The semantics of Paganism

[Ishtar Shakti]

What profound lack of respect you have

This is perhaps the most obvious case of group think I have ever encountered.

If you really wish to twist my words go ahead'
Its not really worth the time but it seems more like you would rather follow your own agenda's then the topics involved. Talk about trying to believe in integrity I'm fairly certain there is none here.

My thoughts are mine whether they are right or not doesn't matter
I do not deny your beliefs I don't have to agree with them
I am me. I judge as I judge. I think as I think. You are free to do as you desire I am free to do what I do in response to what you do. You will believe what you will it doesn't mean anyone else will believe it.

You are free to insult me. To twist what I am saying. I am free to despise you for your maliciousness. I am also free to forgive forget and stop caring.

I am free to try to understand my own bias' you are free to ignore yours or understand them as you will. Its your choice it will always be your choice.

I am free to not care about people who seem bent on making worthless posts  

[maenad nuri]

If you think this is group think rather than people being honestly appalled at what you are saying and the positions you take, then the door is that way and you should watch that it doesn't hit you on the way out.

On the other hand, you could recognize that you are actually getting people who get into bitter arguments with each other together and digest what they are saying.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Ishtar Shakti

What profound lack of respect you have

Rapists of any kind are not worthy of even the most basic level of respect. This is not just ethical rule, this is religious rule. Rape (spiritual or physical) is one of the most ultimate violations of the Laws of Mutual Respect and a blatant disregard of balancing the Three Pillars and allowing others to follow them. By being a spiritual rapist, you have elevated your Power over the Power, Growth and Wisdom of others to the point of denying them their power through force. And as well, you have elevated your Power over both your own Wisdom and Growth.

And you've shown clear indications of being a psychic parasite. You are far on the Path of Decay. Everything about you is anathema to my path and I will not hesitate to voice my disgust at your behavior, ways and methods. Nor would I hesitate to cast you from any sanctuary I controlled like the danger you are. This is not my place, so my rules of hospitality do not apply here. Count yourself lucky that such is true, for I would have banned you at the first casual mention of spiritual rape as amusement for yourself.

Quote:

This is perhaps the most obvious case of group think I have ever encountered.

You lack much background information. Like the battles we've waged between each other. No, your ways are merely abhorrent, truly abhorrent, and the fact that we, even we with the stubborn differences we have, can all come to agreement on that should be strong indication of just how far beyond the pale you are.

Quote:

If you really wish to twist my words go ahead'

No twisting was required. Even your explanations and "clarifications" continued to go down the path of parasites and vampires.

Quote:

Talk about trying to believe in integrity I'm fairly certain there is none here.

The irony of a parasite criticizing my integrity.

Quote:

My thoughts are mine whether they are right or not doesn't matter
I do not deny your beliefs I don't have to agree with them
I am me. I judge as I judge. I think as I think. You are free to do as you desire I am free to do what I do in response to what you do. You will believe what you will it doesn't mean anyone else will believe it.

Continue to revel in your delusion of subjective reality, parasite. It will win you no battles here. The rest of your post isn't even worth reading, much less responding to. I regret the time I wasted to skim it.  

[Gho the Girl]

Ishtar Shakti

What profound lack of respect you have

What a profound lack of respect YOU have.

Quote:

This is perhaps the most obvious case of group think I have ever encountered.

You're the most obvious case of egocentric fluffy a*****e I have ever encountered.

Quote:

If you really wish to twist my words go ahead'

When I'm merely repeating exactly what you said, I don't really see how I'm twisting them.

Maybe you just aren't aware of what you actually say.

Quote:

Its not really worth the time but it seems more like you would rather follow your own agenda's then the topics involved.

Why are you whining?

You said, essentially, that people should be able to do as they will.

Well, I want to chew your a** out for being such a ********. Seeing as you've already given me permission, I shall do so, thankyouverymuch.

Quote:

Talk about trying to believe in integrity I'm fairly certain there is none here.

If by integrity, you mean, honoring the rights of others, then yes, you don't have any integrity.

Quote:

My thoughts are mine

OH MY GOD REALLY?

Ho s**t guys, we can't correct her or anything, seeing as how her originality TOTALLY validates whatever she says.

