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

[TeaDidikai]

Nattfodd

AngryRobotsInc.

Nattfodd

May I ask what the racist element with Buckland is? I haven't heard much about it. I had two publishings of the blue book he has, the original edition (with the pink pentagram) got a little tattered and the cover was falling off, so my ex has it. I currently have the revised silver pentagram edition.

I know he's one of those 'Wicca = Witchcraft' fellows, but I've never heard the claims of racism. Then again, the book kind of bores me to death (which is slightly amusing, considering what I enjoy reading) so I haven't really dissected it as much as I should.

I know he's put out a bunch of books with G~ in the title. I see them all the time, when I'm browsing in Barnes and Noble, and Walden Books.

D'oh. Yeah, I've never seen those, over years of trips to various bookstores. He's Rroma though, eh? I suppose it's the same with the whole n~ argument.

He's as Rroma as my left testicle.

Like any ethnicity, you're a member because you participate. He has made choices for himself that has contaminated himself beyond the point where even a Kris could restore him... not that he ever actually participated in the culture itself.

He might (might) have had some heritage, but even this is questionable.  

[guardian_rose]

TeaDidikai

guardian_rose

TeaDidikai

guardian_rose

Mongolia and China boarder each other. Yet, they are two different societies.

And yet the Gael, who shared a common social structure, had organized boundaries and land rights under title- to say nothing of a common language and an overarching polticical structure couldn't possibly be considered a nation and thus can't be considered a society.

In short, I find your analogy flawed and your habit of randomly making up the meanings of words to be unappealing at best, insultingly racist at worst.

Nice definition. Too bad the definition given doesn't support what you are saying.

You saying it is so doesn't make it so.

And you saying it does? That doesn't hold water. Try again.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Almost all the definitions given talk about cooperation.

Quote:

Archeological evidence does not support this completely. The Celts were known to war amongst themselves.

You're presenting your limited (and demonstrateably flawed) understanding of historical societies as being objective fact as to their nature.

Who cares if they warred amongst themselves. So did the groups you listed as a society.

That said:

Merriam Webster, Definition 3b, for Society in the link provided above

a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

Now, I bolded the part, just so you can't say you didn't see it.

Merriam Webster, Definition for Nation

3 : a tribe or federation of tribes

The name of Tribe here being socially expressed amongst the Gael as either Clann or Muintir, depending on if you're examining the regional culture or the overarching National culture of the Gael.

I'm beginning to think this is merely intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Not more so than yourself.

Quote:

Quote:

Actually, the reason we have Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic is because Englishmen don't serve the courtesy of honoring cultural distinctions and thus they have misapplied the title of Gaelic to factions it shouldn't have been used to address.

P-Celts aren't Q-Celts, that's true enough, but stop misusing terms that in and of themselves are inaccurate to justify your position.

How so? Where did you find this?

TeaDidikai

The suffix ic is from the French -ique, it came into usage and is applied as an Anglicization to the Scottish and Irish titles that were best described by their own endonyms.

This form of Racism, of privilege in assigning an exonym to a people under the pressure of the majority is a core element in understanding racism. We are taught in the US about the exonyms such as the word used to address those who are descended from African Slaves. We likely know the slurs used to address our own ethnic heritage. Often we are ignorant of the difference between what the dominate culture calls a minority and what they call themselves and the struggles those people face. Most people don't know about how a word that has been absorbed into common culture could affect someone who is part of the disenfranchised minority.

Nuri is right. We need a discussion on privilege.

This is all well and good. What are your sources? You are not very good at this, Tea.

As for racism here is what Webster has to say:
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist -sist also -shist noun or adjective

Looks like you are full of fluff, Tea. Dare you to cite sources to prove otherwise.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

According to National Geographic, it is a village led by a chieftain. A closed community. Its a fishing village.

So according to your article, your own citation would not meet the standards required to confer the title?

Okay. Case closed.

Case closed indeed.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

What does this have to do with anything? Is he an expert? Irish? Living in the British Isles or Ireland?

Yes.

Quote:

Still, it will just end in arguments until someone posts references.

Actually, my suspicion is that it will end in a contrast of Facts and Fluff.

No, really? Ya think? So far it seems that without support of what you claim, that you are full of fluff.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Because we are not finding common ground here.

