|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:37 am
 |
|
|
 |
guardian_rose As far as bans, go, I have never once been banned from anything on the internet.
Quote: What I will say, is that I will still defend everything I have said, sans the name calling.
Quote: I will say that this forum is misusing the term of racism, and I will defend my point of view at all costs.
Quote: 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.
Quote: Not even a doctor of sociology, reguardless of race, can make up a new definition for racism.
Quote: At least you have cleared up for me why Tea has assumed I am an oath breaker.
Looks like you weren't actually reading what I was posting, since I quoted the Terms of Service clause that you violated.
maenad nuri Also, cronies? Have you seen us evicerate each other? Like, ALL THE TIME. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:41 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 10:58 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:00 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:07 am
|
|
|
|
guardian_rose No, really? Ya think? So far it seems that without support of what you claim, that you are full of fluff.
I'm wondering how you keep shifting the Burden of Proof and thinking that that is okay. You have admitted that you have not given support to your position. Please desist until you acquire such proof. It is perfectly acceptable to say, "I abstain from further debate until I can provide proof for my position."
guardian_rose You know what? you are right. It is my burden to prove MY position. What have you done for yours? Nothing.
That's not her obligation. She has called you on your lack of proof as well as differing use of words.
Burden of Proof rests upon you as you have put forth the initial statement.
guardian_rose Again with lack of proof.
Again, you made initial statement, she doesn't need to provide proof and neither did Cu. He indulged you, and you still have yet to provide anything for your initial stance.
guardian_rose 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.
Merriam Webster and Wikipedia. In fact, Wikipedia even stats that the Romans referred to the Gaels as Scoti.
guardian_rose Go ahead and see "The Philosopher and the Druids" by Philip Freeman. Ergo, I am not a lair. You are just ignorant of fact.
Can you account for the fact that it is based primarily on Posidonius' work, most of which have since been lost?
Or the consideration that as a Roman citizen, writing for the Roman people, that he might be a little skewed on perceptions of the Celts (let alone that he only had contact with the Gaulish Celts)?
guardian_rose Good. See "The Philosopher and the Druids". It mentions it.
You've failed again at addressing mine and Cu's point that.
Find here where A Companion to Roman Britain, by Malcolm Todd, page 68, lists Tacitus describing the Druids being in the thick of battle, hurling curses.
Druid and Warrior are titles; just like Sailor, Soldier, and Chaplain. They are descriptors of duties.
guardian_rose 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.
Wait. You are using a documentary on early Celtic Christianity to argue the distinction between Warrior and Druid in a pre-Christian era? To counter the Tain?
I'm confused burning_eyes
guardian_rose 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.
Care to be a little bit more specific than "look it up here"? Perhaps a direct link or at least what key words to look up?
guardian_rose 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.
Ad hominem. You are attacking your opponent in debate, without having honored the initial obligations in a debate. Your insinuation that she is not educated, that any and all of us who are asking for your proof, are not educated is noted.
I am attempting to word this in the best way possible without sounding in any way antagonistic.
In the future, if you have an opinion, please expect to provide proof as soon as you post your opinion, or don't post it. It is not unreasonable for Nuri, Cu, Tea or myself to have asked you for support for your position as soon as you made it known. I find it interesting though that you continue to supply your argument, after it's been asked for proof, each time saying "here's what I think, give me time to research". This action is tantamount to "having the last say" and passive aggressive.
It is not disadvantageous to bow out of a debate when you do not have sufficient proof, saying, "at this time, I cannot recall the exact references, but will return when I do" and move on.
guardian_rose 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.
Your provisions of proof have not given credence to your argument. You have posted links to the home page of a site and essentially left your reader to wander themselves and find it alone. This does not contribute to a debate.
Please go back to some of those sites and proffer a more specific link. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:03 pm
|
|
|
|
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)
I wish I could break this apart better, but I can't think of a logically way to address the various points.
Essentially it seems like a deity may or may not be supernatural, if one defines "supernatural" to mean, beyond nature. A deity may or may not be powerful. May or may not live a long life. May or may not have followers...
It just makes me think of several other words, such as 'witch'. What is a witch? Oh, it's someone who practices witchcraft. What's witchcraft? It's something a witch does!
On the one hand, we argue that words have meaning. To use the horribly flammable example, Wicca is BTW cult founded by Gerald Gardner, etc, etc...
But on the other hand, there are words like "deity" and "witch" and "magic" that are so diverse that it just really feels like there is this immense amount of stretching done to take the single word and apply it to everywhere it's used.
