GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Inara - a Wiccan perspective

POSTED BY: INCONGRESSWITHTHEBEAST
UPDATED: Friday, May 12, 2006 05:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 15983
PAGE 1 of 2

Saturday, March 4, 2006 6:06 AM

INCONGRESSWITHTHEBEAST


Hi! I've been lurking here for a while, but this is my first post. *coughs, and looks about nervously*

I've read a couple of posts that give a religious perspective on Firefly and Serenity, and I wanted to add my two cents. Most of the posts I've read have been from Christians. I'm Wiccan, which is a Pagan religion based on pre-Christian religion, although the brand of Wicca I practice is new age.

So why am I posting a religious perspective on Firefly? It's not like there are any witches aboard Serenity. Even if people do try to burn River occasionally. Although my own religion isn't represented in the show (Christianity and Buddhism being the only two that make an appearance)I still see some neopagan perspectives in the show. Particularly in the character of Inara.

Um... this is the part where I warn the kiddies that this post talks about sex. So if talking about that subject offends you, you may want to skip this post.




Still with me? Okay. Let's start with a very quick summary of the Wiccan attitude to sex. To a Wiccan, sex is sacred. It represents the highest form of magick there is, since it unites male and female, creates an altered state of consciousness, and has the potential to create new life. When it's done in the right frame of mind, sex actually puts you in touch with the creative force of the universe itself (or so most Wiccans believe.) You don't get anything more special, or more powerful, than that.

For that reason, sex becomes incredibly important, something you should share only with someone close to you. Celibacy closes the door to something incredibly special, while promiscuity degrades it.

So how does this apply to Inara?

I think Inara fits in very neatly with this perspective. As Joss has mentioned in interviews before, Prostitution wasn't always illegal. In some cultures in the distant past it was actually considered to be a sacred role, performed only by a Priestess. It was used to heal, to comfort, and to worship certain deities. The role of a Companion seems very similar to this, something Inara mentions herself in "Jaynestown".

HIGGINS
(sees tea set-up)
what is this? I brought you here to bed my son, not throw him a tea party--

Inara is polite, but afire with firmness.

INARA
Sir, the Companion Greeting Ceremony is a ritual with centuries of tradition behind it. There are reasons for the way we do things.

HIGGINS
Listen, Inara, I called on you for one thing and one thing only. My son is twenty-six years old and he ain't yet a man. Twenty-six! (looks at son w/
contempt)And since he can't find a willin' woman himself -

Inara takes Higgins by the arm and starts gently but firmly guiding him out of the shuttle. He blusters but goes along.

INARA
Mr. Higgins, you are not allowed here.

HIGGINS
I--What?

INARA
As I said, this room is a consecrated Place Of Union. Only your son belongs here.


So it's clear that Inara sees her role as traditional, even sacred. The problem she faces is that very few others do. Not only is Higgins incredibly crass about the whole matter, but she constantly faces criticism from Mal too. He makes it very clear that he doesn't respect what she does, constantly referring to her as a whore, and making derogatory comments about her work.

And Mal isn't the only one. Inara has to cope with Jayne's comments too, since his incredibly one track mind isn't able to grasp anything other than that Inara is having lots of sex with people who aren't him. Even her most respectable clients turn out to be narrow minded about what she does - Atherton Wang from "Shindig" being the clearest example. That's without having to deal with people like the misogynistic Burgess from "Heart of Gold".

In short, Inara is a person who considers sex sacred in a world that doesn't, something that a lot of Wiccans can sympathise with. From my point of view, this makes her a fascinating character. She isn't Wiccan, but she inspires the same feelings in me that I imagine Book does in a lot of Christian fans.

That's my two cents. And since it took me a ridiculously long time to write this I actually have to sign off soon! But I'll be back tomorrow, so please let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Phil (Philomena Bright)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 6:07 AM

INCONGRESSWITHTHEBEAST


Um, forgot to add a thank you to twiztv.com for the script excerpt!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 6:48 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


That’s an interesting prospective. The issue of Inara’s particular career choice in the show is a contentious one, probably intentionally. Although open sexuality with arbitrary and multiple partners was used as a sacred right by some religions, I don’t know how common such practices were historically. I’m inclined to believe not very, but certainly not with the Christian and Buddhists religions, who both hold celibacy, not sexuality, as sacred.

This seems to beg the question of a plausible justification for Inara’s occupation, which is perhaps meant to be symbolic of the old American West brothel harlots, but it doesn’t seem to be a very good fit. Prostitution wasn’t (and isn’t) always illegal in the US, but it has never been revered as a religious or even a sacred right. Prostitution, where and when it wasn’t illegal in the US, was generally tolerated as a necessary evil to sooth the supposed barbaric impulses of men. One might argue, though, that both 19th century America and the Firefly ‘verse, would view prostitution as “therapeutic,” but certainly not in the same context.

So is Inara’s occupation simply artistic license of the 19th century American harlot? Or something more? I think your post suggests that perhaps the contention might have been to introduce some of the supposed pre-Christian pagan European sexual freedom? Although even in that context, it is a poor fit. Pre-Christian pagan Europe may have been a world were sexuality was looked upon as much less taboo then it became in the prudish Victorian Era, but the prostitute was by no means revered in most circumstances. It might surprise many people that in the pre-Christian Roman world prostitutes were viewed much as they were in 19th century America, as a necessary evil, not necessarily sacred. In fact, the Vestal Virgins suggest that like, Christianity and Buddhism, it is celibacy, not sexuality that is revered as sacred.

It’s hard to say what if any plausible historical justification for Inara exist, but I enjoyed reading your post. It offers an insight that I’ve not heard in a while. Particularly in that Inara may be more a prediction of the direction modern society is moving, then a historical one. Inara represents, from Joss’ perspective, the anti-Mal: socially Progressive in contrast to Mal’s social Conservativism, which are not only dichotomies of social thought today, but also in the late 19th century America.


Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 7:13 AM

CEDRIC


That is an interesting perspective. I've long held that Shepherd Book is on the show to represent the Western religions (and he dies a martyr's death, interesting) while Inara is there to represent the Eastern religions. Of course, it's not simple allegory, but it is interesting to see the respect they have for one another.

As a Wiccan myself, I've found that people of devout but diverse spirituality often have more in common with each other than with those who aren't devout, even within the same congregation.

Much of the movie focuses on the importance of belief--and we can see that with Inara. She views her actions as sacred rather than smutty, and so they are sacred. She is not bothered by nudity when Shepherd Book is--because she knows that nudity and sexuality are not the same thing. (Anyone who has been to a skyclad ritual has learned that, even though people who haven't rarely grasp that truth.)

Cedric

"Some things stay with you, 'til the day you die."
On the Drift: Music Inspired by Firefly and Serenity, now on sale at
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bedlambards/from/celtic

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 7:23 AM

DAVESHAYNE


Quote:
Originally posted by incongresswiththebeast:
Hi! I've been lurking here for a while, but this is my first post. *coughs, and looks about nervously*


Hi, welcome aboard. There's mudders milk and strawberries and the supply clerk should be by shortly to issue your browncoat.

If you haven't already read it I suggest picking up a copy of Finding Serenity. One of the essays ("Whores and Goddesses" by Joy Davidson) argues along similar lines to your post.

Quote:
So it's clear that Inara sees her role as traditional, even sacred. The problem she faces is that very few others do.


I think your missing some subtext here. The times when people are treating Inara (or companions in general) with disrespect are meant to be the exceptions as opposed to the general attitude. Certainly one gets the impression that on the central planets Companions have a good deal of say in society. This however is less true on border and rim worlds perhaps because the Guild is seen as an Alliance organisation, foreign and unwanted.

With Higgins this lack of respect for the ceremonies of companions is a result of his ignorance of the niceties of society. The man knows about slaveholding, mud, and not much else. He's just out of his league with Inara and doesn't even know that he's acting with disrespect.

Atherton also appears to be a bit ignorant of a companions true standing but he is trying to climb the social ladder in the only way available to him - hiring a companion. When at the end of Shindig Inara tells Ath that he has been blackmarked she is relegating him to the fringes of the society he wishes to be the center of.

Mal's relationship with Inara is of course much more complex. On the surface he shows a great lack of respect but underneath the snark he does respect Inara and maybe even the work she does. He just can't say that for a number of reasons most of them relating to his "intimacy issues" as Wash calls them.

Anyway fine points all and again welcome.

David

"A lot of people are asking me, you know, what exactly is Firefly? It's a tv show you morons!" - Joss Whedon

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 8:23 AM

BRIGHIT


YAY! I'm a Wiccan too, never thought I'd find another one here!
And yes, your post is very interesting. I must say I do agree with most of what you said.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 8:47 AM

ZOID


incongresswiththebeast:

Welcome to the board. I love discussions like these (i.e., with substance), about the underpinnings of Firefly.

I joined this board on April Fool's Day in 2004, which you'll find is fitting, once you get to know me. I had been posting my signature, long-winded diatribes on alt.tv.firefly for over a year before I stumbled on this place. A day that will live in infamy...

As a 'hello' to the board, I quite rudely reposted a three-part series on "Firefly and Religion" that I had previously annoyed folks with on a.t.f. Luckily, as has been noted above, the folks here are wonderful -- and always have been -- and tolerant of n00bs, even gasbags like me.

So, without further ado, here's a link to "Firefly and Religion, Part III", originally (re)posted on the day I joined, nigh on 2 years ago. (See http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=2&t=4558) The 3-part series focused on the loss of faith, or apostasy, exhibited on Firefly. Part III deals entirely with my speculations on Inara's religion and how she is losing her belief in that faith; the first two were on Mal and Book, respectively.

I thought you might like to read 'Part III', since it varies from most folks opinions, and there's a fairly representative sample of other opinions in the thread, from my dear, long-lost friends who've since shuffled off to other websites (apparently).

Please remember, in April 2004 there were no series DVDs (came out in Dec 04). So, we were doing it all from memory of watching the series on F*X (mostly ), at that point in history. Please forgive any inaccuracies or misquotes...



Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
One respondent, 'LuppinAdams' identified himself as "For the record, I've been a practitioner of sex-alchemy for over 20 years and after studying many religions, consider myself a Taoist of the heretical 3-Aspect school". I think he's got you beat for off-center religious practice, and he wasn't particularly nervous about the reception he might receive, so you shouldn't be either. With the exception of outright trolls, we're a pretty accepting bunch.
_________________________________________________

"I aim to misbehave." -Capt. Mal Reynolds, Serenity, a.k.a. 'the BDBOF'

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 9:48 AM

BITTERBIERCE


So I'm the only person here who thinks the term "Wiccan's perspective" is utterly hilarious? You know, speaking as the only trained philosopher here who has actually studied theology, my considered opinion is "Ahhhh ha ha ha ha ha!". Oh Christ, upon reading you it occurs to me that I must have dated at you at some point.