A lack of agreement grants you carte blanche permission to further indulge your raciest behavior?

Your misuse of the term of racism is just ignorant. You fail.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Neither of us has given ANY evidence to support what we are saying, and until one of us does, this is just an argument that is beginning to get out of control.

So, a simple "You're engaging in racist behavior, cut it out." Isn't enough of a reason for you to respect another's culture and stop using an insulting term? So, on top of all the other s**t, you're an Oathbreaker too?

Oathbreaker now, am I? So I must be onto something if you are stooping to name calling. As for being an oath breaker, who did I swear an oath to? You? Don't think so. Your ignorance is very insulting. You should shut up now.
Or is that racist of me too?

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Please. By all means. Provide proof.

Aside from the fact that as it has already been pointed out, you are the one under the burden of proof, I shall.

So, the passage in question was stated thus:

guardian_rose

To the Church's own admittance, the peoples of Ireland were very resistant to the church's efforts. Some could argue that the inclusion of some of the Celtic pantheon is a way in which the old tradition survives today.

This is a statement of reasoning, or an outright lie, depending on the intention. It relies on people assuming that resiting conversion is evidence that the gods of the Gael were mixed in with Catholic Saints.

Why is this a false argument? Because it rests on a lack of commentary to jump to that conclusion, your personal mental masturbation unsupported opinion, and any of a number of other fallacious justifications.

If I said "Hey, I really don't want to go to Deo's Birthday Party" and a year later Nuri says "Tea said she didn't want to go to Deo's Party. She bought the cake!" it makes as much sense as your statement "The Irish Resisted Conversion. Saint Brigit is a goddess of the Gael!".

Oh, this was no jump to conclusion. The Brigid the goddess and Brigid the Saint were mixed. Want a source? Go watch the documentary "Pillars of Faith" produced by kulture video. They have some very interesting testimonies on the fact that the feats that Brigid the goddess did, was in fact confused and mixed with the feats of St. Brigid.
Was I completely wrong? No. Was I a little wrong? Yes. I was wrong in stating that they granted sainthood to the goddess.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Second, there are some saint's days that are celebrated almost identically to their gaelic counterparts.

There you go again with that whole "I don't care what the Gael have to say about it, I think I will force my Anglicization upon them" thing.
Prove that these Saints weren't Saints.

TeaDidikai

I noticed you completely failed to address this statement. I'll wait for that proof.

Yes. You will get your proof. The question is if you will have the honor to admit when you are wrong. Something tells me though, that with your incessant need to always be right, you will never admit to as much.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

I am working on that. Are you working on proving I am wrong, or shall this continue to be he said she said?

The problem with your position is that the Burden of Proof is on you.

The problem I am having arguing with you is that you're relying on your privilege to indulge racist attitudes, and using more logical fallacies than I can shake a stick at.

You know what? you are right. It is my burden to prove MY position. What have you done for yours? Nothing. And look! There it is again! The racist card! Can you not defend your point any better?

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Where did you find this at? I have never heard of a warrior being called a druid.

A lack of evidence does not demonstrate evidence of the lack.
Cu already named one.

And if Cu's source proves true, I can admit I was wrong. I have yet to see that, however, so only time will tell.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Quote:

3) That the Gael do not count "with their varying beliefs [as] a society."

Man has warred over his beliefs from the time he learned to walk upright.

None of this proves that the Gael are not a society. Care to try again or are you willing to concede that the definitions of the words Society and Nation as cited above demonstrate that you misused the term.

It doesn't matter if clusters within these different groups had different beliefs. The United States is no less a nation for the fact that Nuri and Deo live here with the same rights of Citizenship as Fred Phelps.

The Celts were not one nation. They were many tribes, and only Ireland had a high king. Native Americans had various tribes, doesn't mean they were all part of the same nation.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

St. Brigit. In the Celtic Pantheon, Brigid. If I recall correctly, she was a goddess of healing and fertility.

You'll need to demonstrate that the Vita Sanctae Brigidae is a fraud. We'll wait.

See the documentary "Pillars of Faith". St. Brigid was not a fraud. The goddess' were merely confused and attributed to her.

Quote:

Waiting for proof still?

You honestly thought for an instant that you simply saying that a historical figure from whom we have documentation as an individual and their relics would be taken as proof?
Oh, sure. We all know that the church would EVER lie. No way. Thats just totally unheard of.

