Wiccan FAQ - ?????? PROFIT

******** THIS s**t IS HILARIOUS INNIT

STEP 1: CALL YOURSELF WICCAN	11.7%	[ 259 ]
STEP 2: BUY STRANGE CLOTHES	6.3%	[ 139 ]
STEP 3: WHINE ABOUT HOW OPPRESSED YOU ARE	10.7%	[ 237 ]
STEP 4: ????????	37.7%	[ 836 ]
STEP 5: PROFIT!	33.6%	[ 744 ]
Total Votes:			[ 2215 ]

[CuAnnan]

Boxy

Hitler

You just lost the thread.

[Boxy]

CuAnnan

Boxy

Hitler

You just lost the thread.

Am I back in yet?

[scorplett]

TeaDidikai

scorplett

If I, as a speaker of Irish and Hiberno English spell Colour with a 'u' instead of the Amero-Englih Color, does that mean I am corrupting the word colour?

You know as well as anyone that formal names are different from dialect-based orthography of common words. Why the intellectual dishonesty Scorplett?

Your twisting my analogy to suit your fallacy call. Though I could just say argument from assertion. But since I have time, I'll explain for you.
I was explaining why I made a mistake rather than making an orthography argument. I have feck all understanding of orthography, and to be honest, I've had to google it to understand what you were saying.
The discussion of what constitutes a corrpution required explanation, as I made a genuine mistake based on familiarity with spellings. If you think I was wrong in explaining my mistake and offering to make a greater effort in not repeating the mistake; which remember was accepted by the person in question, then I would ask why your poisoning the well
.
I have corrected and explained my mistakes and offered reperation for them.

If i've misinterpreted what you were referring to as being intellectually dishonest, and your perception of that is objective, then please feel free to PM me so I can further answer your claims as derailling a discussion into spats and fallacy claims is not discussing Wicca.

[scorplett]

Arcanist Angus

I don't feel that he called me a fluffy bunny.

QFE people.

Now, if mercury retrograde is something people want to discuss, then perhaps make a new thread becuase astrology has shag all to do with Wicca. Some Wiccan's do pay attention to astrology and mercury being retrograde stationary or direct, others don't pay any head or give any creedance to it.

[TeaDidikai]

Boxy

The question of an "argument from silence" simply boggles my mind. Jaden did not invoke the absence of evidence as a form of proof. Just what, pray tell Tea, did you mean by this?

I was specifically addressing this:

jaden kendam

Arcanist Angus

I am uncomfortable with discussing my specific beliefs

That is because you don't know how to answer questions that you should have already asked yourself, which, by your lack of anything, you haven't. I was nice in the way I asked. I gave you an oppurtunity to think and normally, I wouldn't challenge people, but you, you need to be challenged.

To assume that a lack of comment on something suddenly implies the individual cannot comment is an argument from silence.


Jaden concluded that his lack of comfort in posting them means that he hasn't examined his position.

Scorplett>> There's an error in spellings and then there's the justification.

[Aino Ailill]

Aegair

Calmer

TeaDidikai

jaden kendam

That is never a good excuse, although fluffy bunnies seem to love it. Do you want to be a fluffy bunny?

This is specifically Ad hominem circumstantial- wherein a circumstance is compounded by an insult to suggest the position is invalid.

In this case, simply observing that things go to hell is the circumstance. The insult issued is "Oh the fluffies do it! Do you want to be a fluffy!?", thus acting as an attempt to undermine a completely unrelated statement to the initial questions posed.

I think you mean, "guilt by association." It isn't a circumstantial ad hominem.

Guilt by Association can be a form of Ad Hominem... Can't it?

Yes, according to wiki.

[Boxy]

TeaDidikai

Boxy

The question of an "argument from silence" simply boggles my mind. Jaden did not invoke the absence of evidence as a form of proof. Just what, pray tell Tea, did you mean by this?

I was specifically addressing this:

jaden kendam

Arcanist Angus

I am uncomfortable with discussing my specific beliefs

That is because you don't know how to answer questions that you should have already asked yourself, which, by your lack of anything, you haven't. I was nice in the way I asked. I gave you an oppurtunity to think and normally, I wouldn't challenge people, but you, you need to be challenged.

To assume that a lack of comment on something suddenly implies the individual cannot comment is an argument from silence.

Jaden concluded that his lack of comfort in posting them means that he hasn't examined his position.

I would reckon that more as a strawman than as an argument from silence. An argument from silence might involve not mentioning his astrological sign as being proof that he knows nothing about astrology (i.e. absence of required evidence is evidence of absence, or some rot).

In comparison, jaden rejected the provided explanation and replaced it with a different one. That smacks of strawman to me.

In all, this whole argument can be summed up in one GIF:



Is it possible to move onto anything... y'know, constructive? neutral

[TeaDidikai]

Boxy

I would reckon that more as a strawman than as an argument from silence. An argument from silence might involve not mentioning his astrological sign as being proof that he knows nothing about astrology (i.e. absence of required evidence is evidence of absence, or some rot).

