Worst Things You Can Ever Say As A Pagan

[Cunning Witch Angus]

StillBored123

Yanueh

Arcanist Angus

I can't read it, hurts my eyes to even look at it.

Where did you find it?

It's MagickalHummingbird's YouTube profile.

If you think she sounds whacked now, just wait'll you hear her in person.

Why does she sound like that one old lady in the snickers commercial?

AHHH!!! crying I'm scared and scarred for life!

It's people like that that make me want to kill Silver Ravenwolf twisted But I can get to her facebook muahah!  

[aoijea23487]

Yanueh

Yeah, because spraying the bugs eating the veggies in your garden with organic bug spray doesn't rob them of happiness or anything. (I'd like to see this woman face off a squash bug invasion.)

Pure speculation and ad hominem. Why don't you keep your unreasonable hostility toward AR activists and blatant ignorance of veganism as an ethical and social movement to yourself until you come up with something original and substantive to say?

Quote:

Is it just me, or is declaring that all animals are our spiritual teachers incredibly arrogant?

And does she believe guinea worms are our spiritual teachers?

How does that make her arrogant? Can you give a reason? Why is it wrong to suggest that everything is a spiritual teacher in their own right? Why don't you think guinea worms can teach us something about ourselves or something greater?

Quote:

Because the Lord of the Hunt was VEGAN, don'cha know! rolleyes

I will agree with this one. She is a pacifist and anti-war deities, yet she is a no-harm vegan who worships gods who kill animals...? The logic doesn't line up.  

[Yanueh]

Illiezeulette

Pure speculation and ad hominem. Why don't you keep your unreasonable hostility toward AR activists and blatant ignorance of veganism as an ethical and social movement to yourself until you come up with something original and substantive to say?

I'm basing what I've said on years' worth of organically killing bugs on my part. I can understand most of the sentiment and reasons behind the vegan movement, but years of salting slugs and spraying dishsoap on earwigs has made me somewhat cynical toward people who hold that killing an animal is always immoral.

I'd like to see what she'd do when faced with the choice of killing an animal herself, or sacrificing her food for the winter, more out of curiosity than anything else. I'd just like to see how someone with a black-and-white no-harm worldview such as herself would act in such a situation.

Quote:

How does that make her arrogant?

Because to me, it implies that animals exist for our benefit and/or are actually interested in us enough to be our "spiritual teachers."

Another thing that bugs me about her... she says it's wrong to kill animals for anything - okay, fine. But then she also says that trees are conscious and plants "exude love." Shouldn't that make it wrong to kill plants in her worldview, too, or am I missing something?  

[aoijea23487]

Thank you for a more substantive argument.

While I still take issue with "your garden" (it's completely unknown if she sprays anything, period, and as such is speculation), I will agree mostly with the rest of it. I am often very confused by, as you called it, black-and-white no-harm vegans. Right now I have a spider trapped under a mug and am finding a way to release him/her back outside, but if I was lost in the woods with a shotgun and a bear was attacking me, you can bet your a** I'm going to kill it and eat it. I consider myself to be a pretty typical vegan, though a few of us go all-out-ahimsa white-light and refuse to eat animals even in life-death situations.

As for M.H. and veganism... slaughtering an animal causes a lot more psychological harm and physical pain to the animal than picking a flower does to the flower. This is because flowers don't have nervous systems, pain receptors, brains, etc. In terms of that kind of harm, eating plants is perfectly okay. If we are quantifying worth of life by whether or not something "exudes love," then her argument crumbles if animals can also exude love (in my experience, they definitely do).

I see your point on spiritual teachers. However I would personally argue that I can learn from things that (seemingly) do not intend to give me advice/information. In that way, they are my teachers because I have learned from them, whether they know it or that is their purpose or not. I think what M. H. might be trying to say is that animal life is valuable and instead of destroying it for simple, base pleasures we should try to preserve it as reasonably possible and see what we can learn from the way they live. I don't think that her argument (as you have presented it) is inherently anthropocentric.

On the other hand, I have definitely heard other pagans (1MoonMother, another YouTuber, for example), who say outright that the purpose of plants is to serve us (human animals and non-human animals alike). That their current incarnation is an act of service to others so that we may thrive and learn. I take issue with this because it assumes way too much, unless she has UPG she would like to try to share with us. It may just be that their gnosis tells them that there is something very special about being human or that plants really are here to be sometimes consumed by us. Some plants even depend on our consumption of them to reproduce (some fruit). Furthermore, there are some vegans who don't eat plants like carrots because the whole plant dies. It's not clear whether or not M. H. follows that. Not all vegans eat the same~  

[Calelith]

Lavdem virtvtis

Quote:

To further correct you, witchcraft is the black arts side of wicca. SO ACTUALLY witchcraft is a form of wicca. kthx.
P.S. The reason most wiccans are female is because most males are skeptical and ignorant of the matter.

necessitati damvs

 

[Brass Bell Doll]

Illiezeulette

As for M.H. and veganism... slaughtering an animal causes a lot more psychological harm and physical pain to the animal than picking a flower does to the flower. This is because flowers don't have nervous systems, pain receptors, brains, etc. In terms of that kind of harm, eating plants is perfectly okay. If we are quantifying worth of life by whether or not something "exudes love," then her argument crumbles if animals can also exude love (in my experience, they definitely do).