In the case of St. Brigid, yes she was real. Not everything was credited with was.

TeaDidikai

Do you not know what the word means?

I am starting to think better than you do.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Keep an open mind.

I am. I'm also not keeping myself so open that I'll indulge fluff.

I am sure you meant more fluff. You are forgiven.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Sure, its speculative.

This isn't speculative, it's fabrication.

Again with lack of proof.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

The question posted wasn't an "Isn't it 100% fact".

The initial question? It was seeking accurate information. Not unfounded personal opinion to replace fact.

Oh good. Just making sure. Now that we both agree, perhaps its time we both prove ourselves, yes? I'll wait.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

There really isn't a whole lot that ties the various tribes together, other than pantheons and similarities in dialect.

So, you're ignoring the common language, the social structure, the governmental system, the land boundaries... In other words, you're presenting your personal unsupported opinion as fact again.

You know there's a term for this right? Appeal to Authority. Or liar. Depends on the context I suppose.

Similarities in the language. Not the same. The term Gaelic term comes from the Greeks and the Romans. It means people of Gaul. It also refers to a group of languages grouped together by the Romans and Greeks. Go ahead and see "The Philosopher and the Druids" by Philip Freeman. Ergo, I am not a lair. You are just ignorant of fact.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Quote:

8 ) That being a Druid "was a lifestyle and a title".

We'll come back to this with the whole more proof thing.

I'll wait.

Good. See "The Philosopher and the Druids". It mentions it.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Quote:

9) That "[T]he Tain,... shows splits in the society: warriors and druids".

I am assuming that you have read The Tain, yes? There are many examples of splits in social structure. Actual quotes to come as soon as I can locate my book of Celtic mythologies.

Cu addressed this, but even still, a split doesn't denote a lifestyle over a title. I'll wait for you to prove that there was a "typical way of life" for the Druids of the Gael that marked them as a distinct culture unto themselves, rather than a title within a culture.

Not according to "Pillars of Faith". I am still on the lookout through the other books I checked out today. I recommend you start finding some counter proof.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Did I ever say it was a complete, 100% honest reference? We use what we have. Sure, there are parts of the Roman writings that are obviously questionable.

So, you knowingly perpetuated false information in order to make your case.

No, I perpetuate fact. You have yet to cite a source more legitimate. Head over to nationalgeographic.com. They have an interesting article about some physical evidence that proves what the Romans were writing was a bit more than propaganda.

TeaDidikai

Do you have any ethics at all Oathbreaker?

More than you do apparently.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Can he prove or disprove something you can't?

Often. And the other way around.

At least Cu has given some sources. You have given nothing but argument.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

While we wait, I have a question for you Tea. You mentioned somewhere that you attended Evergreen State College, yes? The one in Puget Sound? If so, I can give you the location of the mythical National Geographic video, assuming that the Timberland Regional Library hasn't phased it out. It is a VHS, after all.
Before you ask, no. I can't go there myself. I live in interior Alaska now, and thats a bit out of my way to get the vid title. My local library doesn't have the greatest resources at its disposal.

Shoot.

Next time you are at the library, search for ancient celts on the card catalogue. The VHS tape was in the vid collection in Shelton.

TeaDidikai

Quote:

One last thing. How can I rape a culture, that, by Tea's definitions, is dead? The worst you could accuse me of, is grave digging.

Do not lie. I never claimed nor supported anything by definition, that said the culture of the Gael was dead.

I challenge you to post where I did, or correct yourself.

I will double check and add an edit. If I am wrong, I will admit as much.  

[Deoridhe]

guardian_rose

As for racism here is what Webster has to say:
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist -sist also -shist noun or adjective

Looks like you are full of fluff, Tea. Dare you to cite sources to prove otherwise.

neutral You DO realize that a dictionary reflects word usage and is not without bias, right? And that the study of racism is a whole lot more than a dictionary excerpt with only two (gods, just two; I mean, were you using the abridged?) usages?

Also, I see your online-version-of=Merriam Websters and raise you an online version of Oxford English Dictionary. xd

racism

• noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

This is fun.  