Yeah, me 'n Mal have si-mu-lar views. Which is going to make the coming deluge for my meanyness all the more ironic, seeing as how I'm sneering and copping little comments at the sacral sex and religious views the same way he does. Why, all that back-and-forth is fine for the show, but do we have to have people on these boards being so snippy like Bierce? Can't we all just agree and use words like "valid perspectives" and "alternative ethics" just like Firefly doesn't?
Why, he's using negative energy! Negative viewpoints aren't valid!

Also, you wanted to say empathy, not sympathy. If you empathize, you're emotionally connecting to someone or some situation familiar to your experience or beliefs. You can identify with it. When you sympathize you feel for something inherently alien: like feeling for people suffering in a gulag. Wiccans can empathize with the idea of sacred sex, not sympathize. I know Wiccans aren't real big into exacting concepts, but I thought I'd write just in case someone else was reading.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 9:55 AM

THEPISTONENGINE


incongresswiththebeast:

Ok, one question. Well, a preface followed by a question. Something like that.

In Heart of Gold, Inara mentions to Mal about not being Puritanical about sex (obviously she was lying, as the next scene revealed), but she seems to be expressing more of a Companion's Guild philosophy. The distinction she seems to be making does not fall solely on the sacredness of celibacy (Puritanical) versus sexuality (Wiccan). She is implying that he has a right to have sex with a willing partner of his choice, and by her reaction it is my opinion that intellectually she feels that to be true.

Obviously, this is not a direct contradiction to what you have said, but it does raise some questions. Yes, obviously she holds sex as something deeply personal and sacred, but she doesn't expect that of others. Ok, so maybe she's a very tolerant/fed up wiccanish Companion.

Ok, so my question is, if her beliefs about sex are as strong as you make them out to be, which is entirely plausable, why does she restrain herself from expressing that to anyone? Obviously she wouldn't to Mal, that'd be honest and straightforward. But to Shepherd, perhaps? Maybe we didn't have enough episodes to get to it.

I think I changed my mind whether or not I agree with you several times while writing this.

_________________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:10 AM

THEPISTONENGINE


Bierce:

Are you going to actually back up your sneers with some disagreements, or just poke fun at her because she's a Wiccan? Or maybe you'll laugh at be because my religious beliefs are indifferent to a point beyond Agnostism?

For being semi-Atheist, I am very connected to religious people. I hold a lot of their values, I just don't belief in the theology. Heck, I'm more conservative than most people who go to church every Sunday.

Why do I mention that? Because it's to show you that people can look upon each other and respect each other not simply in spite of theological beliefs, but BECAUSE of theological differences. My personal semi-lack of faith has been reinforced by discussing religion with people of vastly different perspectives.

So allow me to dissect your post.

"You know, speaking as the only trained philosopher here who has actually studied theology..."
You may not be the only one, and you being a trained philosophey gives you no more special insight than anyone else who can think objectively and logically (although many argue the number of people who can is very few). It's like me proclaiming a mechanical engineering degree means I can fix my car if it breaks on the highway.

"Negative viewpoints aren't valid!"
Negative viewpoints are valid, provided you give a viewpoint rather than just negativity.

I can understand your religious sensibilities being offended by someone of a completely opposed faith (ok, so I don't really know Wiccan's are completely opposed to Christains, but let it go). However, it's completely inexcusible to lash out at them.

I am with you, in a small part. When I hear Wiccan, I think a college goth who's given up brainless adherence to his/her parents religion to brainless adherence to another. It's my gut reaction, but, seeing as I don't know the person in question, and the person in question presented a well articulated and reasoned discussion, I put my gut aside, open my mind, and not apply my own personal stereotypes.
Heck, you might say I can sympathize with him/her.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
So I'm the only person here who thinks the term "Wiccan's perspective" is utterly hilarious? You know, speaking as the only trained philosopher here who has actually studied theology, my considered opinion is "Ahhhh ha ha ha ha ha!". Oh Christ, upon reading you it occurs to me that I must have dated at you at some point.

Yeah, me 'n Mal have si-mu-lar views. Which is going to make the coming deluge for my meanyness all the more ironic, seeing as how I'm sneering and copping little comments at the sacral sex and religious views the same way he does. Why, all that back-and-forth is fine for the show, but do we have to have people on these boards being so snippy like Bierce? Can't we all just agree and use words like "valid perspectives" and "alternative ethics" just like Firefly doesn't?
Why, he's using negative energy! Negative viewpoints aren't valid!

Also, you wanted to say empathy, not sympathy. If you empathize, you're emotionally connecting to someone or some situation familiar to your experience or beliefs. You can identify with it. When you sympathize you feel for something inherently alien: like feeling for people suffering in a gulag. Wiccans can empathize with the idea of sacred sex, not sympathize. I know Wiccans aren't real big into exacting concepts, but I thought I'd write just in case someone else was reading.


_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:07 AM

BITTERBIERCE


Quote:
Are you going to actually back up your sneers with some disagreements, or just poke fun at her because she's a Wiccan?


Well duh, poke fun! I'm a big believer in fun. I argue more serious folk elsewhere. This is where I come to roll around in the flowers and smile at pretty girls and fart during "Diversity Is Our Strength" lectures. Too bad Gutterball isn't around, we'd have fun with this.

Quote:
Or maybe you'll laugh at be because my religious beliefs are indifferent to a point beyond Agnostism?


Well in philosophy its called indeterminism, but I suspect you're more the real life "who gives a s..." version. Cool! I am perfectly find with your pareto-agnosticism, to coin an obscure reference.

Quote:
For being semi-Atheist, I am very connected to religious people.


Yeah, I like 'em too. I don't have the problem most agnosto-atheists have, but I also reserve the right to treat religions differently. Some, the ones with good morals and the exquisite and almost respectable Aquinas-like metaphysics aren't so bad. And some, like Wiccans, Mohhamedans and Scientologists are fricking HILARIOUS and I don't have to respect them a bit.

I don't have to argue like my opponent is serious. As the great Mencken once said, one good laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms.


Quote:

Why do I mention that? Because it's to show you that people can look upon each other and respect each other not simply in spite of theological beliefs, but BECAUSE of theological differences.



No, and that's specious crap to say. Respect is earned by definition. What you are arguing for is a de facto bland acceptance of other ideas no matter how stupid or ill-formed. I don't respect Nazi ideas and I don't respect Wiccans and I won't be forced to take them seriously. Now, I don't disrespect both the same way, and I disrespect them both for very different reasons, but the key is respect as an earned right. She earns respect by being witty in reply and slyly forcing me to address her actual issues, and then she has to earn it again by arguing for them well. That's how it works. That's how Wiccans gain respect. It won't come with a Title IX clause and bland American puritanical PC clucking.

I believe modern society has things precisely backwards: they are rude in everyday real life and cringingly sensitive in the realm of ideas. I violently disagree with this notion. Be kind to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas. Politeness in debate is one of the worst curses of mankind, right after mass murder and the Lifetime channel.


Quote:
So allow me to dissect your post.



No! No you can't! Weeeelllll, ok. But you've gotta give me popcorn!


Quote:
You may not be the only one, and you being a trained philosophey gives you no more special insight than anyone else who can think objectively and logically


What you're looking for in formal logic is called the "fallacy of assumed authority" and you're right, it doesn't give me special imprimatur to anything. But then that wasn't my point. It wasn't an attempt at authority so much as an attempt to undermine it- namely her unearned respect. But yes, you are entirely correct that I have EARNED nothing by stating that. Then again, I didn't advance any argument. And for this I refer you to above.

Quote:
Negative viewpoints are valid, provided you give a viewpoint rather than just negativity.


Why? I mean, I did have another reason -fun- but I want to know why I can't merely be negative. Some of the greatest critics in history merely tear down without building anything in its place. Hell, Voltaire alone was a little philosophical assassin on that score. And like I said, Mencken was truly great, but I'll be damned if I can find a constructive thing he ever said.

I remember Rodney King whining "Can't we just all get along?" Well no, actually. Thank (insert diety here).


Quote:
I can understand your religious sensibilities being offended by someone of a completely opposed faith (ok, so I don't really know Wiccan's are completely opposed to Christains, but let it go).


Oh you can understand me being offended, can you? Just curious, how precisely have my religious sensibilities been hurt here? Also, while you're at it, can you tell me what my religion is? I'm just dyin' ta know.


Quote:
However, it's completely inexcusible to lash out at them.


I "lashed"? Silly me, I thought I just poked a bit o' fun. Here it turns out I was causing welts and bruises! She should put that plant stuff on the wounds, it really helps the burning.


Quote:
I am with you, in a small part. When I hear Wiccan, I think a college goth who's given up brainless adherence to his/her parents religion to brainless adherence to another.


Now I object. How can you be so negative about that Wiccan's parents? You said nothing constructive about them.

See how dumb your logic is turned back on ya?


Quote:
It's my gut reaction, but, seeing as I don't know the person in question, and the person in question presented a well articulated and reasoned discussion, I put my gut aside, open my mind, and not apply my own personal stereotypes.


Yeah, if she's pretty enough I stop my critical thinking processes too. You never know, she might be easy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:40 AM

THEPISTONENGINE


Ok, since you use Voltaire as a great critic, I think we can simply stop here. But I'm bull-headed, so I won't. First of all, being simply negative doesn't put you at the elevation of Voltaire, who at least critized certain aspects of his target, rather than a general "Hee hee haw haw." That being said, satirical criticism is an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual, which you seem to favor rather abundantly in your posts. Instead of marking down my arguments and carefully refuting them, you make fun of them, inserting what unimplied stereotypes you feel will make me look stupid.

Respect, to the common degree, is not something to be withheld until earned, it is something to be taken away once abused. Of course you take away respect from groups that abuse their authority (Nazi's, KKK, the democratic party [joking!]). Nor did I imply that you accept any ideas as if your brain is a sponge. I simply stated that you should respect someone for their differences of belief. Yes, that is an overly generic statement. It should have been stated clearer, you are right on that score. You can satirize it all you want, but most fair minded people, even those who reject Wiccans as a faith, give the individual respect.