Would you feel that damage to the ecosystem such as wild crafting more than the recommended portions of a stand is more or less harmful than thinning an over populated herd of elk to a population the environment can sustain with minimal disease and physical harm from over crowding?  

[Yanueh]

Quote:

As for M.H. and veganism... slaughtering an animal causes a lot more psychological harm and physical pain to the animal than picking a flower does to the flower. This is because flowers don't have nervous systems, pain receptors, brains, etc.

We are talking about a woman who believes trees are conscious despite having no brain.  

[aoijea23487]

Brass Bell Doll

Illiezeulette

As for M.H. and veganism... slaughtering an animal causes a lot more psychological harm and physical pain to the animal than picking a flower does to the flower. This is because flowers don't have nervous systems, pain receptors, brains, etc. In terms of that kind of harm, eating plants is perfectly okay. If we are quantifying worth of life by whether or not something "exudes love," then her argument crumbles if animals can also exude love (in my experience, they definitely do).

Would you feel that damage to the ecosystem such as wild crafting more than the recommended portions of a stand is more or less harmful than thinning an over populated herd of elk to a population the environment can sustain with minimal disease and physical harm from over crowding?

This deals with species, communities, and larger ecosystems (whereas before I was talking about specific individuals). It's different in my mind as far as ethics goes. Over-wildcrafting is bad because it affects the ecosystem at large, not just because a lot of plants die.

As for the elk, I require an examination as to why the elk are overpopulated. As in Yellowstone (I think it was Yellowstone...?), there was a huge elk overpopulation and they had to fence off areas of land so that the elk wouldn't eat the plants there. There was a s**t ton of starvation and all sorts of horrible stuff. The problem was that wolves had been eradicated in that area in the last century, and the elk population boomed because of the lack of predators. Do I think humans should go in and kill the elk themselves? Hell no. I think humans should stick the wolves back in to restore the balance of the food web that they disrupted. And that is exactly what humans did. I approve.

I am not sure why you are asking me to compare the two. They just seem like two very unique environmental issues to me. I'm not sure that one is "worse" than another; either way, they're both bad, and if humans are the cause, we should stop it.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Illiezeulette

I am not sure why you are asking me to compare the two. They just seem like two very unique environmental issues to me. I'm not sure that one is "worse" than another; either way, they're both bad, and if humans are the cause, we should stop it.

I feel that as humans are merely another kind of animal we are as much predators of elk populations as wolves are. I do feel wolves should be reintroduced as well however.

I mentioned it because of the nature of harm and my views that it's interconnected in nature- the harming of the individual as a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosm.  

[aoijea23487]

Brass Bell Doll

Illiezeulette

I am not sure why you are asking me to compare the two. They just seem like two very unique environmental issues to me. I'm not sure that one is "worse" than another; either way, they're both bad, and if humans are the cause, we should stop it.

I feel that as humans are merely another kind of animal we are as much predators of elk populations as wolves are. I do feel wolves should be reintroduced as well however.

I mentioned it because of the nature of harm and my views that it's interconnected in nature- the harming of the individual as a microcosmic reflection of the macrocosm.

My views on humanity are much the same. However, I can make choices about what I do and do not eat in an ethical sense, and it does not make sense to me to harm more than I should. These days a lot of humans kill for sport, not survival. Even if they eat the whole animal, I still find it sickening that people take pleasure solely in the death of another animal. I also find it disturbing to kill a sentient being when I can find adequate protein and other nutrition from plant sources.

As for human population control...I'm not only pro-choice and otherwise pro-birth control, but I'm also not really affected by things like earthquakes in Haiti (which reminds me of a strange DDS ritual my Gards and I did...He went on to talk about how He was the cause of the earthquake, which was something perfectly natural, and although sad, we shouldn't blame him for the workings of the Earth, or something along those lines).

As for micro/macro-cosm, I am not a no-harm vegan. Surely reduced-harm, though. If you're aware of my political leanings or have spoken with me in person elsewhere, it would make sense that I have no problem with hunting in and of itself, or eating animals in and of itself. I just oppose the system of commodifying animals as mere "food," factory farming, and otherwise treating animals like tools of human existence. It's downright exploitation. I am perfectly aware that humans are omnivores, and in a hunter-gatherer or survival-type situation, killing animals is basically necessary. But we don't live in that sort of situation, and as such survival ethics don't apply. I think the way you and I live is too radically far from a "natural"-type food web that I don't consider humans predators. Maybe in the remote jungles of South America, but definitely not here.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Illiezeulette

My views on humanity are much the same. However, I can make choices about what I do and do not eat in an ethical sense, and it does not make sense to me to harm more than I should. These days a lot of humans kill for sport, not survival. Even if they eat the whole animal, I still find it sickening that people take pleasure solely in the death of another animal. I also find it disturbing to kill a sentient being when I can find adequate protein and other nutrition from plant sources.