[guardian_rose]

Deoridhe

guardian_rose

As for racism here is what Webster has to say:
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist -sist also -shist noun or adjective

Looks like you are full of fluff, Tea. Dare you to cite sources to prove otherwise.

neutral You DO realize that a dictionary reflects word usage and is not without bias, right? And that the study of racism is a whole lot more than a dictionary excerpt with only two (gods, just two; I mean, were you using the abridged?) usages?

Also, I see your online-version-of=Merriam Websters and raise you an online version of Oxford English Dictionary. xd

racism

• noun 1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

This is fun.

I went with Websters because of the preference Tea usually places on it.
Normally I just go with dictionary.com.

Either way, none of the four are supporting Tea's use of the word racism.  

[rmcdra]

Okay here is my stupid question. Why is it I seem to get along better with pagans than I do with members of my own faith? I mean seriously, most Christians, save a few, just piss me off and I want to have nothing to do with them and their view of how I need to be "truly saved".  

[guardian_rose]

rmcdra

Okay here is my stupid question. Why is it I seem to get along better with pagans than I do with members of my own faith? I mean seriously, most Christians, save a few, just piss me off and I want to have nothing to do with them and their view of how I need to be "truly saved".

Most Pagans I know are open minded. I would think that most are.
As for the Christians, its something about the the doctrine of their faith. Where I live, the Baptists attempt to recruit by antagonizing the population.  

[rmcdra]

guardian_rose

rmcdra

Okay here is my stupid question. Why is it I seem to get along better with pagans than I do with members of my own faith? I mean seriously, most Christians, save a few, just piss me off and I want to have nothing to do with them and their view of how I need to be "truly saved".

Most Pagans I know are open minded. I would think that most are.
As for the Christians, its something about the the doctrine of their faith. Where I live, the Baptists attempt to recruit by antagonizing the population.

Where I used to live it was that way. Where I'm living now, it's not too bad. It's mostly the Christians on Gaia and where I used to live that tick me off, especially those that wanted to incorporate some of their religious laws into secular laws and bug the hell out off my irreligious friends. Also how "un-Christian" I am because I will use curse words, questioning teachings, and I don't promote abstinence.

Edit: Seriously I had someone on Gaia b***h me out because I used the word "bullshit" to describe a false remark someone made and I use Christian to describe myself.  

[maenad nuri]

rmcdra

Okay here is my stupid question. Why is it I seem to get along better with pagans than I do with members of my own faith? I mean seriously, most Christians, save a few, just piss me off and I want to have nothing to do with them and their view of how I need to be "truly saved".

Funny, I tend to get along with committed Christians better than with most pagans.  

[rmcdra]

maenad nuri

rmcdra

Okay here is my stupid question. Why is it I seem to get along better with pagans than I do with members of my own faith? I mean seriously, most Christians, save a few, just piss me off and I want to have nothing to do with them and their view of how I need to be "truly saved".

Funny, I tend to get along with committed Christians better than with most pagans.

Well I guess that's what it is. They actually understand what their religion is about, though I may not agree on some points. I guess it's more of that I get along with people that actually understand their religion and I just have happened to meet more people that do within the Pagan community. Though I guess I really haven't met to many "fluffies" so that might be skewing my opinion too.

Okay it looks like my stupid question has been answered.  

[TeaDidikai]

guardian_rose

And you saying it does? That doesn't hold water. Try again.

I've done considerably more to provide any form of citation than you have.
That being said, you're the one who is under the Burden of Proof.

Why do you repeatedly fail to live up to it?

Quote:

TeaDidikai

Quote:

Almost all the definitions given talk about cooperation.

Quote:

Archeological evidence does not support this completely. The Celts were known to war amongst themselves.

You're presenting your limited (and demonstrateably flawed) understanding of historical societies as being objective fact as to their nature.

Who cares if they warred amongst themselves. So did the groups you listed as a society.

That said:

Merriam Webster, Definition 3b, for Society in the link provided above

a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

Now, I bolded the part, just so you can't say you didn't see it.

Merriam Webster, Definition for Nation

3 : a tribe or federation of tribes

The name of Tribe here being socially expressed amongst the Gael as either Clann or Muintir, depending on if you're examining the regional culture or the overarching National culture of the Gael.

I'm beginning to think this is merely intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Not more so than yourself.

Really? I mean... really?! You're only response to me showing that you are wrong is "I know you are but what am I!"

