gdp's Comments

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 23:45:35 +0000

Say Mike, I just wanted to note (though you probably already know this) that Morgan Spurlock does a lot of first-person filming (e.g. "Super-size Me") that examines an issue from a subjective point of view. What you're doing isn't without precedent. I watched that documentary again this evening. It's a good example of the sub-genre.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:35:46 +0000

So I'm not a civil discussant now. Well, that's to be expected after the treatment I've received from you. And you're still hiding.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:29:55 +0000

Do read the post you're responding to before you respond to it, won't you?

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:19:11 +0000

Yay! A real name. Care to have a real conversation while yer at it, or do you just want to insinuate that the only recourse I've got to counter-argue your brilliance is calling down dark goddesses and crashing your parties?

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:12:43 +0000

Wow, you're a real piece of work, you know that? It takes a serious disconnect from reality to keep believing what you do in the face of my responses. I'm sorry. What was your name again? I didn't catch your name. Oh, that's right, you're hiding behind a pseudonym so you can keep prosecuting this fight anonymously. Who's got class now?

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:41:11 +0000

Oh! It's the chocovore-butt-Kali-worhipping bad-mouth who rescues dogs but is so steeped in her cognitive dissonance she can't understand courtesy when she sees it. Whassa matta honey? Did you expect me to keep my mouth shut while you insulted me, too? And anyway, isn't it inconvenient when the scapegoat refuses to leave town? When it comes back with all your sins still tied to it and makes you answer for them? Maybe I'm a little better acquainted with dark goddesses than you think. How dark would you like it? I've got no problem with continuing discussion that mentions my name. I do have trouble with the notion that people who aren't willing to put their real names into a conversation continue insulting me after I've left in good faith and with genuine good will. And, by the bye, your claim to integrity was shot in the foot the first time you posted that insulting vitriol you hoped would pass for humor in response to me.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 10:39:59 +0000

While you and Baruch go about baiting me and smearing my name? I don't think so. That's equally inadvisable, and I will defend myself against you. Besides, I promise you the tale you think these comments tell isn't the only one people will read. And anyway, you're mighty late to this party to be writing to this issue at all. Perhaps if you didn't want to be included, you oughtn't have bought a ticket.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Tue, 7 Apr 2009 04:40:40 +0000

Yay! I get a rant monument. Make sure it has breasts, and not the conical kind. They need to be round, and the thing should be tall, overall. And no. I left because it was the right thing to do in the situation, to refuse to continue to escalate the matter. You interpreted my departure the way you did because it made you feel justified in your inappropriate response. You might have offered me the benefit of the doubt, the way I offered it to you until well after you deserved it, but I'm sure that would have been asking too much of you. And 'running away on the Internet'? WTF is that, even? In any real-life situation, you bet your ass people of good conscience back away from an escalating conflict unless they have no choice in the matter. The baiting and flaming that happens on the Internet happens because people feel safer behind their anonymity to do things they would never do otherwise. In recognizing that and leaving, I hoped you'd take my good will for exactly that, make whatever respectful rebuttal you needed to and move on. But you didn't. You proved that you are incapable of thinking about thinking, of examining your behavior before you engage in it. You also proved that you do bait and hope others will flame, which means you're looking for power in the exchange. So, no again. You don't get to bait and then point the finger at my fire. That's textbook behavior too. How about this? You want to accuse me of running away on the Internet? How about I promise to have the last word, to keep posting until you're sick of me, to give you all the energy you and your johnny-come-lately friend seem to need? Would that make you feel better? It would be a great fight, I promise. It would be just as nasty and meaningless and destructive to both our positions on the original topic of conversation as this exchange is now. We'll all feel shitty about it afterward, the energy of discourse will darken completely and whatever mutual agreement we might ever have come to will divide us even further. Moreover, we'll have done it in somebody else's blog, which is the equivalent in real life of having a fistfight in somebody else's house. Or we can do this. You can stop baiting me, and I'll stop flaming at you. We can agree to disagree on the original topic of this blog post, whether we like each other or not. We can go our separate ways and not say bad things to or about each other any more. Now doesn't that sound nice? At this point, I really don't care one way or the other. I'm happy to let this thing devolve deeper into nonsense, now that I know how much you want me here (it's so nice to feel needed). Let me know what you decide.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:43:38 +0000