"I believe modern society has things precisely backwards: they are rude in everyday real life and cringingly sensitive in the realm of ideas. I violently disagree with this notion. Be kind to your neighbor. Be hell to his ideas. Politeness in debate is one of the worst curses of mankind, right after mass murder and the Lifetime channel."
--Agreed to wholeheartedly. Again, an example of you implying I'm making an argument that I'm not.

And yes, I can empathize with you being offended. There are many things about many faiths I find offensive, particularly Christianity. I am merely making the natural assumption that other people are human too, and feel certain beliefs so opposed to their own as to be offensive. That doesn't mean you play the Voltaire card, saving yourself from having to actually having to make an argument, and ruthlessly mock the opposing faith.

And again, in my last argument, my logic certainly did not fail me. I merely acknowledged that I have personal prejudices and stereotypes like eveyone else (If you think you don't, you are egotistical, arrogant, and condescending) including the parenthetical one. It was a means to show that we don't have to let these stereotyoes get in our way.

See how I don't use "poke fun" as an excuse for flaming on you. Next time you have a beef with someone, articulate it. Don't put words in their mouths, don't satirize it. That's just fallicious ways of making your opposition look stupid rather than you look smart.

One point of hypocrisy, I might mention.

" I suspect you're more the real life 'who gives a s...' version."

Then:

"Oh you can understand me being offended, can you? Just curious, how precisely have my religious sensibilities been hurt here? Also, while you're at it, can you tell me what my religion is? I'm just dyin' ta know."

And, because I'm halfway positive you will tell me your assumption is based on facts I already revealed, I will respond in advance. By proclaiming the Wiccan faith as below respect, you are also showing your religious sensibilities as one of a faith who does not tolerate Wiccans. Ok, I'm assuming it's a religious sensibility that does not tolerate, but there's certainly no logic to it. Adhering logic to a person's lifestyle and religious beliefs doesn't generally work.

And just because I'm feeling particularly long-winded and self-righteous (self-deprecating humor, don't satirize it as a self-admission of anything), who the hell do you think you are to place Wiccan's beneath respect? You play the card that says, "Of course I can make the judgement, we judge the same for other groups like Nazi's." Why don't you make a few comparisons to New Age Wiccans and the National Socialist movement? How can you make a comparison between a voluntary faith and a corrupt party that brutally murdered millions of people? Don't bring in past practices of Pagans and Wiccans, they don't apply. We're talking about Wiccans, as they practice today.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 12:08 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


Oh yeah, because I forgot the first time around: This is the satirical farce that doesn't make for good intellectual discussion you previously promoted. I don't think I implied this in anyway, but hey, you go ahead and put it in my mouth.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:

Yeah, if she's pretty enough I stop my critical thinking processes too. You never know, she might be easy.


_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 12:32 PM

STDOUBT


Hey BitterBierce~
How about you stick this into your philosopy toolbag: "You don't have to respect anyone. But you should treat everyone with respect."
Difference too subtle for ya? Hope not. Too much to ask? Probably.
Adopting this view might actually make the world a better place but that's not what it's about for you. Being nice to the OP would have been against your philosophy? Or what? Would it have meant that you're politically correct? No. Just nice. But you're not. You're a dick. So be it, but if you're going to say snide things to new posters maybe you oughtta come over to the air-lock with me.
The glaring fact here is that the original poster said things that offended you. Wah wah wah.
Admit you're offended. We don't care why you're offended, most of us will chalk it up to narrow-mindedness. News flash...this just in... could be nobody's interested in gaining your respect -what a thought.

In my little philosophy, all humans deserve a default ammount of respect just for being human. That sound silly to you? Then F**k off.
"speaking as the only trained philosopher here"
(get a life)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 1:31 PM

SCREWTHEALLIANCE


Gotta speak up.

Firstly, to the matter of how much respect or disrespect Wiccans are accorded:

There are a lot of misconceptions about Wiccans, and a few of them bear clearing up. Firstly, the idea that all Wiccans are either 18 year old Buffy-fanatics with a gothy wardrobe and poor interpersonal skills, or middle-aged Boomer women who listen to New Age music and have homes festooned with crystals and cats. While both stereotypes certainly have their basis in truth, they are, like all stereotypes, neither universal or definitive. Case in point: I'm a 38 year old white male with a wife, three kids, a mortgage, an SUV and a day job.

Secondly, the idea that "Wiccan Philosophy", "Wiccan Perspectives" and Wiccan religion is a slap-dash affair, a mish-mosh of elements from everywhere without any cohesive philosophy or theology is also wrong. I know this because I have been a Wiccan Theologian for almost twenty years now, and I have studied the matter in depth. Wicca has a very complex and sophisticated theology based on a duotheistic/polytheistic godhead with an emphasis on personal psychological development using a Jungian-type method of ritual expression.

Yeah, we take a lot of heat for a lot of stuff; the point, though, is that we are as syncretic as any "world" religion, we just don't feel compelled to restrict our religious inspiration from a limited number of texts or collections of beliefs. Many of the syncretic elements of Wicca and the other neo-pagan religions are not even, from a Abrahamic perspective, particularly religious: in particular the focus on Nature, the inclusion of Magick in our practice, the lack of reliance on a single male divinity, and the elevation of sexuality to the level of the sacred. Whether or not these inclusions are reflective of the beliefs of our paleo-pagan ancestors is moot; the fact is, we consider them legitimate parts of belief and practice, and we're pretty firm about it.

All of that being said, I do think there is room for a Wiccan (or, more precisely, Neo-Pagan) perspective on Inara, the Companion's Guild, and the role of Sacred Sexuality. Which I will publish here the next time I have a few moments to write coherently on the subject.

Hope this clears some stuff up for folks.

ScrewtheALliance

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 2:31 PM

BITTERBIERCE


Quote:

Ok, since you use Voltaire as a great critic, I think we can simply stop here.


Actually I don't think that's something you can dispute on anything except with personal taste. I didn't make any judgement about him except that he is a known man, considered great by multitudes of intellectuals, and a profoundly negative meanie. But with the way you write that, I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't really know who he is or what he meant to his time.

Quote:
First of all, being simply negative doesn't put you at the elevation of Voltaire, who at least critized certain aspects of his target, rather than a general "Hee hee haw haw."



I didn't say it did, nor did I say I was Santa Claus for all the relation it has to do with what I said. I wasn't trying a positive assertion of my bad-asslitude, I was disproving the silly puritanical assertion of non-judgementalism combined with sweetie-pie verbal aesthetics. I was disproving a negative, not proving a positive. I don't have to prove my post is anything, all I have to do is prove I have the right to put it there. See how that works?


Quote:
That being said, satirical criticism is an emotional appeal rather than an intellectual,


So? I really think you need to look up the technical word "fun" I used in the dictionary.


Quote:
Respect, to the common degree, is not something to be withheld until earned, it is something to be taken away once abused.



No, and that's a really stupid to say. You're conflating the words kindness and respect. Not only are you wrong about that, you're deeply wrong, a kind of penultimate wrong: you must center yourself in the universe and become one with your own inner wrongness.


Quote:
Nor did I imply that you accept any ideas as if your brain is a sponge.


Yeah you did, clearly, with the "open mind" crap. That means "you can disagree, but only if I like how you do it". How about this- you stick with your open mind, I'll stick with my critical thinking skills.


Quote:
I simply stated that you should respect someone for their differences of belief.


And I simply said that's a load of hooey and I don't have to "accept" a goddamn thing, much less her absurdist spiritualism.


Quote:
Yes, that is an overly generic statement. It should have been stated clearer, you are right on that score. You can satirize it all you want, but most fair minded people, even those who reject Wiccans as a faith, give the individual respect.


So then your problem is not so much with me as with the entire concept of satire. Um, ok. Good for you, you don't approve of satire. That's another idea so lividly dim I don't feel the need to refute it or even address it.


Quote:
--Agreed to wholeheartedly (note from me- to the idea that society has things backward) Again, an example of you implying I'm making an argument that I'm not.


Wrong again. You not only implied I should be cringingly sensitive the way Americans always do nowadays in our censorious culture, but you also did so using the same stock phrases and shit colloquialisms that the PC police always use. You said the same kind of stuff in the same kind of way they use it, so I conclude you meant the same thing. Not only is it a reasonable inference, but nothing you wrote so far has even given a HINT that it could mean anything else.


Quote:
And yes, I can empathize with you being offended.


Offended? In what universe did you pick THAT inference up? Neither she nor you offend me in the least- I'm as close to being immune to offense as its possible to get outside of certain American Idol contestants*. Seriously, the dictionary definition of "fun" is quite instructive, you should look it up.

In fact, I want to hazard something that will, as Otto from the Simpsons would say, "totally mess with your mind, dude"- I'm having fun right now.
I am neither offended nor do I dislike you. I mean, unless you tell me you believe in something too stupid for me to like, like anarcho syndicalism or no-fault auto insurance or something1.

There is a certain grouping of personalities who can't seem to wrap their head around the more detatched critical types, who can't seem to grasp the idea of seperating conflict from severe emotional hate. Like that other guy right above this. "Fuck you!", he empathized. It's like this kind of personality doesn't compute for them and gets 'em all hot and bothered.

By the by, I don't really think that's true for you. I just think you carelessly blundered in to telling me to be nicer in a way that uses these stock modern PC-isms, and you found out a little too late that you were a bit too lazy in how you responded. What I mean is that isn't a direct criticism of you, just the personalities that invented those puritanical tropes. But I digress.



Quote:
I merely acknowledged that I have personal prejudices and stereotypes like eveyone else (If you think you don't, you are egotistical, arrogant, and condescending)



Well now I AM offended- I recognize my own prejudices and stereotypes in a thoughtful and reflective manner, but that doesn't KEEP me from being condescending, egotistical and arrogant! I can have a sublime understanding of my intellectual paramaters and still be that!


Quote:

And, because I'm halfway positive you will tell me your assumption is based on facts I already revealed, I will respond in advance. By proclaiming the Wiccan faith as below respect, you are also showing your religious sensibilities as one of a faith who does not tolerate Wiccans



Brilliant logical deduction! Except I don't have any faith at all, I'm agnostic cum atheistic (an atheist that can't make the last metaphysical leap to certainty).