Address the point: the presence of concepts such as the Muintir and Clann and how they applied to the Gael demonstrate that your claim is wrong.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Actually, the reason we have Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic is because Englishmen don't serve the courtesy of honoring cultural distinctions and thus they have misapplied the title of Gaelic to factions it shouldn't have been used to address.

P-Celts aren't Q-Celts, that's true enough, but stop misusing terms that in and of themselves are inaccurate to justify your position.

How so? Where did you find this?

TeaDidikai

The suffix ic is from the French -ique, it came into usage and is applied as an Anglicization to the Scottish and Irish titles that were best described by their own endonyms.

This form of Racism, of privilege in assigning an exonym to a people under the pressure of the majority is a core element in understanding racism. We are taught in the US about the exonyms such as the word used to address those who are descended from African Slaves. We likely know the slurs used to address our own ethnic heritage. Often we are ignorant of the difference between what the dominate culture calls a minority and what they call themselves and the struggles those people face. Most people don't know about how a word that has been absorbed into common culture could affect someone who is part of the disenfranchised minority.

Nuri is right. We need a discussion on privilege.

This is all well and good. What are your sources? You are not very good at this, Tea.

My source as to show that this is a form of racial privilege is Cu's request that people stop doing it and your persistence.

If you really need me to source the root of the suffix -ic, I can.

Quote:

As for racism here is what Webster has to say:
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist -sist also -shist noun or adjective

Looks like you are full of fluff, Tea. Dare you to cite sources to prove otherwise.

This is a scholastic understanding of Racism. Not an appeal to popularity.

That being said, you're relying on the fact that you, as a person of privilege, have the right to enforce your terms based on your superiority as a member of the dominate culture.

The only proof needed is your previous posts and a basic understanding of Racism beyond that of White v. Black in American History- which is sadly nearly the sum total of the explanation given in rudimentary education.

Quote:

Case closed indeed.

Spiff. You conceded. Now, if you had the honesty to do this several pages ago...

Quote:

No, really? Ya think? So far it seems that without support of what you claim, that you are full of fluff.

Actually, I have supported my position, and done a far better job of it considering I was not the person under the burden of proof.

Quote:

Your misuse of the term of racism is just ignorant. You fail.

As Nuri, Deo and others have pointed out, it's educated. That's why you're having the problems you are letting go of your racism towards the Gael.

Quote:

Oathbreaker now, am I?

Yep. We have demonstrated that you are engaging in behavior that you swore not to do.

Quote:

So I must be onto something if you are stooping to name calling.

Nope. Just citing facts. You gave your word you would not to, and I quote, "send, post, or make available pornographic, threatening, embarrassing, hateful, racially or ethnically insulting, deceptive, tortious, defamatory, libelous, or otherwise inappropriate or offensive content to other Gaia Members;".

You were told that your predilection for using an Anglicized bastardization of an endonym was inappropriate. Heck, you even agreed that it was. You continued to do it though.

Quote:

As for being an oath breaker, who did I swear an oath to? You? Don't think so.

Of course not. You made the oath to Gaia. Perhaps you should stop trying to completely misrepresent the argument in order to attack something that isn't being stated.

Quote:

Your ignorance is very insulting. You should shut up now.

Cosmic Irony FTW.

Quote:

Oh, this was no jump to conclusion. The Brigid the goddess and Brigid the Saint were mixed. Want a source? Go watch the documentary "Pillars of Faith" produced by kulture video. They have some very interesting testimonies on the fact that the feats that Brigid the goddess did, was in fact confused and mixed with the feats of St. Brigid.
Was I completely wrong? No. Was I a little wrong? Yes. I was wrong in stating that they granted sainthood to the goddess.

Actually, you are completely wrong. That said "Go check X" isn't the same as proving that the document that illustrates the foundation of Saint Brigid was false.
And here you go with your racism once again. You can't even do the Gael the service of not projecting your flawed cultural understanding onto the name of a deity?

Cu already gave you the correct spelling.

Quote:

Yes. You will get your proof. The question is if you will have the honor to admit when you are wrong. Something tells me though, that with your incessant need to always be right, you will never admit to as much.

You sincerely just questioned my honor Oathbreaker? rofl

That said, I have admitted I was wrong when the situation has come up in the past. It just doesn't happen that often because I don't open my mouth thoughtlessly.