As I recall, this section had nothing to do with astrology.

Quote:

In comparison, jaden rejected the provided explanation and replaced it with a different one. That smacks of strawman to me.

Since he was specifically addressing the refusal to comment on a matter meant that he was unable to comment on the matter accurately- I'd still say Argument from Silence.

Quote:

In all, this whole argument can be summed up in one GIF:

We need one that shows a horse in a blender. Because face it, this isn't just beaten, it's paste. wink

One thing that has come up in one of the other threads is that people tend to use comments made by Gardner about witches as only addressing The Wica. At the same time, he addressed a Christian Witch he knew.

So, should there be this blind assumption that any time Gardner talked about witches he was speaking of his cult? Or should we reexamine how much authority is given to Gardner when it comes to Wica.

In a recent PM exchange, one of the things I was discussing with someone was that often it is said that Dafo, who initiated Gardner into the Wica is not as much an authority on the religion as Gardner is, as Gardner admitted he added to and changed the practices of the Wica for his version of the cult.

To the same extent, Doreen made additions, changes and recontextualized key concepts- would it not be just as accurate to suggest she created what we know as Wica more than he did?

For example, Gardner's original BoS had far more Thelemic and Hellenic leanings. Let's face it, in an Orthopraxy, which gods you worship, identified as Thelemic or Hellenic compared to The Lord and Lady of the Isles, that's a pretty big difference.

[scorplett]

TeaDidikai

There's an error in spellings and then there's the justification.

Prove that explanation equals justification please.

[scorplett]

TeaDidikai

Boxy

In all, this whole argument can be summed up in one GIF:

We need one that shows a horse in a blender. Because face it, this isn't just beaten, it's paste. wink

You kill it. You eat it!
If it's easier to ingest blended, go blend it somewhere else Tea.

TeaDidikai

One thing that has come up in one of the other threads is that people tend to use comments made by Gardner about witches as only addressing The Wica. At the same time, he addressed a Christian Witch he knew.

To anyone who wants to truly look at what he was talking about, it's not hard to find the context of which witch groups he might have been talking about and when.
That said, it does take a certain amount of patience and skill to understand in context the slight and subtle ways in which he differentiates Witches of other religions, and 'The Witch Religion' or The Wica.

TeaDidikai

So, should there be this blind assumption that any time Gardner talked about witches he was speaking of his cult?

I was unaware that such an assumption had been made. I've never made such an assumption. In fact, I have attepted to discuss 'the other witches' before and been shot down by you for selectively interpreting passages.

TeaDidikai

Or should we reexamine how much authority is given to Gardner when it comes to Wica.

I don't see how the descriptions of Gardners witchcult should be reexamined because you have finally seen that he doesn't merely recognize one type of Witch.
The neopgan witchclt called Wicca was created by Gardner, Gardner is the primary autority on the subject. Nothing can change that no matter how anyone might want it to.

TeaDidikai

In a recent PM exchange, one of the things I was discussing with someone was that often it is said that Dafo, who initiated Gardner into the Wica is not as much an authority on the religion as Gardner is, as Gardner admitted he added to and changed the practices of the Wica for his version of the cult.

Again, it has been reguluarly stated that Gardner was initiated into A Witchcult. Once he changed and adapted the 'fragmentory' rites he recieved from the Witchcult he was initiated into and added to them, Wicca was then born.

But then Tea, your smart, you knew this already. It's been talked about lots before!

TeaDidikai

To the same extent, Doreen made additions, changes and recontextualized key concepts- would it not be just as accurate to suggest she created what we know as Wica more than he did?

Beyond writing poetry and assisting Gardner in creating the whole of the core of Wicca. What did Doreen change and recontextualize?

TeaDidikai

For example, Gardner's original BoS had far more Thelemic and Hellenic leanings.

Which book?
Can you please compare and contrast the elements of his 'original' BoS with that which is heriditary today.

[TeaDidikai]

scorplett

You kill it. You eat it!
If it's easier to ingest blended, go blend it somewhere else Tea.

Eat horse? I'll starve first.

Quote:

To anyone who wants to truly look at what he was talking about, it's not hard to find the context of which witch groups he might have been talking about and when.
That said, it does take a certain amount of patience and skill to understand in context the slight and subtle ways in which he differentiates Witches of other religions, and 'The Witch Religion' or The Wica.

I find it odd that you offer of his citations then as always being about The Wica, even when such context is shown not to be the case.

Case in point:

Note the position wherein you cite Gardner talking about "fairies" and highlighting it as proof for the practices of the Wica within the context you provide.

There is also a quote you take out of context to imply orthopraxy, "To them the cult has existed unchanged", ignoring the rest of the quotation that states "from the beginning of time". A convenient edit, since we know that the cult of the Wica is modern in origin.

Quote:

I was unaware that such an assumption had been made. I've never made such an assumption. In fact, I have attepted to discuss 'the other witches' before and been shot down by you for selectively interpreting passages.

Only when you quote things that clearly point to other traditions as being confirmation of practices within Wica.

Quote:

I don't see how the descriptions of Gardners witchcult should be reexamined because you have finally seen that he doesn't merely recognize one type of Witch.

Strawman at best Scorplett.

Quote:

The neopgan witchclt called Wicca was created by Gardner, Gardner is the primary autority on the subject. Nothing can change that no matter how anyone might want it to.

I challenge this. Gardner might not be the primary authority on the subject- since it relies on a proof by assertion.

If it can be shown that there were others who contributed as much or more to the religion of the Wica than he did, then I see no reason to hold him as the final test- but instead as one of many measures.

Quote:

Again, it has been reguluarly stated that Gardner was initiated into A Witchcult. Once he changed and adapted the 'fragmentory' rites he recieved from the Witchcult he was initiated into and added to them, Wicca was then born.

But then Tea, your smart, you knew this already. It's been talked about lots before!

Here's the problem though. Gardner stole the term for their cult and applied it to his own.

It's quite a double standard to then turn on people who aren't even using the term Gardner used and tell them they can't just because some of the Wica said that Wica and Wicca were the same thing. After all, you say Gardner is the primary authority on Wica, well, you're spelling the name of your religion wrong according to him.

Quote:

Beyond writing poetry and assisting Gardner in creating the whole of the core of Wicca. What did Doreen change and recontextualize?

So, you're admitting that Doreen helped create the core of Wica. So why do you keep suggesting that Gardner is not simply one amongst a group that are the primary authority when it comes to Wica?

Quote:

Which book?
Can you please compare and contrast the elements of his 'original' BoS with that which is heriditary today.

At a later date by citing the articles of the initiated, sure.

[Cyrus the Elder]

Ok, that's it. Everyone knock it the ******** off and take this s**t somewhere else, this FAQ thread is here to inform about Wicca, not for you to engage in pages long worthless bickering SO KNOCK IT OFF. If you insist on bickering, take it to ******** PM's or start a new thread in the chatterbox, this is not the place for it, and you're all starting to piss me right off.

And before anyone says, yes, I know I'm fairly late to the party, but as far as I'm concerned, this could easily do with being reiterated. Many times if necessary.

Now, oaths kept, if anyone would mind answering a simple question, how much would one have to deviate from the orthopraxy of Wicca before it ceased to be Wicca? Is there a definite point, is it more of a sliding scale, or is there debate over what does and doesn't constitute significant enough deviation? Would simply adding on extraneous aspects be significant enough, or do you have to explicitly detract from the orthopraxy?

[xLady Tsukiyox]

Cyrus the Elder

Ok, that's it. Everyone knock it the ******** off and take this s**t somewhere else, this FAQ thread is here to inform about Wicca, not for you to engage in pages long worthless bickering SO KNOCK IT OFF. If you insist on bickering, take it to ******** PM's or start a new thread in the chatterbox, this is not the place for it, and you're all starting to piss me right off.

And before anyone says, yes, I know I'm fairly late to the party, but as far as I'm concerned, this could easily do with being reiterated. Many times if necessary.

Now, oaths kept, if anyone would mind answering a simple question, how much would one have to deviate from the orthopraxy of Wicca before it ceased to be Wicca? Is there a definite point, is it more of a sliding scale, or is there debate over what does and doesn't constitute significant enough deviation? Would simply adding on extraneous aspects be significant enough, or do you have to explicitly detract from the orthopraxy?

Except the argument does have to deal with Wicca if you've been reading Tea's posts...

[Cyrus the Elder]

-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden

Cyrus the Elder

Ok, that's it. Everyone knock it the ******** off and take this s**t somewhere else, this FAQ thread is here to inform about Wicca, not for you to engage in pages long worthless bickering SO KNOCK IT OFF. If you insist on bickering, take it to ******** PM's or start a new thread in the chatterbox, this is not the place for it, and you're all starting to piss me right off.

And before anyone says, yes, I know I'm fairly late to the party, but as far as I'm concerned, this could easily do with being reiterated. Many times if necessary.

Now, oaths kept, if anyone would mind answering a simple question, how much would one have to deviate from the orthopraxy of Wicca before it ceased to be Wicca? Is there a definite point, is it more of a sliding scale, or is there debate over what does and doesn't constitute significant enough deviation? Would simply adding on extraneous aspects be significant enough, or do you have to explicitly detract from the orthopraxy?

Except the argument does have to deal with Wicca if you've been reading Tea's posts...

Oh really, and how does bickering to the point of ad nauseum over a possible fallacy have anything to do with frequently asked questions about Wicca? I have no problem with people ******** pointing out fallacies (I'm not even touching whether there really were any or not, so no one even try), but to spend this long on it here? ******** pathetic for a thread that was meant specifically for informing about the Wicca. If people want to bicker about things, take it to PM's, resolve it there, amend and edit posts here as required DO NOT spend 2 pages spamming the thread to s**t to argue over it.

Edited for clarity.

Second edit: Regardless, I didn't name any names, this is a general knock it the ******** off, that means everyone involved, I'm not pointing fingers or saying who is doing what, I'm merely telling you all what to stop ******** doing. End of.