Why can't it just mean precisely what I said, that it's an idea I can't respect? Why must it go to my deep religious prejudices, which, as I pointed out above, I don't have? By the by, I have NO idea how you conflated those two things I said. They don't really seem connected in any way and you kinda just walked away after asserting they made me a hypocrite- I mean ok, maybe it does, but I don't see how you connected them.

Quote:
Adhering logic to a person's lifestyle and religious beliefs doesn't generally work.


Well there we agree wholeheartedly.


Quote:

And just because I'm feeling particularly long-winded and self-righteous (self-deprecating humor, don't satirize it as a self-admission of anything)


I promise it doesn't make me think anything except that you're long-winded and self-righteous.


Quote:
You play the card that says, "Of course I can make the judgement, we judge the same for other groups like Nazi's."


No I frickin' DIDN'T. That comes as close as you've come to making me even slightly angry- I said VERY CLEARLY that I had different ways of disrespecting both and different reasons for doing the disrespect. I had a VERY modest hope for that bit of logic, to show that it doesn't automatically follow that I must respect every crazy person around. Now you can show that I'm wrong or that I should be nice in public forums or any number of dry hypothetical reasons for oppossing my approach, but we don't "judge the same" for evil Nazis and fruit loop Wiccans. Jesus, the ONLY OTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION IN MY SENTENCE was that I wasn't disrespecting them the same way or for the same reason, and yet here you are telling me I said it. Was something distracting you from seeing those words? Were there monkeys?


Quote:
Why don't you make a few comparisons to New Age Wiccans and the National Socialist movement?


Were they terrifying net monkeys?


Quote:
How can you make a comparison between a voluntary faith and a corrupt party that brutally murdered millions of people?


Well I wasn't making the comparison, but since you brought it up I can find a very simple linguistic answer for you, and one that fits precisely into my point: they're both wholly abstract ideas that are false. Which was my point, I don't have to respect false ideas. And let me go into the umteenth time, in case I haven't made it clear by inference: except for the falseness, there is NOTHING SIMILAR BETWEEN NAZIS AND WICCANS. I didn't use the term COMPARING her with them, I used the Nazis as a harmless counterpoint to her gormless faith. If you could merely understand what I wrote, you would see I was not conflating them except in a very small way, and that I took pains to avoid moral comparison. I can quote my own words, if you want.


Quote:
We're talking about Wiccans, as they practice today.


And I'm talking about false ideas as they apply throughout history in relation to debate. Get that?








*- See? I'm even making lame JOKES!

1- Jokes! Lame jokes everywhere! See? I'm having fun!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 2:32 PM

BITTERBIERCE


Quote:

In my little philosophy, all humans deserve a default ammount of respect just for being human. That sound silly to you? Then F**k off.


Aw, I love you too, sparky!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 2:47 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


Ok, some tidying up before this thread gets pushed aside. First of all, welcome to the forums Incongresswiththebeast. I hope this thread doesn't scare you off. In truth, though I'm fairly ignorant of Wiccans, I am more scared of the general nerdiness of my fellow browncoats than anything else. If I'm not making too much of an assumption, I think your pseudonym is hilarious, it definately appeals to the stereotype of Wiccans that many people hold.

Second of all, Bitterbierce did in fact bring up a good point. Politeness should not extend into accepting other's ideas at face value without arguement. I think both myself and STDoubt agreed with him on that score.

People are entitled to believe what they wish. They aren't entitled respect for it. But at the same time, when they bring it up in a place meant for exchange of ideas, they should not be subjecting themselves to ridicule.

If a belief is so radical, outrageous, against common sense, and all decency, it should be fairly easy to refute that belief without resorting to emotion appeals of satire, planting stereotypes and unsaid arguments into others' statements, and general ridicule.

If a belief is personally offensive -- suck it up. I do it all the time. As I said before, I'm agnostic. I don't feel generally good-natured to Catholics who say I'll have to sit in Purgatory because I wasn't baptised and I don't confess my sins. I don't just accept the Lutheran belief that only faith alone will save me. But I suck it up, because their beliefs don't make them worse persons. I was with some Wiccan's once, and one was giving the other a backrub. Periodically, he would grasp at the air, as if he were pulling bad energy from the other man, and cast it aside. I thought it was silly, almost egotistical, for someone to think they could remove "bad energy" from a person. I'm an equal opportunity disbeliever, it's my nature. I use these examples to show how these behaviors and beliefs, from my point of view, don't make sense. But I don't "throw the baby out with the bath water."

Ok, so we've now know how to deal with outrageous and offensive beliefs. Any other kind would probably be amicable or benevolent, so we'll leave those by the side.

Bierce, your comments were totally unjustified. Especially the one "Why, he's using negative energy! Negative viewpoints aren't valid!" With my previous example, it should be obvious to outsiders why that was particularly sneering and mocking. You hide behind a cloud of being a trained philosopher and not giving anyone respect they haven't earned, yet you yourself have the arrogance to think your particular views have any more merit.

Yes, we all believe our own personal views to be correct. But some of us actually refine our views when faced with our own hypocrisy. Some of us are able to have reasonable dialog and dissent without, as you would say "a de facto bland acceptance of other ideas no matter how stupid or ill-formed."

Further more, some of your other comments on other threads I have found to be very assanine. It seems everytime I notice your name, it isn't something smart or clever, but a unwanted and uncalled for insult, retort, or generally negative comments. Keep them to yourself.

I hope this thread dies. If anyone disagrees with anything I have said, including you Bierce, just hit the reply button. Refute MY arguments, not a similar argument that is easier to ridicule. Who knows, I just might be faced with my own hypocrisy and have to admit it.

--Tristen

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 3:01 PM

BITTERBIERCE


Quote:

There are a lot of misconceptions about Wiccans, and a few of them bear clearing up. Firstly, the idea that all Wiccans are either 18 year old Buffy-fanatics with a gothy wardrobe and poor interpersonal skills, or middle-aged Boomer women who listen to New Age music and have homes festooned with crystals and cats.


I agree, which is why the beautiful thing about Wicca is that there is so much more of them to make fun of. Why, when you've done all the Buffy girl crap you haven't even BEGUN to exhaust the ways you can make fun of them!


Quote:
Secondly, the idea that "Wiccan Philosophy", "Wiccan Perspectives" and Wiccan religion is a slap-dash affair, a mish-mosh of elements from everywhere without any cohesive philosophy or theology is also wrong.


Oh no, son. I know rather more about them than I want to, and their theo-spirituality is complete mumbo-jumbo. I was serious when I said it was statistically likely I dated her*. I have quite a lot of familiarization with standard Pagan (as opposed to Wiccan) works, most all owing to being bored in arious Pagans' houses. It comes as close to being metaphysically meaningless as it's possible to be. In terms of metaphysics, it's primitive, rock throwing reasoning. And yes there are HUGE New Age influences throughout every last strand of Paganism.

Quote:
Yeah, we take a lot of heat for a lot of stuff


Proof justice exists in this world. And really, you don't take enough heat for your views.








*- Well, not I wasn't, but I sure did date a lot of 'em. I don't know, it was like a thing.




"One seldom discovers a true believer that is worth knowing" -HL Mencken

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 3:23 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


Ok, my last post was written as Bierce posted his last, so I feel the need to respond.

You assumption is wrong. I've read Voltaire, I know what he meant for his time. I know he used satire to great effect. So did Ben Franklin ("How to lose your empire"), and he wasn't wrong about what he wrote. But satire is an emotional appeal. No matter how much logic you pour into it, it centers on making the opposition look rediculous. I'm glad you inferred my dislike of Voltaire to mean total ignorance. If I was feeling particularly mean spirited, I'd have to come back with an unjustified comment such as "Wow, I can't even dislike a much revered figure without being branded as ignorant. I guess thinking for myself and not swollowing what I learned in college for granted makes me ignorant. I'll have to just believe in what my professor says without making judgements of my own."

Yes, you did elevate yourself to Voltaire. You pointed out the best critics tear down without building in it's place. That's what you did. Case in point, don't backpedal. I've admitted I was wrong on a score, and am about to do so again. You should do the same.

I looked up fun at www.m-w.com. The only non-enjoyment related definition was "4 : violent or excited activity or argument "
How that in away way refutes my statement that satire is an emotional appeal is beyond me.

About every person getting a certain amount of respect until showing otherwise:
"No, and that's a really stupid to say. You're conflating the words kindness and respect. Not only are you wrong about that, you're deeply wrong, a kind of penultimate wrong: you must center yourself in the universe and become one with your own inner wrongness. "

How exactly am I confusing kindness and respect (of which you showed neither, by the way)? I said respect, I meant respect. If your so into Aquinas, why don't you look into Natural Law. I think he'd say respect goes towards Sociability, one of the human foundations that should never be debased. Since the principle of forfieture does not apply (Unless you consider her privately practiced beliefs forfieting respect), I think she's entitled to some. See, I can use pretty philosophical words too. And I don't even have a degree. Too bad I'm still ignorant of who Voltaire really was.

Ok, so I said "open mind," and "treat others with respect." If that means I'm totally warm fuzzy wuzzy, not only am I clearly being hypocritical, then I need to look in the mirror. Because I used similar phrases to those who would open their minds like a sponge doesn't mean I'm one of those persons. I already admitting dropping the ball with my vague words, no need to beat a dead horse.

Me:
"I simply stated that you should respect someone for their differences of belief."

"And I simply said that's a load of hooey and I don't have to "accept" a goddamn thing, much less her absurdist spiritualism. "

Who's confusing words now? I said respect, not accept. Completely different. See natural law argument above.

On me disagreeing with satire as a form of argument:
"That's another idea so lividly dim I don't feel the need to refute it or even address it."

Good for you. Glad to see we can have meaningful discussion. I believe I have explained everyone one of my counterpoints to your positions. I'm certainly giving you a hell of a lot more respect than you are giving me, or than you deserve. I'm also glad you see anyone who disagrees with you on such a score is so stupid, or "lividly dim" (You said the idea is lividly dim, it's my idea, so that means I'm lividly dim. Not perfect logic, I know.)

Ok, so maybe I assumed you were offended. I failed to realize you needed absolutely no provocation to belittle someone. My bad, I was giving you a little more credit, once again, than you deserve.

Even atheists have religious views, they're just expressed as a negative instead of as a positive. If you believe there is no god or spiritual guidence, then a belief that there is contradicts yours, whether or not you claim to be religious. It should have been fairly obvious how you were being hypocritical. You made assumptions about my views based on what little information I gave and, at the same time, told me off for doing the same.

