You googled "Nicene Creed" and "French Revolution"? Props for moron effort...

Presumably he means compared to today, in his country (US or Canada)

He’s the kind of guy who will fellate classical learning when they had the exact same ideas about quintessence and the firmament that medieval people did.

Tommy was a good Aristotelian.
Plato and Aristotle butted heads a lot.

Here is a nice primer for Late Antiquity and Medieval thinking, if anybody is interested.

That was literally his job.
The book is the opening lecture for his Medieval Literature class.

Those were hobbies.
In his apologetics he constantly restated that he isn't a "proper" theologian and is merely sharing his thoughts.

Yeah. Thing is I knew all that thus the moment of realization of moronation. Any other recommendations of his scholarly work?

>moron, you thought the interior was baroque
But it is!!!

>For one thing you don’t need to work in a land based economy when there’s nothing to harvest.
Harvesting isn't the only part of agriculture. Tending to your property to ensure fertility is a year-round undertaking. Not to mention animal husbandry and various cottage industries for producing other necessities like clothing. Just because you weren't threshing or harvesting grain doesn't mean you were chilling in your hovel with your thumb up your ass.

>For most of winter they would barely have to do any work aside from household maintenance
You can't believe this. Trees still need to be felled, firewood chopped, homosexuals collected, livestock fed, food cooked and stored, etc.

>They owned land
Generally speaking they were leased properties to farm for their manor lords. A serf isn't the same as a yeoman or freeholder, and most peasants were serfs.

>Some peasants were independently wealthy merchants
And most weren't

Glibness isn't an argument

>year round fertility
Crop cycling eliminated this. You’d have fallow fields you cycled between each year, which aren’t that complex to maintains. And I said as much, they still would need to fix their leaky roof or repair their clothing, but this isn’t exactly a back breaking slave drive- it’s stuff most human beings had to do since time began, and this didn’t stop for most even up until the last century. Managing the woods near their homes wasn’t something their lord compelled them to do for a certain duration every day, it was just part of life. The part we are arguing about, the actual labour hours compared to today, is true. If it was as demanding as you say it was, they wouldn’t be getting breaks to eat and nap every few hours which we know they did, and they had food provided for them. That sort of natural pacing of the day, working for 2 hours and resting for an hour and a half, wouldn’t be possible if all these domestic matters were as pressing and as time consuming as you say. There’s no way they could have managed slave labour and tending their own property and household. Furthermore, and it’s weird I have to say this, but they weren’t chattel slaves. They met with their lords once a week most of the time and rents were established by discussion and agreement. Of course you’re right, there’s that threat of violence there, and it did happen on occasion, but it wasn’t as frequent or as brutal as people make out. I’m not saying they lived an idyllic life, and they could be exploited badly, but the picture culture gives us of peasant life is a load of bullshit. Another fact is that a lot of peasant oppression came from OTHER peasants. They weren’t a monolith and there were class divisions between them. Most of the time peasants kicked off it was because their baron wasn’t taking the distinctions between them and their lessers seriously enough.
>serfs didn’t own land
They did. They’d pay an inheritance tax

None of those things take more than a few hours in the morning

t. Apartment dweller

t. actual apartment dwellers

there are people in the countryside still doing these things and it’s not that bad. go visit a farm

Maybe try putting in ANY effort instead of plopping your brown ass into a chair and copy and pasting a youtube link

Absolutely zoomer brained post. Try reading books, they're like YouTube videos made of trees

Exactly, hence why "muh muddy grim middle age" being such a brainlet take.

none of those things caused an age of darkness. Neither technology nor learning regressed, there were just smaller states and less organized record keeping. It was always called the dark ages because records from it are noticeably harder to find than the classical period or the high medieval period.

>loses debate
>spergs out
Rather sad if you consider this a W

Because their king was a stupid brute incapable of winning a argument?

Valid enough reason.

Found the medieval haters kvetching

The article was written by a woman or a israelite judging by the writing.
No fricking way you can defend the Talmud in an honest discussion, it's bronze age mentality barbarism and greed infused.