You know, I was willing to walk away from this. I was willing to keep a civil tongue in my head, work to common cause and walk away from the matter when you and a few others turned this discussion into a flame war. Not now. Mike, I empathize with your girlfriend and agree that if for no other reason than zoning regulations, those sacrifices should not have taken place in a residential neighborhood. There's a reason why slaughterhouses have to be properly zoned. They disrupt the peace and represent a health risk. I am utterly appalled at some of the responses you've received on this list to your documentary, and I earnestly hope you don't believe all Pagan and Heathen people are equally short-sighted. Baruch, you're not in the debate-trade. If you were, then you wouldn't have responded to me the first time with ill-concealed snark and ramped up the flame war when I tried my damnest to be civil with you. You most certainly wouldn't have beaten your chest like some sort of wanna-be warrior and crowed about battlefield victory in the face of my good will. The first rule of debate is civility, and the second is to respect your opponent's position, even when you disagree with it. What you have demonstrated here is all the ability of a keyboard junkie to look up logical fallacies on Wikipedia and none of the heart and soul of debate. Gods! You couldn't even bring yourself to return the simple courtesy I offered you and everyone else here. You and a couple of others just waited until I departed the discussion and then spat obscenities at my back. Cowards. What on earth is wrong with you people? So, you think I don't understand logical fallacies. Good for you! Of course, you're just some defeated jerk on a fixed income who spends all his time posting nastiness on discussion boards because he has no other power in the world. So you'll forgive me if I don't think much of your your opinion in this regard. You're the lowest common denominator, man, and I was mistaken to believe you could be rational, or civil, or Gods forbid, logical. I was mistaken to believe that civilized discourse could exist on this matter between enlightened Pagans of differing viewpoints. No, it takes critical thinkers for that, and all you want is a scapegoat, a patsy, a doormat, a target. Yeah, I got your target right here. Come and get it. Oh, and guess what? Much of this post is an ad hominem attack. Your assignment is to write a really long and self-important response to it so that everybody will be impressed. I'm sure that won't be too hard for you. While you're at it, look up 'cognitive dissonance'.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 14:15:53 +0000

This is a duplicate post made before I created an IntenseDebate account. I was concerned that anonymous comments would not be posted to this blog, so I created the account and re-posted. You may disregard it.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 04:07:51 +0000

All right, I've got to respond to this. You're absolutely dear, Bjorn, and heil to you as well! It's the 'our ancestors had to eat meat, and they might as well share it with the Gods' thing, isn't it? Yeah, the subsistence argument is a strong one, and pretty big in the lore. I wasn't referring to that aspect of it though. I was talking about exchanges of energy, that it's never been necessary to give the Gods blood for the sake of communion (though I have to tell you, a bottle of Metaxa works wonders with Freyja, and Eir likes it when you feed the wild critters in Her name. Tyr just wants you to be strong and do right though, and I have to tell you, that's the hardest thing of all). I've come to think of sacrifice as communion, but maybe that's because our Gods are our family, and we like hanging out with them. They get my poetry, my homemade bittersweet chocolate torte (yes, you can make chocolate torte vegan - thank Frigga!), and my promises. And I don't feel distant from them because I haven't given them blood. Rather, I feel close to them because everything I share with them comes from me. Thank you for healing this discussion a bit. NOW I'm outta here though. It's freakin' midnight, I've already said enough on this blog entry, and my bones need whiskey before bed. (Whiskey is vegan, in case you were wondering). Frith, C.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 03:50:15 +0000