Again, with the Nazi spiel... I worded that portion of my argument poorly. I did see you said you disrespect Nazis and Wiccans for different reasons, and I realize my reponse heavily implied you didn't say that, but rather implied the opposite. My bad.

Let me rephrase. Who the fuck are you to pass judgement in anywhere outside your own goddamn mind and social cliche about someones innocuous religious beliefs? I pass judgement, to be sure, but only when prepared to make arguments for and against, without saying I'm well learned in philosophy and above actually argueing against anything in particular, and with the full realization that my intent is to open dialog, learn, and not belittle the other belief. It doesn't mean I have to accept it as fact, just respect it as another persons insights to the world. How stupid would it be if anyone were to tell you your agnostic cum atheistic views were bullshit, trite, laughable, and worthy only of satire instead of intense discussion?

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 3:31 PM

BITTERBIERCE


You only said two sentences that interested me.

Quote:
Bierce, your comments were totally unjustified.


In a roundabout way, my whole argument with this fella is that I don't have to justify myself to you or to anyone else, or the way I approach things.

Quote:
Keep them to yourself.


I think instead I'll just say what I want when I want to and otherwise act under the (admittedly incorrect) assumption that I live in a free country. Czeslaw Milosz once explained how he generally defeated the oppressive nature of the Eastern European regimes: act as if you were free and say what you want, no matter what your conditions. You'd be surprised how far it can get you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 3:40 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


I think you may have fallen in the same trap I did, that trap being reading and posting a reply as another relevent post is being sent up. So please, if you want to back your opinions up with something other than "freedom of speech," (go ahead, speak all you want. I don't believe there is a freedom of fff.net forum anywhere in the constitution), feel free to look at my latest post.


Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
You only said two sentences that interested me.

Quote:
Bierce, your comments were totally unjustified.


In a roundabout way, my whole argument with this fella is that I don't have to justify myself to you or to anyone else, or the way I approach things.

Quote:
Keep them to yourself.


I think instead I'll just say what I want when I want to and otherwise act under the (admittedly incorrect) assumption that I live in a free country. Czeslaw Milosz once explained how he generally defeated the oppressive nature of the Eastern European regimes: act as if you were free and say what you want, no matter what your conditions. You'd be surprised how far it can get you.


_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 3:54 PM

BITTERBIERCE


Quote:
Oh yeah, because I forgot the first time around: This is the satirical farce that doesn't make for good intellectual discussion you previously promoted.


I thought I was promoting fun, not intellectual argument. There's a place for it, and it ain't here.

Quote:
I don't think I implied this in anyway, but hey, you go ahead and put it in my mouth.


Wow, it didn't even occur to me you might take that seriously. I don't quite know what to say other than "it was a joke, I didn't mean it".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 4:01 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


(Begin satire)Well, it's good to see your satirical arguments have fallen to "I didn't mean it," "we live in a free country," and "I was promoting fun." I'm sorry I completely mistook you from the very beginning. I guess I failed to see how obviously insinuating commments about Wiccans (You are obviously fairly schooled, so I am sure you knew every implication you were making), such as poking fun at "negative energy" and openly professing disrespect, was simply fun. I'm guessing the Catholic Church thought Voltaire was all in good clean fun, not really trying to promote any intellectual argument. (End satire)

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 4:20 PM

SCREWTHEALLIANCE


Quote:
I agree, which is why the beautiful thing about Wicca is that there is so much more of them to make fun of. Why, when you've done all the Buffy girl crap you haven't even BEGUN to exhaust the ways you can make fun of them!


You have far too much free time on your hands.
The fact is, any Wiccan past the fluffy-bunny stage is quite willing to poke fun at themselves. Humor, you see, is a religious experience to many Wiccans. And we have internal stereotypes to make fun of that you haven't even heard about. The fact is, you can't say anything about us (that is true, that is) that we haven't said already about ourselves.

Quote:
Oh no, son. I know rather more about them than I want to, and their theo-spirituality is complete mumbo-jumbo.


If you consider it mumbo-jumbo, then no, you don't know very much about it. If you see only mumbo-jumbo, then you have missed the point about the religion and any further criticism you have about it loses validity fast.

Quote:

I was serious when I said it was statistically likely I dated her*. I have quite a lot of familiarization with standard Pagan (as opposed to Wiccan) works, most all owing to being bored in arious Pagans' houses. It comes as close to being metaphysically meaningless as it's possible to be. In terms of metaphysics, it's primitive, rock throwing reasoning. And yes there are HUGE New Age influences throughout every last strand of Paganism.


You say that like it's a bad thing.
Metaphysically meaningless? Only if you have a flat-headed, text-wedded narrow Radical Monotheistic point of view. What, exactly, do you find meaningless about our theology? Indeed, what do you know about your theology? Our metaphysics is quite robust and well developed in some circle -- I'm not talking about the Scott Cunningham crowd. And as far as the New Age influences, I repeat: Like all religions, we are syncretic, and we will absorb concepts and practices we find beneficial to our spirituality. It's commonly noted that the beliefs of the "New Age" are quite old, just with a new coat of paint. That doesn't bother us. Sorry if it bothers you.

Quote:
Proof justice exists in this world. And really, you don't take enough heat for your views.


And what views would those be? What do you know of Wiccan/Pagan theology? The real stuff, not the hype and the propaganda.

Don't pick on us just because we're an emergent religion -- if you have a philosophical bone to pick, slap it on the table. I brought the BBQ sauce.

StA





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 4:31 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


Careful ScrewTheAlliance... you fast going down a bad road debating the viability of your religion, its origins, its practices, the customs of its members, and whole slew of things near and dear to your heart. And I think you missed some of what Bierce is saying, I don't think he has much respect for any religion, I just think he ascribes more value to monotheistic ones that represent some of Thomas Aquinas's values.

There are plently of people who see, perhaps ignorantly so, Wiccans as juvenile, or satanic, or whatever stereotype you want.

I delibertly tried to keep the discussion in the flow of Bierce's bad tactics, bad taste, and arrogance. Don't get too caught up in the particulars, it will turn the light from his lack of being able to have an intelligent discussion and allow him to speak unbacked opinions. There is no way that's going to end well.

Better leave this between two ignoramuses who don't care much for Wiccans (joke!)

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 4:35 PM

COPILOT


Interesting take on Inara. I really enjoy hearing about all the Browncoats different beliefs and prespectives.

An I carried such a torch

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 4:40 PM

SCREWTHEALLIANCE


Hey, that's fine -- I just thought that the original discussion topic was an astute one. While Inara is by no means a Wiccan -- she is obviously a Buddhist -- there are aspects of her profession that have religious resonance with modern Wiccan/Pagan ideas. First and foremost, the idea of sexuality as an inherently sacred -- as opposed to sinful -- expression of our humanity.

But a Wiccan perspective on the Companions goes further than that. The determination that sexuality is sacred, which is one of the foundations of Wiccan spirituality, leads to the inevitable conclusion that the componant genders are also reflections of the Divine -- complementary, equal reflections. The Rebirth of the Goddess is a powerful theological argument in modern Paganism, and one the Radical Monotheists have no clear answer for.

As far as the gadfly, my skin is thick. I've been beat up by better people than that, and ones who had a real theological clue. I've seen challenge after challenge to my faith over the course of twenty years, and yet my faith remains stronger today than when I first found the religion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 5:27 PM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Quote:
The Rebirth of the Goddess is a powerful theological argument in modern Paganism, and one the Radical Monotheists have no clear answer for.


Rebirth of the Goddess? What is that?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 5:54 PM

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION


Thanks "SCREWTHEALLIANCE" for your perspective. I really enjoyed reading your posts and I thank the thread originator for starting this whole discussion.

I have done a little study in this area and found information like this.....

(from The Golden Bough by Sir James Frazer)

'Thus at Babylon every woman, whether rich or poor, had once in her life to submit to the embraces of a stranger at the temple of Mylitta, that is, of Ishtar or Astarte, and to dedicate to the goddess the wages earned by this sanctified harlotry. The sacred precinct was crowded with women waiting to observe the custom. Some of them had to wait there for years.

At Heliopolis or Baalbec in Syria, famous for the imposing grandeur of its ruined temples, the custom of the country required that every maiden should prostitute herself to a stranger at the temple of Astarte, and matrons as well as maids testified their devotion to the goddess in the same manner. The emperor Constantine abolished the custom, destroyed the temple, and built a church in its stead.

In Phoenician temples women prostituted themselves for hire in the service of religion, believing that by this conduct they propitiated the goddess and won her favour. "It was a law of the Amorites. that she who was about to marry should sit in fornication seven days by the gate."

At Byblus the people shaved their heads in the annual mourning for Adonis. Women who refused to sacrifice their hair had to give themselves up to strangers on a certain day of the festival, and the money they thus earned was devoted to the goddess.

A Greek inscription found at Tralles in Lydia proves that the practice of religious prostitution survived in that country as late as the second century of our era. It records of a certain woman, Aurelia Aemilia by name, not only that she herself served the god in the capacity of a harlot at his express command, but that her mother and other female ancestors had done the same before her; and the publicity of the record, engraved on a marble column which supported a votive offering, shows that no stain attached to such a life and such a parentage.

In Armenia the noblest families dedicated their daughters to the service of the goddess Anaitis in her temple at Acilisena, where the damsels acted as prostitutes for a long time before they were given in marriage. Nobody scrupled to take one of these girls to wife when her period of service was over.

Again the goddess Ma was served by a multitude of sacred harlots at Comana in Pontus, and crowds of men and women flocked to her sanctuary from the neighbouring cities and country to attend the biennial festivals or to pay their vows to the goddess.'

I can easily see the character of Inara expressing some of these anchient beliefs. From what I have read of The Great One (all Hail Joss!), he is quite the history nerd. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if he used this character to explore some of those old ideals.

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 7:48 PM

KIZYR


Quote:
Originally posted by ScrewtheAlliance:
Hey, that's fine -- I just thought that the original discussion topic was an astute one.


I wanted to chime in on this by now. A grounded philosophy is a philosophy; it shouldn't matter whether or not it stems from religion, a set of amalgamated belief systems, personal ethics, or whatever to be worth listening to. I'm a strict monotheist myself (Muslim, specifically), but I really enjoy hearing different perspectives on certain issues coming from other backgrounds; when it's on a topic that's originally fictitious (Inara and Companions), it means that the topic can be delved into without any reason to approach denigrating other folks' beliefs.