Quote:

whether they are right or not doesn't matter

This is the EPITOME of fluffiness, ignorance, stupidity, and assholery.

"What I believe is what I believe, you have to respect it!"

That's what you're saying.

Here's what I'm saying:
"I believe child rape is ok. It's my thoughts. Give me your son so that I may sodomize him."

Hey, they're my thoughts, whether they are right or not doesn't matter.

Quote:

I do not deny your beliefs I don't have to agree with them

You know, just because you don't tear our beliefs down doesn't validate yours.

It probably just means you don't dare argue with our belief systems for fear of how much of a hypocrite you'll be shown to be.

Quote:

I am me.

I'M ME TOO OMG!

Quote:

I judge as I judge.

You obviously do so erroneously.

Quote:

I think as I think.

You obviously do so ignorantly.

Quote:

You are free to do as you desire

Holy s**t, you're permitting me to ******** your child?

Quote:

I am free to do what I do in response to what you do.

But then you aren't respecting my beliefs, are you? So really, there is a right and a wrong way to do things, isn't there?

Quote:

You will believe what you will it doesn't mean anyone else will believe it.

Least of all fluffy ignorant assholes.

Quote:

You are free to insult me.

Jolly good then.

Quote:

To twist what I am saying.

I've done none of that. I've merely taken what you've said word for word and shown the deep and alarming repurcussions.

The only one you should be disgusted at is yourself and your own words, seeing as how I'm feeding them back to you.

Quote:

I am free to despise you for your maliciousness. I am also free to forgive forget and stop caring.

Somehow I doubt it'll be the latter. But that's just me.

Quote:

I am free to try to understand my own bias'

I don't think you do.

Quote:

you are free to ignore yours or understand them as you will.

But we're talking about you.

Quote:

Its your choice it will always be your choice.

Some choices are wrong, stupid.

Quote:

I am free to not care about people who seem bent on making worthless posts

May your crop catch up with you swiftly and in full measure, you fluffy, ignorant, culture raping a*****e.  

[Tikat]

Ishtar Shakti

Language exists for both practices.

With all due respect, I'm afraid that you saying so isn't enough to convince me of such. I think it is much more likely that people may use tools as they see fit, but not that language was created for the individual to construct frameworks. It's completely backwards when it comes to basic linguistic theory.

Quote:

But you are also making the assumption that definitions have to use words.

No such assumption was made, since instead of assuming such, I researched and noted that the denotative value of definition includes statements and upon following further, I noted that the denotative value of statement requires words.

Quote:

Also please take into consideration the difference between talking within a small group of people (such as a religious sect) and working with a larger group that may not have the same contextual frame work as yourself.

What you speak of is known as jargon, slang or argot- depending on the nature of the group. With reference to religious sects in formal settings, you're likely examining argot.

That said, simply because a group agrees on a meaning, that does not make them correct. To suggest that mere numbers of people agreeing is enough to make them correct is flawed, since mere consensus of popular opinion isn't enough to change something's true nature- in much the same way that numerous people believing the earth was flat did not alter it's shape and cause early explorers to fall off the face of the planet.

Quote:

The definitions which exist within a small group and the definitions which exist outside of that group may be different.

This is true. People misuse words all the time.

Quote:

Such as within Group A may read a text and consider it a valid text that accurately depicts the state of a religion and thus they may call themselves Pagan as they would consider it accurate. While Group B may think that the text isn't an accurate depiction and thus they might call themselves Neo Pagan as they don't believe they are accurately portraying that religion.

This example is flawed. Being pagan merely states that one is not of an Abrahamic tradition. Neo, meso and paleo are merely qualifiers that are designed to provide more specific information.

Quote:

Neo= New which means that its not traditional, even if both group A+B are practicing in the exact same manner.

Understand?

I understand what you are saying, but there is a flaw. Neo does etymologically mean new, but the breakdown in meaning is that being new doesn't mean there isn't tradition present. This is the problem with confusing etymology with definition and making up your own definitions. They produce inaccuracies a lot easier than authoritative linguistic references.

Quote:

Also people may have disputes concerning the terms, what the terms mean, the level of validity needed, etc. etc. etc.