Did the israelites manage to infiltrate the Templars? I know they were screaming the last Grandmaster's name during Louis XVI's execution.

>and he says the proofs, unfortunately (for him) are damning.
Very much doubt that. Especially considering there is as much evidence for fairies existing as there is for blood rituals.

Genoa is on the west coast
Venice is on the East.
Bridegroom of the Adriatic, blessed by St Mark.

There are two israelite arrows going there.

>throws feces
>feces thrown back at him
>goes into a tard rage
Stick to reddit, my guy.

The people who post this comic are worse than the people they try to parody
Tweeting about the working conditions in China is not comparable to installing seatbelts in cars - one is an empty and useless complaint, a popular activity online, and the other is an actionable observation (installing seatbelts)
Upvoted though

Black person, how the frick am I gonna live like a medieval person in modern America? Literally how? Society is entirely different than it was, it's just not possible.

See [...]

To what end? In the medieval you were a peasant because the social order provided you a wife and children as well as a home with a farmstead. In addition you got a warrior and noble classes who protected you. Nowdays you have politicians who lie to you and no warrior class just rich kid feds who arrest you on made up charges.

The reasons to live like a peasant are gone, so why live that way anymore?

>If it was so great, then why not make minimal efforts to preserve or emulate it?
Try strongmaning your own question. Tell us why not?

See also steelmanning, ie the opposite of straw manning.

I became convinced that online dating was psychologically unhealthy and so I went out and met a woman who I am now going to marry this year - I also think television is psychologically unhealthy and so don’t watch it (though I still post in threads about shows I haven’t seen)
The people who decide that the internet as a whole is unhealthy then stop posting here, so there’s an obvious selection bias
Regardless, many people - like me - have cut out ‘convenient’ technologies and benefitted from this

>year round fertility
Crop cycling eliminated this. You’d have fallow fields you cycled between each year, which aren’t that complex to maintains. And I said as much, they still would need to fix their leaky roof or repair their clothing, but this isn’t exactly a back breaking slave drive- it’s stuff most human beings had to do since time began, and this didn’t stop for most even up until the last century. Managing the woods near their homes wasn’t something their lord compelled them to do for a certain duration every day, it was just part of life. The part we are arguing about, the actual labour hours compared to today, is true. If it was as demanding as you say it was, they wouldn’t be getting breaks to eat and nap every few hours which we know they did, and they had food provided for them. That sort of natural pacing of the day, working for 2 hours and resting for an hour and a half, wouldn’t be possible if all these domestic matters were as pressing and as time consuming as you say. There’s no way they could have managed slave labour and tending their own property and household. Furthermore, and it’s weird I have to say this, but they weren’t chattel slaves. They met with their lords once a week most of the time and rents were established by discussion and agreement. Of course you’re right, there’s that threat of violence there, and it did happen on occasion, but it wasn’t as frequent or as brutal as people make out. I’m not saying they lived an idyllic life, and they could be exploited badly, but the picture culture gives us of peasant life is a load of bullshit. Another fact is that a lot of peasant oppression came from OTHER peasants. They weren’t a monolith and there were class divisions between them. Most of the time peasants kicked off it was because their baron wasn’t taking the distinctions between them and their lessers seriously enough.
>serfs didn’t own land
They did. They’d pay an inheritance tax

>They met with their lords once a week most of the time and rents were established by discussion and agreement.

Cope. Your luddite bluster is just a bunch of BS considering you're unwilling to make incremental lifestyle changes.

See

Obviously you can't live EXACTLY like a 10th century serf, but you can reduce your dependency on technology, and lessen your participation in modern society (like the Amish or off-the-grid homesteaders). But like I said, you won't, because you're all talk and unwilling to make sacrifices

>There's nothing to increment towards
Lmao of course their is. You're just a performative gay who won't make a single lifestyle change

It's obviously near impossible to completely make that transition in a more globalized world, but to not make a single effort is the same lazy hypocrisy you see with tankies, like

demonstrated