So, yeah, I think this perspective really adds something onto the idea of Companions in general and Inara specifically. There's been a lot of parallels with the original concept of a Geisha--respected women in high positions being the main thing there. But, the entire idea of a Companions' role being to unify seems like an additional concept. That seems like it's taken from not just pre-modern East Asian history, but ancient history as well; it didn't seem so obvious 'til hearing this perspective.

Quote:
As far as the gadfly, my skin is thick. I've been beat up by better people than that, and ones who had a real theological clue.


Some folks, very simply, should be paid no mind and aren't worth arguing with--or, more precisely, aren't worth being drawn into an argument with. KF

EDIT: It occurs to me that just as interesting would be a Hindu perspective... Sex is an extremely significant thing in old texts like the Mahabharata, and sex between the gods was supposed to symbolize unity... or rebirth... or something.

I'm not the one to give this perspective, obviously... KF


~KF

Lord, I'm walking your way. Let me in, for my feet are sore, my clothes are ragged.
Look in my eyes, Lord, and my sins will play out on them as on a screen. Read them all.
Forgive what you can and send me on my path. I will walk on until you bid me rest.
~Haven Prayer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 8:57 PM

BITTERBIERCE


"So please, if you want to back your opinions up with something other than "freedom of speech," (go ahead, speak all you want. I don't believe there is a freedom of fff.net forum anywhere in the constitution), feel free to look at my latest post"

Then go complain and get me kicked off. You're the type. As for the rest, you clearly haven't been reading.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 9:14 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


Oh? So now you know I'm the type to complain to get you kicked off. First I'm the "don't give a shit about God one way or the other" type, then I'm the "lets silence this dude type." I believe every post I have made has challenged you to respond, and therefore I really do feel you should be allowed to speak your piece. I was merely calling to your attention that living in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" doesn't give you special priveledge to give unruly and disrespectful opinions.

I suspect your subconscious is starting to realize your opinions are, while perhaps not fallacious, grounded in fallacious reasoning. If not, you would have something more substantial than proclaiming yourself a member of a free speaking society and, again, attack me instead of defend yourself. You direct the attention away by painting me as a silencer of dissenting opinion. Wrong, I am enjoying nothing more than you making yourself look stupid.

But maybe I am wrong. Maybe you do have something more substantial than how many ways you can make fun of Wicca or telling me "You only said two sentences that interested me." (Well, I'm glad your high sense of intellect only allows you to respond to the most carefully groomed of sentences.) Maybe you actually have perfectly legitimate grounds for belittling Wiccans and not oftering any backing other than trying to be funny and poke fun.

PROVE IT. Refute my arguments, which until very recently have been made against your ideas, not you. Show us you have something other than a high education to back your opinions.

I suspect you feel you have absolutely nothing to prove to me, I'm nothing but a screenname on a website. I suspect you also feel it's beneath you to reason with me, hell, I can't even see the enlightenment of Voltaire and satire. What an ignorant savage I am!

But I could be wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
"So please, if you want to back your opinions up with something other than "freedom of speech," (go ahead, speak all you want. I don't believe there is a freedom of fff.net forum anywhere in the constitution), feel free to look at my latest post"

Then go complain and get me kicked off. You're the type. As for the rest, you clearly haven't been reading.


_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 9:26 PM

SCREWTHEALLIANCE


Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
The Rebirth of the Goddess is a powerful theological argument in modern Paganism, and one the Radical Monotheists have no clear answer for.


Rebirth of the Goddess? What is that?


The idea is that when the Radical Monotheists took control of the Western World (and then exported their beliefs via empire to the rest) the god that they exalted as the One True God was understood and worshipped as male. Jehovah/Jesus/Allah were all male divinities from firmly patriarchal societies. The Mother Goddess that was universally revered for thousands of years of prehistory and protohistory was demonized or de-deified, at best given second-class status and at worst condemned as evil.

The modern Rebirth of the Goddess as understood by Wicca and the other neo-pagan religions is a ressurection of the ancient "fertility" goddess, but it goes beyond that. Modern Pagans view divinity as a reflection of our own humanity (or humanity as a reflection of the divine order) and recognize the Divine as both male and female. The Goddess is Mother, Maiden, and Crone in Wiccan belief, that is representitive of the fertility, sexuality, and wisdom of women and the essential divinity of womanhood through the Goddess.

This is brought home by a woman's ability to provide Caritas -- originally the love between a mother and child, but extended through our lives as the essentially sexual love a woman expresses for a man and later in life for the compassion she displayed for her community. Caritas was once seen as the prime motivating force in the universe. When Radical Monotheism and it's penis-packin' divinities showed up, the compassionate nature of Caritas was cheapened by the church into "Christian Charity". Caritas, however, goes far beyond that.

When you view the Divine as feminine, a lot of the preconceptions about our social roles in Western society become challenged: specifically the idea that men are the default gender, and that women are mere appendages or awards to male success. The Goddess personifies the self-realized woman, one who is in complete control of her sexuality, her psyche, and her spirit. She isn't just Jehovah in drag, but brings a uniquely feminine point of view to many profound questions in our society.

Inara is a purveyor of this Caritas in its most sexual form. What she and her sisters do is a trade, true, but it is more a devotion to compassion through sexual expression. I may go into this in more detail later.

StA

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 9:29 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


I must make another acknowledgement of a mistake:

I incorrectly title Ben Franklin's satirical essay earlier. It was bugging me that I may have misstated it, so I took the time to find the right title.

"Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One."

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 9:34 PM

CEDRIC


BitterBierce,

As a former agnostic turned Wiccan, I just have to say that I enjoy hearing your vitriol nearly as much as you do yourself. There was a time I would have found it upsetting. After that, there was a time when I might have found it sad. But now it's just plain ruttin' high-larious.

And just to reassure you, I'm pretty sure we never dated--I'm another one of those 38-year-old guy Wiccans who leads a fairly normal life.

For all the rest of you who may have been turned off by stereotypical Wiccans--and I've met my share of them, too--let me just remind you of what the Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis once wrote: "The best argument against Christianity is Christians." Don't judge every adherent of a faith by what the most stereotypical members do.

Cedric

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:08 PM

BITTERBIERCE


Quote:
You have far too much free time on your hands.


Well you're a Wiccan, I guess it shouldn't come as a shock that you've descended into cliche-speak in the very first sentence.


Quote:
Humor, you see, is a religious experience to many Wiccans. And we have internal stereotypes to make fun of that you haven't even etc etc lecture lecture


Oh god, it's a flashback to my 20's and the dreary lectures about how Summerians think shoelaces contain keras essense. I'm trying to explain to you how many of your type I've been around in my life: I don't know why, it just turned out that way. Let me state it simply- you're kind are not a mystery to me. And no, it's not true as you state below that to know your theology is to accept it. In point of fact, many theologians hold the same disdain for it I do.


Quote:
If you consider it mumbo-jumbo, then no, you don't know very much about it.


Like Christianity, it is an entirely self-contained set of illusions, but completely without a thousand years of philosophers jabbering about it (yes, I know paganism "predates" Christianity...just not the reconstructed religion anyone alive today adheres to). Acceptance and respect are absolutely not a requirement of knowledge. Christians adhere to nonsense, but at least it's extremely sophisticated nonsense.


Quote:
You say (there are New Age influences in all Paganism) like it's a bad thing.


Yep.


Quote:
Metaphysically meaningless? Only if you have a flat-headed, text-wedded narrow Radical Monotheistic point of view



Uh look, I don't agree with their point of view any more than you do, but denying the sheer amount of energy the Church put into exploring the philosophy of theology is absurd. In fact, the Christian drive for metaphysics are what created the modern university system of explored knowledge- the direct precursor to the scientific method and the englightenment came directly from their toiling. The nonsense those flatheads adhere to is several orders of magnitude more sophisticated than yours.


Quote:
Our metaphysics is quite robust and well developed in some circle -- I'm not talking about the Scott Cunningham crowd


Really! Do tell. Name me texts, I'll review them.




Quote:
It's commonly noted that the beliefs of the "New Age" are quite old, just with a new coat of paint. That doesn't bother us. Sorry if it bothers you.


What is it with people that think someone has to be pissed or sad or angry to disagree with their positions? Truth be told, your crowd has always been amusing to me. I literally cannot imagine a more benign set of phantasms than Wicca, especially because it's a fad that will fade in time. In fact, even my amusement is mild and close to dead neutral. My emotional content with Wicca comes to right about nothing. Dude, I don't hate you. Your kind is...cute.

This reminds me, mostly off the topic- I used to be a bouncer at the Ale House in Houston (peace be upon it), and one day we had to keep out some Wiccans who gathered (I forget the reason why), and this older Wiccan woman told me that it would "come back to me karmically" and that she was putting a curse on me.

Oh wait I remember now. We couldn't let in her four kids because of the booze codes. Anyway, it was the way she put it- she was hopping around in a very stately manner (I don't know how else to put it; I'd never seen stately hopping before). I couldn't keep that serious/frowny face bouncers are supposed to have and I started smiling. This made her more mad, which made me more amused, so I started laughing. This sent her into an exquisitely dignified rage. I was kinda impressed with the quality of her anger. My entire family died in a car wreck next week and I lost my left arm, but I'm sure it was a coincidence*.

By the by, the Ale House had the distinction of having the best educated doormen and bouncers I think in all history. I don't think there was a single one of us without a doctorate or about to get one. I did hear in a fight (that I was too dreamily drunk to participate in) a huge bouncer friend bellow "that's a fallacious argument!" before plowing a guy's face in with his meaty fist. You've never lived until you see someone beat someone up and dissect their pretences all at the same time, I'm here to tell you.

But I digress.

Quote:
And what views would those be? What do you know of Wiccan/Pagan theology? The real stuff, not the hype and the propaganda.


I've just been around it my whole life, dude. I'm no Perlarte, but I've read several dozen books on the subject and perused several hundred because the people I'm around are bookish sorts who keep 'em laying about. Oh, and one last thing- yeah, I was going to sneer about Cunningham before you said something. But the "better" stuff wasn't better. This is not my first "but you don't know our quality thinkers!" lecture. You use the word "syncretic" alot, and it's no coincidence you do: there are virtually no ancient texts laying around for you to bandy about. It's an entirely modern religion, despite its ancient pretences.



Quote:
Don't pick on us just because we're an emergent religion -- if you have a philosophical bone to pick, slap it on the table. I brought the BBQ sauce.