Indeed. However, this doesn't mean that simply because it is disputed, the dispute is valid. Willful Ignorance on the part of one of the parties may be the cause of the dispute. An honest mistake may be the cause of the dispute. A flaw in reasoning may be the cause of the dispute. To suggest that simply because something is disputed that the disputes are valid is irrational.

Quote:

I mean Really? What constitutes a proper definition? I could go into specifics but I don't feel like getting sucked into the general mess that people make of the matter.

Through research of application, history, origin, linguistic structure, a denotative value is chosen linguistic experts or by specialists in a field and is valid.

Though I do believe Miss Paradox has a good moral argument regarding validity and how terms should be applied, I am afraid that I cannot agree with her argument in regards to denotative value when it comes to oppressing others.

Words that are oppressive are perhaps cruel and inappropriate for people to use when being sensitive to others needs- but that does not change that accurate definitions exist, even if they do marginalize other populations. Slurs for example have valid definitions, but that doesn't mean their application is acceptable.

Quote:

There are huge flaws in believing in objective definitions mostly if your trying to cross language or cultural barriers. I mean, is their only one definition for god?

There is an authoritative definition for god. If someone does not view the word that way, it is time to refine their understanding and either generate a new term or find a word that does accurately describe them.

Quote:

Is their only one definition for transubstantiation? Is their only one definition for right? One definition for wrong? One definition for family? It seems conceited to me to try to limit people by imposing my definitions on them.

This rhetorical questioning has been answered above.

Quote:

Intellectual Honesty would take into account your own bias', to deny they exist and not take them into account seems to imply that you wouldn't be intellectually honest

The problem I am seeing here is you ignore the fact that others have taken into account their own biases.

This is what I tried to address in other posts to you. You assume you understand people's motivations far too often, even when they justify their position with logic, facts or what have you- rather than considering that they may actually be right, you blind yourself to that possibility.

It seems to have caused a lot of conflict.

Quote:

Quote:

one must realize that we, as human beings, are more than mere purveyors of logic. We inherently generalize, categorize, prioritize, and harmonize what we see, and most of this takes place without our conscious awareness. While these aspects of thinking are of inestimable value, they also possess certain dangers; for example, they can inadvertently lead us into hasty judgments, and cause selective "blindness" toward new information.

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~arvo/honesty.html

I try to embrace my own bias' and acknowledge them and the bias' of others. I try to acknowledge the limits of communication. The limitations of language and definitions. The inconsistencies and evolution of communication, and the way that people internalize information.

I'm afraid I don't see your actions as doing such. Humanity may inherently generalize, categorize, prioritize etc, but to assume that it is always unconscious is unfounded, especially in a place that is dedicated to examination through rigorous challenge.

Quote:

As to the religions you mentioned I don't know them. I don't know if they are harming people, but I am fairly sure that the people whom you believed are being harmed are the best judges of their internal states.

Your certainty relies on ignorance of psychology.

Psychological conditions such as disassociation, Stockholm's Syndrome and other psychotic schisms place many victims in situations where they are not able to rationally approach the harm that is done to them.

Quote:

When it comes down to interacting with Other people you do not speak for them and you can't because you only know Your internal state. This seems fairly easy to observe though I do know that not everyone agree's with me.

If your position was accurate, it would be impossible for the fields of psychology to exist.

Quote:

By Saying you are Pagan doesn't that mean that you are following the Old religion? The original religion?

It does not.
Pagan is an umbrella term that addresses any non-Abrahamic faith. The term was coined not to denote a specific theology, but to address a general "other" population in contrast with the Roman adoption of Christendom.

Since numerous faiths existed to the exclusion of the faiths of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it does not refer to a specific "Old Religion", original religion or the like. This is a common misconception that the most basic understanding of history can rectify.

Quote:

It depends on what you believe a Pagan is. Vs. Neo Pagan which means you are following a new adaptation of the religion. Is this not the commonly accepted Definition of the religion.

The problem is you're using a singular article. "The" Religion didn't exist. Archeological evidence proves that numerous religions existed when the term came into being and was applied to unconverted Romans, Norsemen, Celts and others.