I feel that death sport is unethical as well, but I also feel that when we begin to apply an ethical standard to environmental life cycles, we then separate ourselves from animals, conversely, when we excuse some animals which engage in similar activities, we deny a part of their nature.

Illiezeulette

As for human population control...I'm not only pro-choice and otherwise pro-birth control, but I'm also not really affected by things like earthquakes in Haiti (which reminds me of a strange DDS ritual my Gards and I did...He went on to talk about how He was the cause of the earthquake, which was something perfectly natural, and although sad, we shouldn't blame him for the workings of the Earth, or something along those lines).

I was intending to speak about population control in general. I'm sorry for any confusion.

Illiezeulette

As for micro/macro-cosm, I am not a no-harm vegan. Surely reduced-harm, though. If you're aware of my political leanings or have spoken with me in person elsewhere, it would make sense that I have no problem with hunting in and of itself, or eating animals in and of itself. I just oppose the system of commodifying animals as mere "food," factory farming, and otherwise treating animals like tools of human existence. It's downright exploitation. I am perfectly aware that humans are omnivores, and in a hunter-gatherer or survival-type situation, killing animals is basically necessary. But we don't live in that sort of situation, and as such survival ethics don't apply. I think the way you and I live is too radically far from a "natural"-type food web that I don't consider humans predators. Maybe in the remote jungles of South America, but definitely not here.

I do not feel that the environment we choose to live in alters our nature, but instead we create an interrelation and shape our environment and ourselves. As such, while many people may utilize conveniences that create a "Animals=food" mind-frame, that doesn't reflect on people who do not hold that relation.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

I am just waiting for the technological holocaust where in we have to give up all technology and return to killing and fighting with sticks and swords to survive.

If you want to talk about preserving ecological wealth then tell people to stop producing nuclear weapons or to actually find a dump area which won't leak and end up whiping out humanity. You know poisoning our water and our resources.

All the stupid s**t we do concerning fossil fuels. I'm just waiting for them to try to dump nuclear waste on the moon. I had a discussion with a classwate yesterday and inveitably a rocket will blow up or something will go wrong but unless we start shooting them at our sun what do they expect us to do with that crap?

Fossil fuels aren't much better. There is no safeway to dispose of this stuff, there is no environmentally healthy alternative. People have to give up their posh comfy lifestyles and have to give up there conviences which they won't.

I'm completely for population control, or at least taxing people into not having kids.

I don't think it really Matters if we kill our own food... we do need to eat and the fat asses who sit around wasting electricty Not walking and devouring calorie after calorie and are too fat to work any more giving themselves diabetes and in the end killing themselves after milking their children dry and feeding off the state for years... if you want to talk about a problem look at american thought ethic. Standards being sweeped under a rug the population more concerned with looks then substance just look at that.

Personally I don't Care about the animals the animals will adapt or they won't people will adapt or they won't I believe and follow darwinism I just don't want my children to be completely ******** up and ******** over because society is being run by a massive horde of stupid people who don't care about anyone but themselves and can't look past their own nose

Thats why I'm studying politics and psychology Hopefully I can do something substantive and get people to understand that this is an issue  

[Brass Bell Doll]

Ishtar Shakti

I'm completely for population control, or at least taxing people into not having kids.

I feel that would end in one thing: people who can afford to pay the taxes will end up being parents as a status symbol- regardless of if they will be good parents or not.

As a result, people who will make good parents, but cannot afford to have children will become criminals, or worse- will have their body intruded upon by government agencies who wish to control the population. Or maybe the government will do what the Chinese did and start killing babies.

Ishtar Shakti

I don't think it really Matters if we kill our own food... we do need to eat and the fat asses who sit around wasting electricty Not walking and devouring calorie after calorie and are too fat to work any more giving themselves diabetes and in the end killing themselves after milking their children dry and feeding off the state for years... if you want to talk about a problem look at american thought ethic. Standards being sweeped under a rug the population more concerned with looks then substance just look at that.

Ishtar Shakti, I feel those words are incredibly hurtful. The idea that being fat makes you a drain on society? That people who are fat are less valuable than people who are not? I feel that if waste is the issue, then highlight it as such- but to rely on the way a person looks to determine value feeds into a cultural contempt for those who do not already meet the societal standards for beauty.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

One of the interesting things that cola companies have done in the past is they will go into developing nations and install water treatment centers. Then they charge for the water, but they charge more for it than they do for their soda.

They can then ship the purified water to countries who will pay more for it. Blue Gold is a good resource that discusses the commodification of water resources.

(This is kind of random, but donating a dollar to CharityWater is like buying twenty bottles of Ethos from Pepsi, but without the non-recyclable plastic being dumped into the landfills.)

I feel that the following article is a good explanation of the economics of poverty.

The Washington Post