This is a stupid question but I'm going to ask anyway thread

[guardian_rose]

CuAnnan

guardian_rose

Reporting me for ToS will never float and you know it. I have not once said anything out of hate or spite.

You confuse racism with hate?

Hard to be racist without hate. Again, you wish to report me. Fine. Go for it. One less person to challenge you. Can't beat them, ban them.

CuAnnan

guardian_rose

I wasn't refering to the north. I was refering to the nine year war.

Which had what, exactly, to do with religion?
Protostants in England attempting to maintain control over the predominant Catholic population of Ireland.

CuAnnan

guardian_rose

And those laws, please, provide a link that predates the 1600s. Those laws were for taking power from the Catholic Church.

No. They weren't. They were about a great many things.
They were about making the Irish more managable by making us them.
They were about destroying the Irish identity to make us easier to control, as they had done trhoughout the Empire.

It was about Catholicism. If I am wrong, provide a better source. I am sure you have one. You are supposed to be the expert, right?

 

[maenad nuri]

guardian_rose

Hard to be racist without hate.

Actually, it's very easy to be racist without hate. A lot of racism is ingrained attitude and beliefs that we pick up from society, etc. You aren't actively hating against someone, but your actions and words are racist anyways, for example.

Very easy.

Racism isn't just shouting N~ at someone, but also the people who reach out and touch natural black hair without asking, because they are curious.

edit: And by this, I mean most likely everyone has to work against racism in themselves. I perform racist things, so does everyone else in this forum, including you. The difference is how you act to prevent them from occuring and what you do when they happen.  

[guardian_rose]

That just seems like curiosity typical of a 2 year old to me.
Every dictionary I have seen defines it differently.
I don't see how any of my words were discriminatory in any way.  

[maenad nuri]

guardian_rose

That just seems like curiosity typical of a 2 year old to me.
Every dictionary I have seen defines it differently.
I don't see how any of my words were discriminatory in any way.

Who said we were talking about a two year old.

I've seen grown adults reach out to touch natural black hair because "I've never felt it before!"  

[guardian_rose]

Really? eek
Ok, well, that then is wrong. Barring the occasional special needs. Still, the adult with them should know better. sweatdrop  

[maenad nuri]

guardian_rose

Really? eek
Ok, well, that then is wrong. Barring the occasional special needs. Still, the adult with them should know better. sweatdrop

That itself makes a particular statement itself -- there's an assumption in there that people with special needs need an adult with them in public.

But that's a discussion for another day, because boy, what we really need around here is a HEY YOU'VE GOT PRIVILEGE discussion.  

[Collowrath]

maenad nuri

guardian_rose

Really? eek
Ok, well, that then is wrong. Barring the occasional special needs. Still, the adult with them should know better. sweatdrop

That itself makes a particular statement itself -- there's an assumption in there that people with special needs need an adult with them in public.

But that's a discussion for another day, because boy, what we really need around here is a HEY YOU'VE GOT PRIVILEGE discussion.

If you start it I would be more than happy to contribute quite regularly. smile  

[saint dreya]

guardian_rose

I think the real problem here isn't the argument. Its that neither you nor Tea are used to being cross questioned.
If I turn out to be wrong, I will gladly admit where I was wrong, and what I was wrong about.

Tea and Cu are regulars in ED, M&R. They regularly present contentions and provide proof. They regularly rebut other's arguments, asking for proof.

They both have provided sources (links to definitions that support her argument from Tea, and book titles as well as a link from Cu) and asked you for yours. You have not provided any source yet.

It is easy in fact to look into the history of this guild and the history of the above mentioned forums and see how often people do attempt to correct or counter Tea and Cu. I wouldn't say that they are "used to it" (who would be "used to" confrontation), but that it is common enough that they do provide support and know their s**t.

Please, provide proof for your statements. Links, books, cites, etc.

Collowrath

maenad nuri

guardian_rose

Really? eek
Ok, well, that then is wrong. Barring the occasional special needs. Still, the adult with them should know better. sweatdrop

That itself makes a particular statement itself -- there's an assumption in there that people with special needs need an adult with them in public.

But that's a discussion for another day, because boy, what we really need around here is a HEY YOU'VE GOT PRIVILEGE discussion.

If you start it I would be more than happy to contribute quite regularly. smile

I might not be able to contribute regularly, but would love to see that discussion.  

[guardian_rose]

saint dreya

guardian_rose

I think the real problem here isn't the argument. Its that neither you nor Tea are used to being cross questioned.
If I turn out to be wrong, I will gladly admit where I was wrong, and what I was wrong about.