Quote:

Or course what Pagan and neo Pagan means to the practitioners is not going to synchronize across the board. Generally I don't give a ******** because... I believe that Pagan means any non judeo-christain-muslim religion. I think neo pagan is a misnomer. I've just heard the argument between "new" and "old" from other people.

Your definition of pagan is accurate, however you misunderstand what Neo- as a prefix does and it's denotative nature.

Quote:

P.S... if this is you tea. Please if your going to block me don't go on a mule and continue to talk to me.

Beg pardon?  

[Tikat]

Ishtar Shakti

What profound lack of respect you have

This is perhaps the most obvious case of group think I have ever encountered.

Why insist that simply because people agree with each other and disagree with you it must be "group think"?

Quote:

If you really wish to twist my words go ahead'
Its not really worth the time but it seems more like you would rather follow your own agenda's then the topics involved. Talk about trying to believe in integrity I'm fairly certain there is none here.

I think part of the problem people are having with you is that they do not need to twist your words. Your words are so open-ended that they can merely apply them.

Perhaps if instead of attacking people to corrected your words, since it is clear you do not seem to mean what you are actually saying, you would solve the problem at hand.

Quote:

My thoughts are mine whether they are right or not doesn't matter

This is at it's heart the very essence of willful ignorance- the very thing that this guild is here to help people overcome in order to encourage responsible paganism.

Unlike Religions of the Book, paganism is so broad, and much of it is so new, that there is not a universal moral code that can be applied to pagans from a centralized document.

Quote:

I do not deny your beliefs I don't have to agree with them
I am me. I judge as I judge. I think as I think. You are free to do as you desire I am free to do what I do in response to what you do. You will believe what you will it doesn't mean anyone else will believe it.

In some cases though, you're positions are demonstrably false.

Where is the harm in exploring and adapting to a more accurate model?

Quote:

You are free to insult me. To twist what I am saying. I am free to despise you for your maliciousness. I am also free to forgive forget and stop caring.

I have done no such thing. I have merely observed and commented upon your positions, pointing out areas wherein your position directly contradicts demonstrable objective facts.  

[TeaDidikai]

maenad nuri

On the other hand, you could recognize that you are actually getting people who get into bitter arguments with each other together and digest what they are saying.

Come now Nuri. Don't you know that because I don't redefine a whole cultural tradition in order to fit my personal opinion, that makes me an automaton and thus incapable of anything but Group Think?  

[TeaDidikai]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

TeaDidikai

maenad nuri

On the other hand, you could recognize that you are actually getting people who get into bitter arguments with each other together and digest what they are saying.

Come now Nuri. Don't you know that because I don't redefine a whole cultural tradition in order to fit my personal opinion, that makes me an automaton and thus incapable of anything but Group Think?

Don't you know, that makes you a free thinker and thus, you are okay- unless of course you disagree with Isha.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Tikat

Though I do believe Miss Paradox has a good moral argument regarding validity and how terms should be applied, I am afraid that I cannot agree with her argument in regards to denotative value when it comes to oppressing others.

Words that are oppressive are perhaps cruel and inappropriate for people to use when being sensitive to others needs- but that does not change that accurate definitions exist, even if they do marginalize other populations. Slurs for example have valid definitions, but that doesn't mean their application is acceptable.

*shrug*

I can live with that. As long as language is not being used to further systems of oppression, I'm happy, whether we treat the words as lacking value or not. I will argue that some words out there have a definition and accurate meaning that is, in and of itself, racist, cissexist/transphobic, homophobic, classist, ableist or specifically arising from some other axis of marginalization, or a combination.

Those words, where the definitions themselves are marginalizing and damaging (like the word "crazy", the g~ word, or the word "shemale"), are words that ought to be eliminated entirely (except by individuals within the affected groups reclaiming them) because even their accurate usage is damaging to fighting oppression.  

[Tikat]

Recursive Paradox

*shrug*

I can live with that. As long as language is not being used to further systems of oppression, I'm happy, whether we treat the words as lacking value or not. I will argue that some words out there have a definition and accurate meaning that is, in and of itself, racist, cissexist/transphobic, homophobic, classist, ableist or specifically arising from some other axis of marginalization, or a combination.