Quote:

You know what? you are right. It is my burden to prove MY position. What have you done for yours? Nothing. And look! There it is again! The racist card! Can you not defend your point any better?

Oathbreaker_Guardian_Rose, you don't seem to be understanding the basic principles of logical debate. I'm not under the burden of proof. I'm not the one making the initial extraordinary claim.

As for my argument, I have cited source texts, as has Cu, that demonstrate that the bulk of your position is wrong. We have given you names and historical doctuments. You've made claims that are not supported by the works you cite.

Quote:

And if Cu's source proves true, I can admit I was wrong. I have yet to see that, however, so only time will tell.

And for which we are digging up others as well.

Quote:

The Celts were not one nation.

You're Straw Manning again. I never said they were. The challenge you issued was directly leveled at the Gael. That, or you aren't able to competently read or are indulging another Straw Man.
Not that it really matters, since that you never stipulated that it was one nation, but simply that the Celts did not count as societies.

Quote:

Native Americans had various tribes, doesn't mean they were all part of the same nation.

Of course not. That said, there are nations amongst the different groups.

Quote:

See the documentary "Pillars of Faith". St. Brigid was not a fraud. The goddess' were merely confused and attributed to her.

Nope. You get to prove it. I'm not doing your homework for you.

Illustrate which claims you are attributing to the goddess that are attributed to the Saint in any official capacity.

Quote:

Oh, sure. We all know that the church would EVER lie. No way. Thats just totally unheard of.

So, you're anti-Christian bias is supposed to be proof.

I say again Oathbreaker_Guardian_Rose, your word is clearly not good enough if you yourself won't hold to it. I see no reason to assume that the Church has lied in relation to the relics and documentation of Saint Brigid's life.

Quote:

Not everything was credited with was.

Credited by whom? And prove that the conical account is false.

Quote:

I am starting to think better than you do.

And yet, I am able to demonstrate which fallacies you are committing.

Quote:

I am sure you meant more fluff.

Fluff alone Oathbreaker_Guardian_Rose.

Quote:

Again with lack of proof.

Shifting the Burden of Proof is a logical fallacy. I know this isn't ED, but you could at least try and not making the fallacious reasoning so obvious.

Quote:

Oh good. Just making sure. Now that we both agree, perhaps its time we both prove ourselves, yes? I'll wait.

See above. As Nuri has pointed out, you're under the Burden of Proof, not I.

Quote:

Similarities in the language. Not the same.

Actually, the language is the same amongst the Gael. They have dialects, but that doesn't make it any less the same language.

Quote:

The term Gaelic term comes from the Greeks and the Romans.

Actually, it didn't.
The endonym base (Gàidhlig and Gàidheal for the Scots and Irish respectively) was added to by the Anglo-Saxons using a suffix that had been introduced into common usage by the French.

Any dictionary will cite it's date of origin from around the eighteenth century.

Quote:

It means people of Gaul.

Did you seriously just confuse the Gael with the Gaul?

Quote:

It also refers to a group of languages grouped together by the Romans and Greeks. Go ahead and see "The Philosopher and the Druids" by Philip Freeman. Ergo, I am not a lair. You are just ignorant of fact.

The Romans and the Greeks were inventing French suffixes and applying them to endonyms in the seventeen hundreds? Cool!

That said, we have clearly demonstrated by your continual use of the term that you are indulging privilege at the expense of the Gael.

Quote:

Good. See "The Philosopher and the Druids". It mentions it.

Unfortunately having any understanding of the book clearly demonstrates it to be an unreliable source.

For a start, Posidonius was less an actual philosopher, and more a propaganda minister, not seeking to represent cultures accurately and honestly, but instead attempting to sell them as potential conquests for Rome.

Second, we have to get to the facts- Posidonius original work didn't survive very well. All we have is a collection of quotations present in other's works. Freeman hodgpodged a few of these quotations together and filled in the rest with unsupported personal opinion.

The book didn't pass peer review- heck, even Peter Berresford Ellis noted the flaws in the presentation, especially when it came to the eisegesis of Freeman- and that's not even an academic peer review- that's just the difference between romantic revisionism and armchair history.

Quote:

Not according to "Pillars of Faith". I am still on the lookout through the other books I checked out today. I recommend you start finding some counter proof.

