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

[TeaDidikai]

rmcdra

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?

The vibe I am getting is that you've trained yourself with a certain amount of... "righteousness".

I doubt you'll have any trouble breaking the painfully obvious habits when you apply yourself. It's the subtle ones I think you'll have trouble with.  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

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?

The vibe I am getting is that you've trained yourself with a certain amount of... "righteousness".

I doubt you'll have any trouble breaking the painfully obvious habits when you apply yourself. It's the subtle ones I think you'll have trouble with.

I am now regretting spilling out my heart to you in that pm about a year ago stare .  

[TeaDidikai]

rmcdra

I am now regretting spilling out my heart to you in that pm about a year ago stare .

Can't say I recall it. I kinda get a lot of those and after some point, they sorta run together when I don't have a face and a voice to match up with the words.

I guess if you regret it, that is up to you.
I'll admit I'm surprised by the reaction, but it's your path, not mine, as you have pointed out.  

[rmcdra]

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

I am now regretting spilling out my heart to you in that pm about a year ago stare .

Can't say I recall it. I kinda get a lot of those and after some point, they sorta run together when I don't have a face and a voice to match up with the words.

I guess if you regret it, that is up to you.
I'll admit I'm surprised by the reaction, but it's your path, not mine, as you have pointed out.

Oh I guess I'm just kinda acting pouty on purpose. Dramatic play and all that. I should have made it more obvious.

I do appreciate you pointing out some things for me. Thank you.  

[TeaDidikai]

rmcdra

TeaDidikai

rmcdra

I am now regretting spilling out my heart to you in that pm about a year ago stare .

Can't say I recall it. I kinda get a lot of those and after some point, they sorta run together when I don't have a face and a voice to match up with the words.

I guess if you regret it, that is up to you.
I'll admit I'm surprised by the reaction, but it's your path, not mine, as you have pointed out.

Oh I guess I'm just kinda acting pouty on purpose. Dramatic play and all that. I should have made it more obvious.

I do appreciate you pointing out some things for me. Thank you.

Welcome.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Good good, lemme see if I can salvage things or if the statement is not viable.

TeaDidikai

Recursive Paradox

"Deities are immortal or long lived beings

We have no sources as to the age of Balder before his death, or the age of any number of other deities before their recorded deaths within their mythology.

Is there any record of any deity dying of old age? Hmmm, but then again a lack of material on that wouldn't be justification for a claim that deities don't age.

Alright, this section is broken. I'll drop it from the statement.

Quote:

Quote:

who possess immense levels of power

This is an argument from silence. We have no accounts of the unit that said power would be measured by, nor any recording of how much power an individual deity would wield since some myths don't mention the different gods actions independent of their interaction with each other.

I can't think of a way to salvage that statement, so I'll drop it. Let's see if I can find a better way to articulate powerful. Let's try this:

"Who possess abilities considered supernatural in nature"

Quote:

Quote:

and knowledge

Immense knowledge has a similar conflict. What is a gods IQ?

Same as above. Dropping and restructuring:

"Who possess knowledge sources that are supernatural in nature" (although to be honest, even that one is iffy with the whole Oracles/Seers kind of stuff floating through several paths)

Quote:

Quote:

and are, by definition, worshiped by other beings of lesser power."

What about deities who are no longer worshiped?
Does that make them not gods?

I would assume so, if the definition includes worship as a necessary characteristic. I suppose one could make a stipulation to "previously worshiped" as a way to make classification more effective and inclusive.

Quote:

When the next sand storm uncovers a small temple in the middle of a dessert somewhere dedicated to a deity we can't remember, are they unworthy of the title for simply not having any worshipers?
Strikes me as a bit arrogant really.

Well, that assumes that the title is an honorific instead of a classification (making unworthiness the reason the classification is not given). So I suppose this begs the question, "are the words deity/god/goddess honorific titles for beings or classification titles for beings?"

Sort of like the difference between the titles Lord or Lady and the species name Drosophila melanogaster.

Thank you for the help by the way. I want to make sure I'm not publishing fallacious bullshit in Etherism and it's always good to have some logic saavy friends tear things apart to check it over.  

[guardian_rose]

Tea. You wanna talk rough, lets talk. I am not going to quote every word of bull s**t you responded to on our continuing debate. I will give you proof. You have no patience.

You claim to have done research. Great. Good for you. You should have no problem countering my counter arguments.

As for the argument on racism, you still don't get it. I have shown no racism. No amount of cronies on your part can change that.

You have failed to show any logical proof to counter what I have said.
Am I under a burden of truth? So be it. research takes time. An educated person knows this.

Education is not really something you have shown on this topic.
At least when it comes to my proof, I have given you a couple references to start with. You are choosing to ignore them. Fine.