Tea and Cu are regulars in ED, M&R. They regularly present contentions and provide proof. They regularly rebut other's arguments, asking for proof.

They both have provided sources (links to definitions that support her argument from Tea, and book titles as well as a link from Cu) and asked you for yours. You have not provided any source yet.

It is easy in fact to look into the history of this guild and the history of the above mentioned forums and see how often people do attempt to correct or counter Tea and Cu. I wouldn't say that they are "used to it" (who would be "used to" confrontation), but that it is common enough that they do provide support and know their s**t.

Please, provide proof for your statements. Links, books, cites, etc.

Collowrath

maenad nuri

guardian_rose

Really? eek
Ok, well, that then is wrong. Barring the occasional special needs. Still, the adult with them should know better. sweatdrop

That itself makes a particular statement itself -- there's an assumption in there that people with special needs need an adult with them in public.

But that's a discussion for another day, because boy, what we really need around here is a HEY YOU'VE GOT PRIVILEGE discussion.

If you start it I would be more than happy to contribute quite regularly. smile

I might not be able to contribute regularly, but would love to see that discussion.

Tea has not provided me with any sources in this discussion.
Cu has. I just got back from my local library. Unfortunately, they didn't have the books he mentioned.
I also found a newer translation of the Tain. Its on order.

As for my proof, as I have said before, I am working on that.
And only time will tell how well they know their s**t.  

[maenad nuri]

guardian_rose

Tea has not provided me with any sources in this discussion.
Cu has. I just got back from my local library. Unfortunately, they didn't have the books he mentioned.
I also found a newer translation of the Tain. Its on order.

As for my proof, as I have said before, I am working on that.
And only time will tell how well they know their s**t.

Telling us "It's a video! With National Geographic!" isn't really showing proof though. NG videos are of varying quality of their own sources, and well, thats not even enough information to find the video.

But to be fair, you are the one making the claim in the face of history. This means the burden of proof are on you.

I would like to see more proof being cited overall, though. Just as general form --but I've read a few of the things that Cu has mentioned (as well as Huttons druids) and yeah, Druids pretty much were as they mentioned and as dead as a dodo.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Less a question and more a statement that I want to be analyzed.

I want the logic to be torn apart as deftly as possible to show me how viable that statement is. The statement is not internalized belief but simply theory, which I want to make sure is viable before I incorporate it fully into Etherism.

Statement:
"Deities are immortal or long lived beings who possess immense levels of power and knowledge and are, by definition, worshiped by other beings of lesser power."

Logic:
Definition sources (for some reason, AHD isn't available on Bartleby anymore. Bah.)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goddess
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/god.html
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/deity

All of these definitions carry a reference to being worshiped and being powerful, along with some references to immortality.

The word deity slid to god/goddess in merriam-webster and encarta.

Okay, slash away. I want this to be airtight before I make it a significant part of my religion.  

[CilverCyanide]

Hmm well given that I feel this is one of those questions I'm slightly embarassed to ask, I'll ask it here.

DJ Conway- Opinions? I get the feeling some people consider her a spawn of Llewellyn and second Ravenwolf on the Fluff Scale. I own two of her books, Dancing with Dragons and Animal Magick (Spelled that way in the title.) Both seem nice. I can see where there's many things that I should take some serious consideration/research in before actually believing. Just wondering what other people are thinking. (Especially about Dancing with Dragons as I've noticed the locked thread about Dragon Magic)

Also, on a brief sidenote- I'm thinking about taking the Kemetic Orthodoxy online class ( http://www.kemet.org/apply.html ) Has anyone taken it, and what are your opinions of it?  

[Recursive Paradox]

guardian_rose

And only time will tell how well they know their s**t.

Seems a little cocky for someone who very well may not know his s**t. Considering the lack of viable evidence you've provided (a poorly cited NG video) in the face of the viable evidence Cu has provided (book lists, in-culture education), one would think you would be a bit less arrogant.  

[TeaDidikai]

maenad nuri

guardian_rose

Really? eek
Ok, well, that then is wrong. Barring the occasional special needs. Still, the adult with them should know better. sweatdrop

That itself makes a particular statement itself -- there's an assumption in there that people with special needs need an adult with them in public.

But that's a discussion for another day, because boy, what we really need around here is a HEY YOU'VE GOT PRIVILEGE discussion.

I'd love that. It could be a very useful tool for understanding Rroma privilege.