Those words, where the definitions themselves are marginalizing and damaging (like the word "crazy", the g~ word, or the word "shemale"), are words that ought to be eliminated entirely (except by individuals within the affected groups reclaiming them) because even their accurate usage is damaging to fighting oppression.

I feel it is possible, and even proper to eliminate them from polite speech, but how to does one unmake a word?

You gave three examples.
One I have seen in use by professionals within the psychiatric field.
One I need clarification on.
One I have seen used in a derogatory sense applied to two groups, as well as applied within the field of biology as professional jargon.

Would you find it acceptable for aggressive women to reclaim the title?  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Quote:

Why insist that simply because people agree with each other and disagree with you it must be "group think"?

The only reason why I think its group think because the second one person adopted one point of view, no one else ventured any other possible interpretations to my words.

This is also a trend, an issue that I have had before and the same people are involved each time. Its not like I require people to agree with me. Just that their would be more variance in the responses. I can think of several different ways of misinterpreting my text but everyone seems to be misinterpreting it in the same manner... which I have to say strikes me as a bit vulgar.

Quote:

I think part of the problem people are having with you is that they do not need to twist your words. Your words are so open-ended that they can merely apply them.

Perhaps if instead of attacking people to corrected your words, since it is clear you do not seem to mean what you are actually saying, you would solve the problem at hand.

I have attempted to do this before and met with resistance. After feeling as if you are attacked once its not very likely that you are going to want to be attacked repeatedly by the same group of people. Ignoring seems to be the best solution here.

Quote:

This is at it's heart the very essence of willful ignorance- the very thing that this guild is here to help people overcome in order to encourage responsible paganism.

Unlike Religions of the Book, paganism is so broad, and much of it is so new, that there is not a universal moral code that can be applied to pagans from a centralized document.

By me saying that my thoughts are mine, I am saying that I don't care how people perceive me. While I know this guild is trying to teach people have to overcome willful ignorance I tend to take the standpoint that people can be as ignorant as they like. They Will Learn at some point but for some that point doesn't come until something bad happens to them. I don't Force people to not be ignorant. People are quite capable of learning and as long as the proper tools and materials are their for them to use they can pick them up if they wish. You can't force people to learn and I can't force people to understand what I am saying. I generally mean what I say and I am willing to expound upon what I am saying if people ask questions but if people are going to attack me... harass me mock me and willfully block any other context to my words then the one that they see as serving the purpose of mocking me then why should I bother?

Why should I care about the state of ignorance of people who have been nothing but shitty to me?

Quote:

In some cases though, you're positions are demonstrably false.

Where is the harm in exploring and adapting to a more accurate model?

What I wrote is an example of how it wasn't demonstrably false. I was actually addressing her post in my blocking of her.

To assume that my beliefs offer open sanction to others seems silly and seems to miss the bigger picture. It seems extremely narrow in view. People are socially regulated by the actions of others. My beliefs are mine and thus I control them but they aren't going to be understood or accepted by others unless I Do use a model they can understand. So generally speaking when I talk to people I adopt Their model in order to facilitate a sort of commonality of definitions. Certain things though which have to do with the natural state has a definitive Gap between individuals... mostly because we aren't mind readers. Even if I can read peoples minds I still am not going to understand everything another person thinks. This all goes into the theory of knowledge talk I had before.

In anycase I was purely arguing that achieving objectivity is impossible. I will continue to argue this point... its as true as its going to get and I even have theories at how to achieve objectivity but that requires other factors. It gets to an infinite regression loop and well bah humbug

But yah I don't believe that Objectivity can be reached... I have had no one successfully prove that it does. I generally argue that we get as close as possible but never Quite factor in all factors and that its pretty damn difficult to do. Generally speaking proof is a sliding scale and that goes into me repeating myself.

Quote:

I have done no such thing. I have merely observed and commented upon your positions, pointing out areas wherein your position directly contradicts demonstrable objective facts.

This is why You aren't blocked. I only blocked people who made the baby rape comments/jokes  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Quote:

With all due respect, I'm afraid that you saying so isn't enough to convince me of such. I think it is much more likely that people may use tools as they see fit, but not that language was created for the individual to construct frameworks. It's completely backwards when it comes to basic linguistic theory.