Are you really trying to get me into a discussion on the validity of your religious viewpoints? Dude, I don't even need to know as much about your religion as I already do, that's a very common philosophical argument you are destined to be sorry you picked. There is a reason philosophers are overwhelmingly agnostic and (to a slightly lesser extent) atheistic; religion has had its ass kicked by thinkers for centuries. You are on the wrong side of LEGIONS of smart people. I will let you walk away from this.

Look, I ain't mad atchya. This is just the way materialist and transcen-idealist people are.





*- For certain others among us- this was a joke. My family did not die. I still have my left arm.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:22 PM

BITTERBIERCE


Quote:
And I think you missed some of what Bierce is saying, I don't think he has much respect for any religion, I just think he ascribes more value to monotheistic ones that represent some of Thomas Aquinas's values.


Well close, but not quite. I respect the sophistication of the metaphysics and the sheer maniacal energy they put into it- I like people who think hard and systematically, it's a prejudice of mine. The values are seperate and probably not all that closely related to their exquisite thinking: Christian values are just the values of an old, established system. You know; stability, be nice to your neighbor, learn to behave, all that stuff. Because of the Englightenment, Christianity went through a long process of being tamed, and as such isn't all that dangerous anymore. Younger religions (read "Islam") haven't had that extensive series of religious debates that kills everyone yet. My thinking about religions is thus almost entirely sociological and detached. I tend not to like the Arthur Miller atheists- they remind me of the nutters to much.

Quote:
I delibertly tried to keep the discussion in the flow of Bierce's bad tactics, bad taste, and arrogance



Tell me the truth. Are we no longer dating anymore?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:36 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


You see Bierce, your last post is exactly what torques people like me. You talk down to this person as if you are a parent explaining something to a child. At least, this time, you had the decency to reason out your gripes rather than randomly poke fun and pinch nerves.

You first start out insulting ScrewWithTheAlliance by saying he is speaking in cliches, and then insult Wiccans by saying they all do. That seems to be a favorite gripe for you. Have you realized, in all your drunken conversations with doctorate bound bouncers, that humans think, read, and speak in phrases? It's more efficient, its quicker. Now, perhaps, you can move on to the actual argument and not the particulars of how many people used a the phrase before hand.

Then he states humor is a religious experience. You and I probably both have the same opinion on humor and how it relates to spiruality, IE no connect. My response: if I'm grumpy, "so what?" If I'm not, "That's interesting."
Your response: "Oh, how stupid. Other theologians agree."

Then he criticizes you for simplifying their faith to mumbo jumbo. The fact that you've been around it all you life and managed to still sneer at it offers you no special insight into saying it's any less than a Christain faith. Sure, it's less organized, but how is that a guiding stone for a topic we both agreed could not be approached as logical? (you still insist on trying. Note I am not approaching the topic of Wiccan in a logical why, I'm approaching your reasoning that way.

You still offer no support for Paganism being a bad thing.

Ok, wait here's an actual, legitimate point you have made. "Christianity has led to scientific and enlightenment thought." Except your wrong. All the reformation Catholics and new Protestants did is further Aristotle's line of thought. Scientific and Enlightment thought is no more a Christain revolution than the Renessaince a British origin.

You refer to the lack of Pagan texts. Since I hardly see you as being a person to appreciate the Koran or the Bible for it's religious pretexts, then how is the Pagan word of mouth inferior? Is is not organized enough for you?

Then you say he is on the wrong side of legions of smart people. Does that mean he's not smart? 'Cause that's what it means to me. Well, since your the authority of who is smart, we must accept your argument.

What if these exact same people professed the necessity of devoutness, whatever flavor, in life? They would make them not smart, right? That's circular logic, dude. Don't use other's opinions as a shield to your own. I did that in my ninth grade social studies papers, just quoted people who said the same thing I did.

I have noticed, by the way, you have drifted away from acknowledging my arguments? Could it be that a fellow non-religious person with brains and capacity for intellectual argument actually disagrees? What is this? If I'm not blinded by the metaphysical impracticality of Paganism or monotheism, what is so driving my error of judgement?

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 10:37 PM

BITTERBIERCE


Quote:

As a former agnostic turned Wiccan...


You know it's funny you say that because I don't think there is any other kind. I mean, I know there are, but I noticed a lot of people started like you; they usually came from irreligious familes. It lends credence to the personality theory of religion: some people just need it, but since we live in a secular age where the dominant system is under attack and in retreat, naturally religious people go for the purest religious experience.

That's also where the finely-honed metaphysics of the Christians works against them: they actually say and believe solid things and have reasoning for them. That's always a mistake. Best to keep it as silly fru-fru and fuzzy as possible. Religion is about feeling, not thinking.

Just to let you know, I didn't start an agnosto-atheist. It came as a long, slow, steady process of de-believing in my solid Catholic upbringing combined with the beginnings of systematic thinking.


Quote:
And just to reassure you, I'm pretty sure we never dated--I'm another one of those 38-year-old guy Wiccans who leads a fairly normal life.


Well then yeah, it probably is unlikely I've dated you then. I guess you just sound like a chick. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:01 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:
Originally posted by ThePistonEngine:

You refer to the lack of Pagan texts.



I know that you didn't say this, but I really don't want to confer with BB. Just thought I'd address it.

There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century.

I've only gone through a portion myself, but it is an interesting read

Interestingly enough Agrippa also believed that Christians could practice magick and still be good with God. Something that early Christians actually did without reservation.

At any rate, just thought I'd point out that there are a number of base texts for Pagans.

----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:11 PM

BITTERBIERCE


"Oh? So now you know I'm the type to complain to get you kicked off. First I'm the "don't give a shit about God one way or the other" type, then I'm the "lets silence this dude type." "

That is awe inspiring illogic. The term "non-sequitur" commonly translates in formal logic as "it does not follow", which is the perfect description of what you've done here. It doesn't follow that if you don't give a shit about religion (something that I merely guessed at idly) that you don't have other prickish qualities. Why would it?

"I believe every post I have made has challenged you to respond, and therefore I really do feel you should be allowed to speak your piece"

And its funny you mention too, because it just doesn't flow off you. You seem the type to demand
someone else shut up people you don't like.

"Maybe you actually have perfectly legitimate grounds for belittling Wiccans and not oftering any backing other than trying to be funny and poke fun"

My God, I've never met so many people that can't understand the word "fun"! I was having fun making fun! And it wasn't like he made some assertion on the matter, what is there to attack?

Well no, I guess that's not true- there was all the prostitute talk. But that was kinda boring for me so I ignored it. It's not a crime to avoid talking philosophy once in a while: I do it enough in my daily life to be sick of it by the weekend.
Firefly and this area is how I chill. Well, that and hard drugs. And by hard I mean injecting Clorox into my eyes. And juggling puppies for hard cash at the Whiskey Go-Go. But that's a whole other subject.

"Well, I'm glad your high sense of intellect only allows you to respond to the most carefully groomed of sentences"

I can't help it if your post was boring. I'm sorry, I was bored- the thing was just bland. Blah blah, you think I'm arrogant. I get it. Condescensding- right. I understand. No good, a stinker. What's the word...pretentious? Yes, I understand.

And notice I responded to virtually every sentence of other posts. There's a hint in there somewhere, if'n you wanna find it.

(oh, as a side issue- I just now saw your post beginning with the sentence "Ok, my last post was written as Bierce posted his last, so I feel the need to respond", so I'm apparently not answering or reading you in order anymore. So all this post was in reference to is the last post of mine you referenced)


"PROVE IT. Refute my arguments, which until very recently have been made against your ideas, not you"


What argument? To my knowledge, you've not said a thing EXCEPT to attack me as opposed to my ideas. Please tell me the hidden genius I missed, I wanna hear it.

You did, however, give a single sentence that deserves refutation, and it is this:

"I was merely calling to your attention that living in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" doesn't give you special priveledge to give unruly and disrespectful opinions"

Actually, that's exacti-fucking-lutely what free speech gives me; special privelage for disrespectful and unruly opinions. I can't even think of a better reason for free speech. I like it so much I'm going to pop it into my next article on the subject. And, I hasten to note, every nasty regime in history has used EXACTLY that same excuse to deny free speech to people it doesn't like. If I only slightly suspected you were the type to get others to stop speech before, I HIGHLY suspect it now.


"I suspect you feel you have absolutely nothing to prove to me, I'm nothing but a screenname on a website"

Ding ding ding! A prize for that man! Did you clue into that secret knowledge when I said as much earlier? You perceptive type you!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:24 PM

BITTERBIERCE


I really should go back and read your other earlier posting before going to this one, but oh well. Anyway.

"You see Bierce, your last post is exactly what torques people like me. You talk down to this person as if you are a parent explaining something to a child"

You know, this is true. I can't deny it. That is actually a valid criticism. And I don't even have the excuse of of being a teacher because I was like this BEFORE I taught.

One day I wasn't thinking and when my girlfriend said "I did good" I corrected her before I thought about it: "It's 'I did well'. Now say that again correctly".

She was walking away and her back was turned and she just froze. I think my balls actually said "you're on your own, dude. Don't involve us" and retreated up into my aorta. To this day the right side of my body feels numb and I now hear the color red.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:39 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


"That is awe inspiring illogic. The term 'non-sequitur' commonly translates in formal logic as 'it does not follow', which is the perfect description of what you've done here. It doesn't follow that if you don't give a shit about religion (something that I merely guessed at idly) that you don't have other prickish qualities. Why would it? "

I was merely reiterating bad assumptions you have made of me. If you failed to recognize your own ideas in the sentance, no fault on me.

Again, you tell me what I seem to demand. You think I want people to shut you up. No! I want you to shut yourself up!

Tell me, how do you find it fun, in response to a post noting parallels between a faith and a character, to belittle that faith? Did you honestly think you'd get a "ROTFLMAO"? Your fun seems to be much at the expense of others.

My arguments have been very clearly exactly why you are, as you so nicely point out, pretentious. They have evolved, even adding some historical context. But the main crux is "You have no special insight to judge the religion of others based on your theological learnings, your experiance you often profess to, and your keenness on logic."
Notice I said "special". We all have insight, we all have experiance. But nothing makes your especially able, or especially unbiased, which you make yourself out to be.
The fact that you use philophers who wrote in the height of religious tyranny as your cornerstones of logic is laughable. They're as biased as anyone else.