Burden of Proof is on you. I'll see your Pillar's of Faith and raise you a primary text: Vita Sanctae Brigidae.

Quote:

No, I perpetuate fact.

Make up your mind. You just said it wasn't an accurate reference.

Quote:

You have yet to cite a source more legitimate.

More Fallacious Bullshit.

Quote:

Head over to nationalgeographic.com. They have an interesting article about some physical evidence that proves what the Romans were writing was a bit more than propaganda.

You can't even bother to cite the article?

Quote:

More than you do apparently.

I'm not the one who's breaking the ToS to indulge my racism.

Quote:

You have given nothing but argument.

Apparently you can't read. I have listed the historical doctuments you need to demonstrate are false. You're the one under the Burden of Proof.

Quote:

Next time you are at the library, search for ancient celts on the card catalogue. The VHS tape was in the vid collection in Shelton.

It's not there under that title. Not only that, but the Resource Desk wasn't able to find any such title at all, not even in their list of Discontinued Resources (aka, the items they got rid of)

It makes me wonder.

Quote:

I will double check and add an edit. If I am wrong, I will admit as much.

I note you haven't done so.

Stop using the Anglicized form of Gael. It's offensive and ethnically insulting.  

[TeaDidikai]

rmcdra

Why is it I seem to get along better with pagans than I do with members of my own faith? I mean seriously, most Christians, save a few, just piss me off and I want to have nothing to do with them and their view of how I need to be "truly saved".

My suspicion is that it might also stem from a lack of Love. You're allowing your personal frustrations with where they are at in their development to be a source of contention.

At least, that's what some of the posts I have seen in the last few days suggest.  

[Recursive Paradox]

maenad nuri

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.

I swear, when I make it, the title is going to be "There's an elephant in the room! And it has an invisible knapsack!"

You know what's fun? Feeling like a complete idiot after having experienced the removal of a given privilege when you didn't believe in it before that removal. Yay gender?

sweatdrop  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

Why is it I seem to get along better with pagans than I do with members of my own faith? I mean seriously, most Christians, save a few, just piss me off and I want to have nothing to do with them and their view of how I need to be "truly saved".

My suspicion is that it might also stem from a lack of Love. You're allowing your personal frustrations with where they are at in their development to be a source of contention.

At least, that's what some of the posts I have seen in the last few days suggest.

Yeah it does bug me. Why I let it bother me I'm really not sure. I mean they aren't my students and I'm not looking to take in students. Hell even though I've been told I could be a guide I know I can't guide because I do anger easily. I guess that's one thing I'm still trying to reconcile in my personal development is dealing with anger without taking it out on others.  

[TeaDidikai]

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

Why is it I seem to get along better with pagans than I do with members of my own faith? I mean seriously, most Christians, save a few, just piss me off and I want to have nothing to do with them and their view of how I need to be "truly saved".

My suspicion is that it might also stem from a lack of Love. You're allowing your personal frustrations with where they are at in their development to be a source of contention.

At least, that's what some of the posts I have seen in the last few days suggest.

Yeah it does bug me. Why I let it bother me I'm really not sure. I mean they aren't my students and I'm not looking to take in students. Hell even though I've been told I could be a guide I know I can't guide because I do anger easily. I guess that's one thing I'm still trying to reconcile in my personal development is dealing with anger without taking it out on others.

Might take a bit of time to remove that piece of wood from your eye. It's a tricky process when you can't see. wink  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

Why is it I seem to get along better with pagans than I do with members of my own faith? I mean seriously, most Christians, save a few, just piss me off and I want to have nothing to do with them and their view of how I need to be "truly saved".

My suspicion is that it might also stem from a lack of Love. You're allowing your personal frustrations with where they are at in their development to be a source of contention.

At least, that's what some of the posts I have seen in the last few days suggest.

Yeah it does bug me. Why I let it bother me I'm really not sure. I mean they aren't my students and I'm not looking to take in students. Hell even though I've been told I could be a guide I know I can't guide because I do anger easily. I guess that's one thing I'm still trying to reconcile in my personal development is dealing with anger without taking it out on others.

Might take a bit of time to remove that piece of wood from your eye. It's a tricky process when you can't see. wink

razz Yeah yeah.

Am I giving some vibe that this one is going to be a long process for me if you don't mind me asking?