I'm just really.... I don't know. Frustrated, but mostly because I'm just so confused. I mean, the definition of "deity" seems to be, in order to fit all the various deities that exist, or may exist, is something like, a deity is a god. A god is deity.
Because they may not be more powerful than a human, or whatever worships them.
They may not live a long time.
They may not be worshiped.
They may not be supernatural.
They may not have any greater insight.
They may not control anything.
So, how does one define "deity" such that YHWH and Zeus and Loki and Pele and the kami, and Shiva and Quetzalcoatl, etc, etc, etc... fit the definition, but, say, Nuri does not? |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 12:45 pm
|
|
|
|
Ashley the Bee I wish I could break this apart better, but I can't think of a logically way to address the various points. Essentially it seems like a deity may or may not be supernatural, if one defines "supernatural" to mean, beyond nature. A deity may or may not be powerful. May or may not live a long life. May or may not have followers...
Quote: It just makes me think of several other words, such as 'witch'. What is a witch? Oh, it's someone who practices witchcraft. What's witchcraft? It's something a witch does!
Quote: On the one hand, we argue that words have meaning. To use the horribly flammable example, Wicca is BTW cult founded by Gerald Gardner, etc, etc... But on the other hand, there are words like "deity" and "witch" and "magic" that are so diverse that it just really feels like there is this immense amount of stretching done to take the single word and apply it to everywhere it's used.
Quote: I'm just really.... I don't know. Frustrated, but mostly because I'm just so confused. I mean, the definition of "deity" seems to be, in order to fit all the various deities that exist, or may exist, is something like, a deity is a god. A god is deity. Because they may not be more powerful than a human, or whatever worships them. They may not live a long time. They may not be worshiped. They may not be supernatural. They may not have any greater insight. They may not control anything. So, how does one define "deity" such that YHWH and Zeus and Loki and Pele and the kami, and Shiva and Quetzalcoatl, etc, etc, etc... fit the definition, but, say, Nuri does not?
The only problem is that Deities, being non-falsifiable, do not have an observable means to measure this characteristic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:01 pm
|
|
|
|
guardian_rose Its interesting. But she provides no sources other than her own book. Others have used it, I see.
Considering she's in the relevant field for describing racism, I would daresay she's in a good position
Quote: Where did she get her ideas? Are they her own? If so, where is her proof? Her empirical evidence?
Her anthropology degree, textbooks, professors and all that jazz. Sociology classes tend to go over this stuff as well.
As for the empirical evidence, that would be from anthropology and sociology themselves. Although really, when it comes to descriptive terms used in the sciences, those terms are less dependent on empirical evidence and more dependent upon what gets the concepts across the best.
Privilege (white privilege, male privilege, cisgender privilege, cissexual privilege, straight privilege, etc) has been documented in even more recent scientific studies: example. It's also a major part of sociological dialogue as evidenced here
Quote: Even googling her name only brings the same article back.
So? She, as a member of the anthropology scientific community and representing the primary knowledge of it, is reliable. This stuff is common knowledge in anthropology and in sociology. Put into textbooks. If I can find my old basic sociology textbook, I can quote verbatim the section on privilege.
Quote: And when you post something like this, yeah. You look like a cronie.
Do you actually know what cronies are? Do you know why I thought your statement (that I was somehow a croney of Tea's) was stupid?
Quote: 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.
Consider this: He provided resources from sources that, through logical reasoning of source validity, are far more likely to be valid over yours (a NG video of dubious quality).
You are not required to accept them as perfect nor are you required to concede until you analyze those sources. But the fact is, he, without the burden of proof you have as the affirmative claim maker, provided better sources then you, more sources then you, and provided them in citations instead of vaguely referencing them.
Your attitude this whole time, with the atrocious quality of your basis for making claims, has smacked of arrogance, entitlement and privilege. And it only worsened when people called you on it and provided counter sources. That would be the primary complaint against you. That you've come off as a racist a*****e with not a lot of reason to make the claims you did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:17 pm
|
|
|
|
TeaDidikai What about gods that aren't considered supernatural, but natural?
Are there gods that are considered natural?
Quote: How is Supernatural defined and why would such a definition apply to other established traditions?
Capable of doing things not explained by scientific empirical reasoning. I'd assume it would apply because of its generality, it's based on a system of world comprehension that appears to have traveled across cultures.
Quote: And it has the same problem with the concept of "supernatural".
I'll just drop that one I guess. It's problematic enough already to make it unviable as a logical statement.
Quote: 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.
I don't see a problem with this, mostly because this "essence" that would create similarity between a being and YHVH or Odin has yet to be described or qualified in any way. What would this "essence" be, how much UPG backs it? How much evidence backs it? What is it based on?