Umm, I don't believe I mentioned Freedom of Speech per se. But yes, since that's the broader spectrum this particular point falls under, we'll go with it.
Freedom of Speech means the government can't silence you or coerce your enunciations. Period, end of point. It doesn't mean any opinion you want to state is a priveledge to you, as if it should not be attacked, which was exactly your implication I responded to. Yes, my quote, out of context, is fairly barbaric. Take it in context, and it's simply facing you with your unwillingness to back yourself up. Rather, you threw up the "Freedom of Speech" shield. Freedom of Speech protects you from Uncle Sam, not from my counter points.

_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:41 PM

BITTERBIERCE


"There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century"

Those are what are called "secondary sources" and reconstructions in theology. You have no primary texts. That was my point. There are no actual Wiccans around because the religion died some jillion years ago, just a vaguely reconfigured new religion called "Wicca" with an extremely tenuous link to an older real religion (or, rather, four). Most everything substantial in the earlier religion is probably gone and permenantly lost to time. There is not a single founding or primary text in modern Wicca (and its unlikely there ever was one, but not impossible: most practices and stories were probably traditions and oral practices permenantly destroyed by a certain monotheism).

Although there isn't much to go on, if you ever get a chance, you should read Ceaser on it: he had interesting things to say about the Gauls and was a pretty perceptive guy when it came to their religious practices. He noticed stuff, which is a pretty impressive find in the 'pre-standardized history' eras. He wasn't Thucidides or anything, but you might be interested in his thoughts on Gaulish mumbo-jumbo.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:54 PM

THEPISTONENGINE


All very fine historically, but I fail to see how any of this means their any less meaningful, spiritual, or enlightened than the Bible?
Because there is distinguishable break in the history? Because It's a recreated faith? I don't understand how those distinctions put it on a different level than the bible.

We're actually getting into an intellectual discussion. I'm almost enjoying it.

Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
"There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century"

Those are what are called "secondary sources" and reconstructions in theology. You have no primary texts. That was my point. There are no actual Wiccans around because the religion died some jillion years ago, just a vaguely reconfigured new religion called "Wicca" with an extremely tenuous link to an older real religion (or, rather, four). Most everything substantial in the earlier religion is probably gone and permenantly lost to time. There is not a single founding or primary text in modern Wicca (and its unlikely there ever was one, but not impossible: most practices and stories were probably traditions and oral practices permenantly destroyed by a certain monotheism).

Although there isn't much to go on, if you ever get a chance, you should read Ceaser on it: he had interesting things to say about the Gauls and was a pretty perceptive guy when it came to their religious practices. He noticed stuff, which is a pretty impressive find in the 'pre-standardized history' eras. He wasn't Thucidides or anything, but you might be interested in his thoughts on Gaulish mumbo-jumbo.


_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, March 4, 2006 11:57 PM

BITTERBIERCE


"I was merely reiterating bad assumptions you have made of me."

No you weren't, you were conflating them as if they were mutually exclusive propositions, not ticking them off seperately. This raises the distinct possibility that you can't even read what you wrote, a disturbing enough quality.

"Again, you tell me what I seem to demand. You think I want people to shut you up. No! I want you to shut yourself up!"

Your sentences are so entertaining sometimes.

"Tell me, how do you find it fun, in response to a post noting parallels between a faith and a character, to belittle that faith?"

And AGAIN you want me to explain the concept of "fun" to you! It's like a thing with you! I have this vision of you hunched over a computer with a frown, furiously typing.


"My arguments have been very clearly exactly why you are, as you so nicely point out, pretentious"

You delved into the "why"? I thought it was just bald assertion stated over and over and over and over (pant pant) and over and over. I hadn't realized you'd explained why, I missed it. Why?

"Notice I said "special". We all have insight, we all have experiance blah blah".

Oh god, it's the 'we all have assholes and they all stink' lecture: if you think you're going to bore me to death, you're sadly mista...hmm. Maybe you will succeed after all.

"Umm, I don't believe I mentioned Freedom of Speech per se."

So we can talk about it but not refer to it? You save my life from boredom implosion with your, um, "colorful" logic.

"It doesn't mean any opinion you want to state is a priveledge to you, as if it should not be attacked, which was exactly your implication I responded to."

Not only was it NOT my implication, I clearly stated what my real motivation was. And we're back at the mysterious "fun" concept yet again: I'm responding to you not because I don't expect to be attacked, but BECAUSE it delights me that you're attacking and I like to engage. This is fun for me, I smile when I'm typing. This thing where you make up that I don't want you to respond? It's all in your head, dude. You made it up, like playtime.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:07 AM

BITTERBIERCE


"All very fine historically, but I fail to see how any of this means their any less meaningful, spiritual, or enlightened than the Bible?"

What the fuck is it with you and making up things that I never said? Listen, cause this is the last time I'm gonna say it before boredom truly sets in: this religion is funny and silly on its own terms, by its own logic. It will never need goth chicks and quartz crystals to make it stupid 'cause it was already there.

You see, the stupidity here is what scientists call "multi-causal", a fancy way of saying there's a whole slew of reasons not to respect it! Why, it's dumb because of it's metaphysical assumptions, the people who worship it, AND the fact that it, you know, technically isn't actually Wicca.

Or, let's put it in terms you understand: maybe you should have an open mind about the many reasons to laugh at it.


"We're actually getting into an intellectual discussion. I'm almost enjoying it."

You know, sometimes I get glimpses of you as a real grim fella. It interests me to think: I wonder how many people here would ACTUALLY get along with the rough and tumble types of the Firefly crew. I don't think everyone would: you, for instance, I could see getting killed by any number of the main male leads you quote.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:11 AM

THEPISTONENGINE


You misinterpreted what I wrote. I was ticking them off. Oh, was it the structure that threw you off? Did I use a cliche sentance structure in a non cliche way? Excuse me.

Again, instead of actually refuting something, you just mention how it bores you to death. Well, ok. I'll have to accept it. Heck, you've done similar tactics enough already. I guess I'm a slow learner.

"I think instead I'll just say what I want when I want to and otherwise act under the (admittedly incorrect) assumption that I live in a free country."

If that isn't throwing up the shield of Freedom of Speech instead of actually being responsible for what you say, I don't know what is.

Why do people think it's alright to say stupid things because it's writ in a document? It's not. It's simply much more wrong for the government to stop them.

And yes, it clearly delights you at my apparent frustration. I have certainly spoken vehemently enough for you to think I may actually be angry. I think I even tweaked your goad a couple of times. THAT's the problem, you take delight in eliciting other's emotional responses. That's not why I jumped on you from the beginning, back then I thought you might actually be talking from some sort of philosophical context that you were too good to share. Now I realize, as you have all but enunciated yourself, that your full intent is to laugh when other people feel anger.

If I said to you "You didn't make me angry," you probably wouldn't believe me. Because that's ok, that'll be the third bad assumption you've made about my character tonight.
Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
"I was merely reiterating bad assumptions you have made of me."

No you weren't, you were conflating them as if they were mutually exclusive propositions, not ticking them off seperately. This raises the distinct possibility that you can't even read what you wrote, a disturbing enough quality.

"Again, you tell me what I seem to demand. You think I want people to shut you up. No! I want you to shut yourself up!"

Your sentences are so entertaining sometimes.

"Tell me, how do you find it fun, in response to a post noting parallels between a faith and a character, to belittle that faith?"

And AGAIN you want me to explain the concept of "fun" to you! It's like a thing with you! I have this vision of you hunched over a computer with a frown, furiously typing.


"My arguments have been very clearly exactly why you are, as you so nicely point out, pretentious"

You delved into the "why"? I thought it was just bald assertion stated over and over and over and over (pant pant) and over and over. I hadn't realized you'd explained why, I missed it. Why?

"Notice I said "special". We all have insight, we all have experiance blah blah".

Oh god, it's the 'we all have assholes and they all stink' lecture: if you think you're going to bore me to death, you're sadly mista...hmm. Maybe you will succeed after all.

"Umm, I don't believe I mentioned Freedom of Speech per se."

So we can talk about it but not refer to it? You save my life from boredom implosion with your, um, "colorful" logic.

"It doesn't mean any opinion you want to state is a priveledge to you, as if it should not be attacked, which was exactly your implication I responded to."

Not only was it NOT my implication, I clearly stated what my real motivation was. And we're back at the mysterious "fun" concept yet again: I'm responding to you not because I don't expect to be attacked, but BECAUSE it delights me that you're attacking and I like to engage. This is fun for me, I smile when I'm typing. This thing where you make up that I don't want you to respond? It's all in your head, dude. You made it up, like playtime.




_____________
Carry the Nuttin'

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, March 5, 2006 12:13 AM

CHRISMOORHEAD


I dunno, I always thought of Inara's sex thing as being more of the "Eastern Lovemaking" philosophy. Not as metaphysical as wicca, but more practical like from the Kama-Sutra and the way Geisha were trained to entertain men.

I read the Kama-Sutra once to try and understand women. It didn't help.

Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?

If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Resident Alien Season 3 starts 02/14/2024 10pm eastern SYFY Alan Tudyk stars
Thu, April 4, 2024 12:37 - 4 posts
The Rookie season 6 starts Tuesday, February 20th 2024 Nathan Fillion stars. 9 pm eastern ABC
Wed, February 21, 2024 01:06 - 3 posts
BROWNCOAT BALL 2024 – BETHLEHEM, PA
Mon, February 12, 2024 03:27 - 1 posts
Gina sues the Mouse
Fri, February 9, 2024 12:43 - 6 posts
Gastronogeek Cult TV Cookbook Firefly, Buffy, Doctor Who…
Wed, February 7, 2024 13:10 - 9 posts
Hollywood Sucks. Again. Moreso.
Sun, January 7, 2024 15:38 - 17 posts
Why Did Firefly Get Cancelled?: What Happened To The 2002 Sci-Fi Series
Sun, January 7, 2024 10:16 - 3 posts
Bad writers go on strike, late night talk is doomed
Sun, January 7, 2024 07:45 - 18 posts
Is Joss Whedon finished as a film maker, is his future destiny to be some muttering version of Brigitte Bardot, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Charlie Sheen, Danny Glover?
Sun, January 7, 2024 07:43 - 12 posts
‘Serenity comes in at number 111 in Rolling Stone’s ‘The 150 Best Sci-Fi Movies of All Time list’ 1/1/2024
Thu, January 4, 2024 19:22 - 2 posts
Shiny New Year 2024 — Philadelphia, PA
Sat, October 28, 2023 22:18 - 1 posts
Nathan Fillion and Alan Tudyk in Spider-man 2 game
Sat, October 28, 2023 07:22 - 1 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL