[quote=“Politzania, post:59, topic:474328”]
Isn’t it rather patriarchal of you to assume the moderator is a “him”? :rolleyes:
Not when the moderator who slapped my wrists on this forum for allegedly being insulting and who has now mysteriously dissappeared is named CK Dexter Haven, no.
Whynot great post, thank you. One question though, the Wiccan site you linked to has a top bar that says: Stop the Fluff, Think for Yourself, Fight the Bunny.
What does fight the bunny mean?
bmoreluv I am not afraid to think outside the box, but I am afraid of the loss of objectivity which comes with a strong emotional investment in a given topic.
Have you ever considered that you are just thinking inside a different box?
You know there are several threads going on right now revolving around a poster who has visions or hallucinations (the story has changed) who believes they have given him/her insights that would transform scientific thought, but because some people on a message board have not immediately seen the light and embraced this universal truth, it will now be withheld forever, to the eternal regret of all mankind. If you have the time and patience, take a look at them here and here. These are prime examples of why most of us do not take the argument that science will change to embrace some viewpoint very seriously. There are too many viewpoints that are not only not compatible with current science, but with each other.
Also, I would note that despite what is presented in the popular press, science does not get overturned that often. It would be more accurate to say it gets continually refined. Most startling scientific things are either previously unconsidered ramifications, or in areas that were not previously well defined. Even Gallileo was not that far ahead of the curve. He was one of several European scientists proposing Copernicus’s theory, but 1) he was wrong in specifics, and 2) he was a completely obnoxious ass. He was not convicted of heresy because he thought the earth rotated the sun, but in the book he published about it he had a thinly disguised (read:intentionally obvious) Pope as a moron.
The funny thing is you started this thread by attacking Cecil as a misogynist . I am not trying to attack you, but this is a behavior that gives a bad name to feminism, or any type of movement that seeks to better humanity. You come in guns blazing*, and then if things do not go your way, bow out claiming moral superiority because you will not longer participate in the oppressor’s ways. This makes your position seem weak and unsupportable. If there is some feminine method that would have been better than “dog fighting in the old boys style”, as you put, why didn’t you start out with it?
Jonathan
*Intentionally warlike imagery, not to be confused with the violence inherent in the patriarchy.
Very new, eager and sometimes gullible newcomers to neopaganism in general, and Wicca more specifically, are often affectionately termed “fluffy bunny witches” or “fluffy bunnies”. They tend to be high on the Love and Goodness parts of our path and often deny the more realistic or dark ones. New convert enthusiam + lack of experience + lack of critical thinking skills.
Most of us go through it, and most of us grow out of it with further thought and experience. A few don’t, and remain fluffy bunnies a long, long time.
And that’s nonsense again.
[quote=“WhyNot, post:64, topic:474328”]
They tend to be high on the Love and Goodness parts of our path and often deny the more realistic or dark ones.
QUOTE]
You mean they haven’t seen this rabbit yet?
Actually, I remember that time in my own life rather well, we called it bliss-a-ninny, but that was a general hippy application rather than a neopagan one.
The bunny of Caerbannog! <3
I am shocked, shocked that Cecil would display such blatent hatred of men in his column! I shall go somewhere quiet and commune with my penis till I forget the whole sordid affair.