I was saying it exists for both, meaning that it can be used for both. Not that it was constructed for both. The usefulness of language has alot to do with the limitations on our ability to process information. We can only process soo much information at any given moment thus we rely alot of definitions or schema's, representational constructs that guide our thoughts etc. Language is a symbolic representation of a larger idea, it is a key in which to trigger further information. Its coding... Its a verbal code that we recognize which then triggers our internal definitions

Quote:

No such assumption was made, since instead of assuming such, I researched and noted that the denotative value of definition includes statements and upon following further, I noted that the denotative value of statement requires words.

And yet people can define things without words
"the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear" Lets look specifically at making something definite or clear. Its much like the building of a schema or representation in someones mind of an object. It is locking in a certain set of concepts
I mean I could just use the word schema instead of definitions but that word isn't always recognized. In anycase when I am talking of internal definitions I am referencing schema in a way more people might be able to recognize.

Quote:

What you speak of is known as jargon, slang or argot- depending on the nature of the group. With reference to religious sects in formal settings, you're likely examining argot.

See again schema

Quote:

That said, simply because a group agrees on a meaning, that does not make them correct. To suggest that mere numbers of people agreeing is enough to make them correct is flawed, since mere consensus of popular opinion isn't enough to change something's true nature- in much the same way that numerous people believing the earth was flat did not alter it's shape and cause early explorers to fall off the face of the planet.

and yet language is developed by the masses. It is subject to social regulation and while it does not always reflect Objectivity people will not understand what you are talking about unless you adopt their ways of speech etc.

Well I gtg

Quote:

Quote:

The definitions which exist within a small group and the definitions which exist outside of that group may be different.

This is true. People misuse words all the time.

Quote:

Such as within Group A may read a text and consider it a valid text that accurately depicts the state of a religion and thus they may call themselves Pagan as they would consider it accurate. While Group B may think that the text isn't an accurate depiction and thus they might call themselves Neo Pagan as they don't believe they are accurately portraying that religion.

This example is flawed. Being pagan merely states that one is not of an Abrahamic tradition. Neo, meso and paleo are merely qualifiers that are designed to provide more specific information.

Quote:

Neo= New which means that its not traditional, even if both group A+B are practicing in the exact same manner.

Understand?

I understand what you are saying, but there is a flaw. Neo does etymologically mean new, but the breakdown in meaning is that being new doesn't mean there isn't tradition present. This is the problem with confusing etymology with definition and making up your own definitions. They produce inaccuracies a lot easier than authoritative linguistic references.

Quote:

Also people may have disputes concerning the terms, what the terms mean, the level of validity needed, etc. etc. etc.

Indeed. However, this doesn't mean that simply because it is disputed, the dispute is valid. Willful Ignorance on the part of one of the parties may be the cause of the dispute. An honest mistake may be the cause of the dispute. A flaw in reasoning may be the cause of the dispute. To suggest that simply because something is disputed that the disputes are valid is irrational.

Quote:

I mean Really? What constitutes a proper definition? I could go into specifics but I don't feel like getting sucked into the general mess that people make of the matter.

Through research of application, history, origin, linguistic structure, a denotative value is chosen linguistic experts or by specialists in a field and is valid.

Though I do believe Miss Paradox has a good moral argument regarding validity and how terms should be applied, I am afraid that I cannot agree with her argument in regards to denotative value when it comes to oppressing others.

Words that are oppressive are perhaps cruel and inappropriate for people to use when being sensitive to others needs- but that does not change that accurate definitions exist, even if they do marginalize other populations. Slurs for example have valid definitions, but that doesn't mean their application is acceptable.

Quote:

There are huge flaws in believing in objective definitions mostly if your trying to cross language or cultural barriers. I mean, is their only one definition for god?

There is an authoritative definition for god. If someone does not view the word that way, it is time to refine their understanding and either generate a new term or find a word that does accurately describe them.

Quote:

Is their only one definition for transubstantiation? Is their only one definition for right? One definition for wrong? One definition for family? It seems conceited to me to try to limit people by imposing my definitions on them.

This rhetorical questioning has been answered above.