As for being an oath breaker, you calling me one does not make it so. It just makes you look a bit petty.

I suggest that you provide ONE source proving I have provided misinformation. Legitimate source. However, I know challenging you on this point won't do any good. You will just call me an oath breaker again and dodge showing any integrity.

That said, try to give an actual response instead of flaming like a troll.  

[Recursive Paradox]

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.

http://www.euroamerican.org/library/Racismdf.asp

If you really want to discuss racism from a sociological perspective then you ought to use sociological sources.

Especially since the way one handles racial privilege is one of the primary components of racism. If for instance, you exert your privilege as though it made you entitled to more than you already receive or to justify the advantages you're already given then you are racist (or sexist, or transphobic, or homophobic, or insert relevant *ism here.)

That is what you did. You have the privilege of not being exposed to the ignorant slander of your own culture and ignored blatantly the offensiveness of your ignorant slander of another culture, to the point where you called a member of the culture you were slandering an a** for being upset with you.

Even if the level of sources offered by Cu weren't good enough to consider yourself wrong on this, you still were extraordinarily insensitive about making claims about a culture as an outsider based on a National Geographic video. It was very poor expression of your racial privilege and even if you had been right about your claims, you still would have been racist in how you presented them.

This doesn't make you a horrible person, provided you analyze your actions, realize where you overstepped the boundaries of decency and work on not exhibiting racism again.  

[Recursive Paradox]

guardian_rose

No amount of cronies on your part can change that.

*snort*

That's got to be the most stupid thing I've heard come out of someone's mouth in this guild in a few months now.  

[guardian_rose]

Its interesting. But she provides no sources other than his own book. Others have used it, I see.

Where did he get his ideas? Are they his own? If so, where is his proof? Her empirical evidence?

Even googling his name only brings the same article back.

And when you post something like this, yeah. You look like a cronie.

As far as Cu's resources, I haven't called bullshit on him only because I am still trying to track down copies of both those books. Yeah, I could order them on amazon, I'm just not made of money right now and would prefer to try to get it through library access first.

*Edited to fix an error of gender identification.
**Edited AGAIN because I missed something. sweatdrop  

[TeaDidikai]

Recursive Paradox

"Who possess abilities considered supernatural in nature"

What about gods that aren't considered supernatural, but natural? How is Supernatural defined and why would such a definition apply to other established traditions?

Quote:

"Who possess knowledge sources that are supernatural in nature" (although to be honest, even that one is iffy with the whole Oracles/Seers kind of stuff floating through several paths)

And it has the same problem with the concept of "supernatural".

Quote:

I would assume so, if the definition includes worship as a necessary characteristic. I suppose one could make a stipulation to "previously worshiped" as a way to make classification more effective and inclusive.

And the major problem I have with this is that it requires people to conform for an established concept of worship, and it disqualifies any beings that could carry the same essence as deities such as YHVH and Odin, but have not maintained the same kind of relationships with humanity. I'm not sure humans are the ones who are in a position to tell a divine being that it isn't a god, unless we are reworking the complete concept of god to be limited to only the purview of human interaction.

Quote:

Well, that assumes that the title is an honorific instead of a classification (making unworthiness the reason the classification is not given). So I suppose this begs the question, "are the words deity/god/goddess honorific titles for beings or classification titles for beings?"

Sort of like the difference between the titles Lord or Lady and the species name Drosophila melanogaster.

If it is an honorific, why is it being used across contextual bounds? Why would we call the Olympians Greek Gods, when we could be using the honorific of Theos?

What do you do with a term that is applied by one group because they like the deities in question, but is denied to another group because they don't? (We only need to look at the discussion amongst Asatru to see how that kind of revisionism can play out)

Quote:

Thank you for the help by the way. I want to make sure I'm not publishing fallacious bullshit in Etherism and it's always good to have some logic saavy friends tear things apart to check it over.

Welcome.  

[Nattfodd]

guardian_rose

You claim to have done research. Great. Good for you. You should have no problem countering my counter arguments.

I don't know what you're reading, my good man, but I see little to no actual argument or counter argument to be had. Perhaps you should scholastically create an argument, if you wish to consider this argument in such a serious light.

A note -- your VHS tapes probably aren't going to provide much evidence for your cause. I would suggest papers with scholastic sources and not National Geographic writers/actors using (for the most part) appeals to authority.

Quote:

You have failed to show any logical proof to counter what I have said.
Am I under a burden of truth? So be it. research takes time. An educated person knows this.

You don't have to post until you get the proof. You are not under a time limit. Angsty replies like this are not necessary.

Quote:

As for being an oath breaker, you calling me one does not make it so. It just makes you look a bit petty.