Quote: 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)
That's a tough question. It's especially difficult because it really states the overall problem. That there is no overarching definable quality about the word deity in its application over all cultures.
To the point that I wonder whether one can use the word atheistic or theistic in any reliable way.
Ashley the Bee I wish I could break this apart better, but I can't think of a logically way to address the various points.
I mean, the definition of "deity" seems to be, in order to fit all the various deities that exist, or may exist, is something like, a deity is a god. A god is deity.
That is the operative problem I am facing. Are the Aspects deities, if the definition I had been operating under is incorrect? But really, there seems to be no replacement for the incorrect definition and therefore, no real way to say if the Aspects are deities or not.
Quote: So, how does one define "deity" such that YHWH and Zeus and Loki and Pele and the kami, and Shiva and Quetzalcoatl, etc, etc, etc... fit the definition, but, say, Nuri does not?
What if Nuri is actually a goddess? XD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:21 pm
|
|
|
|
guardian_rose I will say that this forum is misusing the term of racism, and I will defend my point of view at all costs.
You are incorrect and your defense has been inadequate so far.
Quote: 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.
Actually virtually everyone in this guild has at least some racism. It's the way that we deal with it that makes us differ from you.
Quote: Not even a doctor of sociology, regardless of race, can make up a new definition for racism.
You really don't know how empiricism, peer review and theory-building work, do you? neutral I really don't want to have to explain basic scientific principles and empiricism to you, so please tell me that I just misunderstood what you said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 2:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 4:26 pm
|
|
|
|
Recursive Paradox guardian_rose I will say that this forum is misusing the term of racism, and I will defend my point of view at all costs. You are incorrect and your defense has been inadequate so far. Quote: 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. Actually virtually everyone in this guild has at least some racism. It's the way that we deal with it that makes us differ from you. Quote: Not even a doctor of sociology, regardless of race, can make up a new definition for racism. You really don't know how empiricism, peer review and theory-building work, do you? neutral I really don't want to have to explain basic scientific principles and empiricism to you, so please tell me that I just misunderstood what you said.
Let me count the ways in which you are oh, so very wrong.
1. I have a background with psychology and sociology.
2. I am very familiar with peer review.
3. Dr. Enoch does not show any of this process in his article. If his work is legitimate, then he would have gone through the process. Instead, what you have shown me is someone who ignored the process.
Care to tell me what makes you an expert about the process? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 5:13 pm
|
|
|
|
guardian_rose 1. I have a background with psychology and sociology.
That's dismaying with the things you have said here. What kind of background?
Quote: 2. I am very familiar with peer review.
Then you would realize that a single theorist can present a hypothesis to peer review and in fact change the definition of something if the peer review approves. This completely negates your claim about a single scientist not being able to redefine the word.
Were you perhaps miss-wording your claim on that? I would hope someone with a background in sociology and psychology had simply misspoke instead of explicitly (and erroneously) stating that a single theorist could not cause change.
Quote: 3. Dr. Enoch does not show any of this process in his article.
Peer review isn't shown in the article itself. It is, in fact, the process required to be published at all.
...I am seriously blown away that you do not know this. What background do you have?
Quote: If his work is legitimate, then he would have gone through the process.
He did. That's why the work is present at all. If you fail the test of peer review, your work disappears. It becomes unpublishable.
Quote: Instead, what you have shown me is someone who ignored the process.
Your statement is based on a very serious lack of understanding of how peer review works in the scientific field. Any scientific field really.
Quote: Care to tell me what makes you an expert about the process?
I am a biologist with a biotech degree, a bioinformatics degree and am currently in progress on a graduate biotech/bioinformatics degree and have an intense level of exposure to the peer review process, whether peer review is shown in articles (hint: it isn't), how scientific publishing works and am currently going through the hell of making my own scientific article shipshape so that it can make it to a published journal instead of dying in peer review.
What's your background? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:19 pm
|
|
|
|
guardian_rose Let me count the ways in which you are oh, so very wrong. 1. I have a background with psychology and sociology.
This is incredible (lit).
You cannot possibly have a background in sociology.
You argue that you're not a racist while displaying the sociological text-book racist behaviour.
Are you a compulsive liar?
guardian_rose 2. I am very familiar with peer review.
Really, would you mind giving me a non-wiki definition please?
Because I don't believe a word coming from your mouth any more.
National Geographic never produced an article that says what you say they did. I've checked.
The Táin does not say what you say it says. I've checked.
You, sir, are a liar and a racist. This is not name calling. It is demonstrably true. It is not my opinion. It is fact.
You really need to shut the ******** up now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