Quote:

Intellectual Honesty would take into account your own bias', to deny they exist and not take them into account seems to imply that you wouldn't be intellectually honest

The problem I am seeing here is you ignore the fact that others have taken into account their own biases.

This is what I tried to address in other posts to you. You assume you understand people's motivations far too often, even when they justify their position with logic, facts or what have you- rather than considering that they may actually be right, you blind yourself to that possibility.

It seems to have caused a lot of conflict.

Quote:

Quote:

one must realize that we, as human beings, are more than mere purveyors of logic. We inherently generalize, categorize, prioritize, and harmonize what we see, and most of this takes place without our conscious awareness. While these aspects of thinking are of inestimable value, they also possess certain dangers; for example, they can inadvertently lead us into hasty judgments, and cause selective "blindness" toward new information.

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~arvo/honesty.html

I try to embrace my own bias' and acknowledge them and the bias' of others. I try to acknowledge the limits of communication. The limitations of language and definitions. The inconsistencies and evolution of communication, and the way that people internalize information.

I'm afraid I don't see your actions as doing such. Humanity may inherently generalize, categorize, prioritize etc, but to assume that it is always unconscious is unfounded, especially in a place that is dedicated to examination through rigorous challenge.

Quote:

As to the religions you mentioned I don't know them. I don't know if they are harming people, but I am fairly sure that the people whom you believed are being harmed are the best judges of their internal states.

Your certainty relies on ignorance of psychology.

Psychological conditions such as disassociation, Stockholm's Syndrome and other psychotic schisms place many victims in situations where they are not able to rationally approach the harm that is done to them.

Quote:

When it comes down to interacting with Other people you do not speak for them and you can't because you only know Your internal state. This seems fairly easy to observe though I do know that not everyone agree's with me.

If your position was accurate, it would be impossible for the fields of psychology to exist.

Quote:

By Saying you are Pagan doesn't that mean that you are following the Old religion? The original religion?

It does not.
Pagan is an umbrella term that addresses any non-Abrahamic faith. The term was coined not to denote a specific theology, but to address a general "other" population in contrast with the Roman adoption of Christendom.

Since numerous faiths existed to the exclusion of the faiths of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it does not refer to a specific "Old Religion", original religion or the like. This is a common misconception that the most basic understanding of history can rectify.

Quote:

It depends on what you believe a Pagan is. Vs. Neo Pagan which means you are following a new adaptation of the religion. Is this not the commonly accepted Definition of the religion.

The problem is you're using a singular article. "The" Religion didn't exist. Archeological evidence proves that numerous religions existed when the term came into being and was applied to unconverted Romans, Norsemen, Celts and others.

Quote:

Or course what Pagan and neo Pagan means to the practitioners is not going to synchronize across the board. Generally I don't give a ******** because... I believe that Pagan means any non judeo-christain-muslim religion. I think neo pagan is a misnomer. I've just heard the argument between "new" and "old" from other people.

Your definition of pagan is accurate, however you misunderstand what Neo- as a prefix does and it's denotative nature.

Quote:

P.S... if this is you tea. Please if your going to block me don't go on a mule and continue to talk to me.

Beg pardon?

You have a similar writing pattern to Tea, also Ti and Tea are similar and you are dressed in rags. Though thats not really indicating much...

@ ignorance of psychology: I'm actually studying psychology and while I Know what they argue I tend to take a different approach then some of my colleagues. It is mostly people who are severely disturbed who are not good judges of their internal state. People who are devoid of delusion, or cognitive dissonance are perfectly capable of judging their internal states. Most people of course aren't free of this. This does not mean that they can't be. I mean... I wouldn't be a very good psychologist if I was shutting people down before I even gave them a chance. I follow a more humanistic perspective. I also use this approach alot when dealing with people. I find... that telling people they can't or that they are incapable doesn't help them actually do much.

Also most people I know who do dissociate, unless they have developed DID do understand that something is wrong when they do this. While they may not be fully aware or whatnot they still understand that a schism is happening. Conditioning is a powerful thing, I though am not aware of the religions you have mentioned thus I am not aware of what harm they might be causing. Unless I have specific examples articles, individuals etc. I am not going to be able to judge. I mean I can't have a proper opinion without data

But umm I'll address the rest of this latter