Given that you agreed to Gaia's ToS, you are under their oath. If the logical conclusion is that you are posting racist material (which I won't comment on,) you are indeed an oathbreaker as defined by various cultures.

Quote:

That said, try to give an actual response instead of flaming like a troll.

Disagreement does not make one a troll. Debate, even, as "hairy" as this one is, is still relatively civilized. If you'd like to make an example, I'd suggest you refrain from pettiness yourself -- this includes name calling.

Quote:

No amount of cronies on your part can change that.

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard recently, aside from Vox_Draconis claiming in the Vampire Lifestyle Support Thread that CuAnnan had cronies, and that her friend keeps a list of them! rofl

There is a difference between a crony, having respect for a person, and agreeing with a person. I'd venture that most here agreeing with the statement are in the third category.

Please, for the sake of everyone reading, stop making immature jumps in logic here, only because multiple people are coming down on you with the same idea. Unless, of course, this is the internet ritual of Invoking the Ban-hammer.  

[guardian_rose]

Nattfodd, perhaps you are right. Perhaps I have let some of this go too far.
By this I mean the name calling.

As far as bans, go, I have never once been banned from anything on the internet.

What I will say, is that I will still defend everything I have said, sans the name calling. I will say that this forum is misusing the term of racism, and I will defend my point of view at all costs. Even if means my first ban.
People have labeled me many things in my life, but a liar and a racist aren't among them, because they are flat out not true.

Not even a doctor of sociology, reguardless of race, can make up a new definition for racism.

*edited for one more point.
At least you have cleared up for me why Tea has assumed I am an oath breaker.  

[TeaDidikai]

guardian_rose

I will give you proof.

I strongly doubt that.

Quote:

You claim to have done research. Great. Good for you. You should have no problem countering my counter arguments.

Except, you're under the burden of proof. I don't have to produce proof to counter mental masturbation.

Quote:

As for the argument on racism, you still don't get it. I have shown no racism. No amount of cronies on your part can change that.

As Poe has pointed out, you have. You have been informed, and even agreed, that your conduct was inappropriate. You then continued to do it.

Quote:

You have failed to show any logical proof to counter what I have said.

I don't think you know what logic is. Logic is a formal style of reasoning. One of the key components is avoiding established fallacies- like shifting the burden of proof.

Quote:

Education is not really something you have shown on this topic.
At least when it comes to my proof, I have given you a couple references to start with. You are choosing to ignore them. Fine.

I'm pointing out that the sources you have cited not only do not say what you claim they do (as Cu has also pointed out) but that said sources are not of any scholarly merit, and are not supported by the source texts for the traditions you claim to be commenting on.

Quote:

As for being an oath breaker, you calling me one does not make it so. It just makes you look a bit petty.

Actually, your actions make you one. I'm merely pointing out that you're doing it and trying to justify it.

Quote:

I suggest that you provide ONE source proving I have provided misinformation.

I did.
Let's recap shall we.
You have provided vague references to four sources.

The Táin, which according to the people who have read it in Irish, it does not support your claims.

Ancient Celts, a VHS by National Geographic, which the library you said should have had it has no record of it ever existing- not that they simply do not have it now, but that they have never had such a video. To further this, my own attempts at using the National Geographic Website, Google, The Evergreen State University Resource Collective, and my research fiends (yes, fiends, not a typo) who get me all of my antiquarian media have failed to discover. The closest thing they have been able to come up with is not a video, but a children's book.

I was able to verify that Pillars of Faith exists. However, without any direct claims about what I am trying to refute, there is no challenge to be addressed. It's like saying "Oh! The Christians stole Pagan Holidays!" and when asked "Really? Which ones?" You respond with... "The Pagan Ones!" it doesn't actually give enough information to refute it. That said, you'd still be the one under the burden of proof to demonstrate that the Vita Brigitae is not an accurate and truthful account of the Saint's life.

The last source you suggested was Freeman's The Philosopher and the Druids, the problems with this text are numerous. Even armchair historians know how faulty it is to try and suggest that Posidonius' work is anywhere near accurate, since he was known to be a Roman Propagandist. To further complicate the issue, Freeman blatantly disregards facts gathered from the Cycles, such as the fact that being a Druid did not mean you were a Priest.

Quote:

That said, try to give an actual response instead of flaming like a troll.

Statements of facts are not flames. It is no more a flame to call me a woman than it is a flame to call you an oathbreaker when your actions clearly show you to be one.  

[maenad nuri]

Guardian Rose, the burden of proof is on you. I would advise that you not post on this topic until you have more rigorous sources.

Also, cronies? Have you seen us evicerate each other? Like, ALL THE TIME.