Hex Signs of the Pennsylvania Dutch

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 25 окт 2024

Комментарии • 6

  • @daltonmortimer7735
    @daltonmortimer7735 3 года назад +3

    This video: "the hex sign isn't meant to be magic"
    Also this video:" here's a bunch of magical symbolism of them and how they link up to a pennsylvania dutch system of magic called powwowing"
    Cognitive dissonance much?
    Also you treated them like they exist in a vacuum when in actuality similar designs have their roots in old gemanuc and norse folk magic

    • @dmitriagnes
      @dmitriagnes 3 года назад

      I noticed that too lol. In some videos it’s now acknowledged at all though, so I’m looking past it.

    • @daltonmortimer7735
      @daltonmortimer7735 3 года назад +1

      @Chrissy to be fair the medevil definition of of "witch" was a lot more specific and less broad. There was always a notion of "white magic" especially when it came to counter-magic. The medvil definition of witch( at least in church terms) would translate to modern terms as" a magickal practitioner on the Left Hand Path who engages in pact magick and works primarily through the medim of sex sex Magick ( RE: the Malius Malefficarum's fixation on lust and witchcraft as an extension of such)

    • @XFactor369
      @XFactor369 2 года назад +1

      @@daltonmortimer7735 great observation about the cognitive dissonance in this video. I was thinking the same thing!

    • @pricklypear7516
      @pricklypear7516 Год назад

      It's hardly "cognitive dissonance" when the narrator prefaces the statement with "There are many disagreements regarding the true purpose of Hex Signs" and proceeds to cite two different authorities with opposing views (7:41).

    • @daltonmortimer7735
      @daltonmortimer7735 Год назад

      @@pricklypear7516 it's still disonate when you consider he stated his position as though it was fact and only then mentioned the disagreement and then never explained why the alternate perspectives held less water in his opinion.
      The proper way to do this would have been " there is disagreement about this but I think X. Here are some of the alternatives and here's why I don't think they hold up"
      What he did was state an opinion as fact and then IMMEDIATELY present everything that disproves his case as though it is also fact. Which just makes it look like " the facts aren't on my side but I'm going to ignore it anyway"
      Even if he's correct for the sake of argument ( which he isn't) he shot his own argument in the foot