Were the witch trials in any way justified? What are some arguments

This was Protestant maymay. Don't drag Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthdox into it. I don't justify Protestant hysteria.

>how can the completely irrational be rationalised?

So, to be clear, you're asking if witches are real?

>>2579035
witches are objectively real. Whether you doubt their abilities is another thing entirely.

File: 8fe1264e5e23a3a6bf9605e2ff9d61fc.gif (87KB, 1147x905px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1147x905px

The persecution of witches was a continuation of the Catholics churches crusades against heretics (Cathar and Waldesians) because it had discovered it could kill people and then take their land and cash.

>>2579020
>>2579035
Nope, and nope.

I'm asking this question for you to open your minds.

Was there perhaps some reasons it happened that we don't usually hear about? What if some of these women were in fact criminals?

>>2579044
I don't like over-simplified answers like that.

>>2579044
Simply nonfactual.OP clearly means from the early modern period. It all reaks of Protastink.

>>2579051
So the fact that it's possible that some teenage girls might have been "criminals" justifies superstitious lynching?

By that logic we should kill anyone we don't like because, well maybe they did something bad once?

File: 1490389889601.gif (983KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

983KB, 500x364px

>>2579051

What if everybody who drowned on the Titanic was a serial killer? What if JFK hired somebody to shoot him as an elaborate way of committing suicide? What if the George Washington was working for Britain the whole time and he framed Benedict Arnold to cover up his own treason? The world may never know the truth.

>>2579067
Not today but laws were stricter back then. Perhaps they could've been dwelling into making poisons or encouraging early "feminism" etc

>>2579051
Then they would have been tried as criminals for the crimes they had committed. There would be no reason to try them as witches.

>I'm asking this question for you to open your minds.
You're asking retarded nonsensical questions.

>>2579082
Irrelevant.

>>2579087
This is what I'm asking; perhaps a lot of these things go under what they called "witchcraft." It was a different time, and they had different perspectives. They didn't just do shit to be evil.

>>2579051
What if USSR was secretly a British crypto colony?

>>2579096
>I'm not saying it was witches but... it was witches.

>>2579083
In certain ways they were stricter. In otherwise they were far more liberal. Drug use and age of consent come to mind. Don't mistake 1650 for 1950. In a related note I've heard the Salem witch trials were about obtaining property.

What if OP wasn't a faggot?

>>2579115

>DUDE WITCHES LMAO

Witches were at times malicious members of the community who themselves believed (or wanted others to believe) they had the ability to harm others through magic. They would threaten and blackmail people to get what they want, and people would oblige for fear of being cursed.

Also, at least in England witchcraft was a tried secular crime not unlike assault or murder.

And another thing, belief in witchcraft was hardly just a Christian thing. There's plenty of proof of people believing in/getting accused of malicious magic in antiquity as well.

Witches exist, so yes they are justified
>>2579126
The age of consent was lower, but premarital sex was either illegal or functionally illegal via exile in a relatively 'savage' land.
I don't care about British colonies enough to research into their laws.

>>2578997
Given what was known at the time, they seem pretty easily justifiable.

>>2579014
over 10,000 people were executed for witchcraft in scotland over a 200 year period

>>2579087
>Then they would have been tried as criminals for the crimes they had committed
>There would be no reason to try them as witches.

>commit crime of witchcraft
>no reason to be tried as a witch
???