[debate] (no subject)

[Gadi Evron]

Alan Light wrote:
>  From the proposal:
> 
> "For these reasons and more, we beseech you to rule in favour of the 
> government's motion and pass thie bill which will mandate execution by 
> Fire to those who have been proven to be witches by a court of law!"
> 
> How shall the courts be proving witchcraft?

While we can go for drowning and see if they survive, this is the 21st 
century and physics clearly shows drowning is not a witch-specific 
matter. Further, too many people today know how to float and/or swim, so 
that kind of skews the surprise effect.

The courts can decide this on a case-by-case base until such time as the 
legislator sees it necessary to intervene.

> Should it be the dunking method (if they drown they're innocent, if they 
> don't drown they are witches and must be burned), the inability to 
> recite the Lord's Prayer (and is this culture-specific?  Does it matter 
> whether they say "Our Father" or "Notre Père" or something else?), or 
> modern forensics to find out if a well has actually been poisoned and by 
> what (what constitutes a witch? I understand that the passage in the 
> Bible that says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" actually refers 
> to someone who has poisoned a well).

While I appreciate your interpretation of the Holy Bible, the government 
makes no connection between our proposal and the holy book or those 
religions that follow its teachings as they perceive them.

> (5)  Followers of modern religious cults, most notably Wicca.

Why do you change the subject by introducing Wiccans to the debate? 
Obviously, they don't eat children!

> (6)  Any troublesome woman.
> 
> (7)  Any woman.
> 
> (8)  Any attractive, and hence tempting, woman.

I sense a trend here, but while the word sounds the same it starts with 
a B. Your mysagenism by calling any women a witch while more commonly 
and especially among rap singers, the B word is used, is unbelievable!

> After all, who really wants to burn Wendy, the good little witch, or 
> Hermione from the Harry Potter series?  But Broomhilda, or the Wicked 
> Witch of the West, or one of the uglier, fatter, smellier Wiccans . . . 
> well, maybe we could burn those and say that we're saving the 
> environment by using alternate fuels to heat our homes.  Oh, and of 
> course, serving one of the mutually exclusive HOLY gods, of which there 
> is only one, or perhaps many.

I'd burn Hermione, she is very annoying. The actress who plays her in 
the movies though, is safe. She's cute, and don't we all like cute?

Ridiculing the question at hand by bringing sweet examples is a mis 
categorization and distracts us from the issue at hand. Obviously cute 
witches will be smuggled out, that's what underground economies are for.

	Gadi.