I believe what you are describing here is called 'shadow-puppetry', and I'm afraid I won't dignify the accusation with a response. However, I do know that much of the vehemence that finds its way into online discussion is a product of Internet psychology. There's a wonderful resource for understanding this phenomenon online at: http://tinyurl.com/23vzte I do agree with you, though, that this discussion is beginning to devolve, and because of that, I will no longer participate in it. Again, I am happy to have the discussion when it is fruitful, frithful and polite. If anyone wishes to have that conversation, she or he is welcome to contact me privately.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 03:47:41 +0000

["The slippery slope you are upon begins with ceasing to defend the rights of Diaspora traditions to animal sacrifice in the name of respectability. What sacrifice comes next? Working skyclad in Circle? Acknowledging a horned god? Once we start catering to respectability with the majority culture there's no limit to what we can lose."] But I didn't make this case. The slippery slope exists in the above rebuttal to my argument, not my argument itself. Therefore, it isn't my slippery slope. ["If you are so wedded to your ideas that contradiction of them feels like a personal attack, then you need to get your boundaries straight."] Two things here. First, the frequent use of 'you' in rebuttals, especially written rebuttals is easily confused, which is why I think it best to stay out of the second person when possible. You, you, you reads like finger-pointing. Second, the above statement most certainly is an ad hominem attack. ["Your passionate defense of animal rights is an important part of your position, but for carnivores who do not accept that premise, you need to rely on the rest of your argument."] I have not framed my argument as a passionate defense of animal rights. I have framed it as a discussion of the reasons why animal sacrifice is harmful to Paganism and distasteful to me. The reason for this is that when a vegan approaches this conversation from the perspective of animal rights, the argument is often lost, since it is the argument most people expect us to make. Please believe me when I say that I have made the animal rights argument frequently in the past, and today's discussion is not like those. I might add here that I do not accept the word 'carnivores' as a substitute for 'omnivores'. The word 'carnivore' indicates creatures who eat meat only, and our bodies are not engineered for such a diet. Finally, while I believe it is important to speak ones truth clearly and logically, I do not believe it is necessary to beat ones head against the barriers of upbringing, diet and bias until they all yield or ones skull is broken. I am in the minority, and I am happy to have the discussion when it is fruitful, frithful and polite. However, I do not believe that I should restrict my arguments or my truth simply because my audience eats meat and doesn't like what I have to say. Where would that have gotten abolitionists, or suffragettes? I appreciate the opportunity to debate with you. However, I can see that we are at something of an impasse here, and I am not inclined to carry this conversation any further. Thank you for speaking your truth on this matter and for giving me the opportunity to respond. Good day.

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 01:22:04 +0000

I never knew the Pythagoreans were vegetarians, and though of course I know that Hindu and Buddhist traditions are non-harming spiritways, I hadn't thought to mention them in my comments. So my thanks to you as well!

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Fri, 3 Apr 2009 01:18:24 +0000

"CS, this is the weakest part of your argument, an Appeal to Respectability. It's a slippery slope I'd rather not start on." Yes, I want for Pagan people to be respected, and animal sacrifice is not a respectable practice. In fact, my statement is well-rooted in abundant evidence that the general public finds the practice of animal sacrifice misguided, backward and dangerous, or the topic would not have found its way into the court system and onto this blog. If I am making an appeal to respectability then, it is not without cause or reason, and therefore my statement carries its own logical weight. A slippery slope fallacy is an if/then proposition which argues that if one small step is taken, it will lead to progressively larger outcomes that are more sweeping than originally intended. Since it is already plain that the general public finds the practice of animal sacrifice problematic, my restatement of that fact is not a slippery slope. However, I am concerned that by pointing the finger at me and not at the issue, there is an ad hominem attack in play. Do let's stick to the topic, and be kind to one another. We are people behind our keyboards, after all. "Its sweeping embrace of animal rights will not, however, cut much ice with people who are still carnivores." I didn't make the comment to 'cut ice with carnivores'. Vegans rarely find that their opinions do, in fact, 'cut ice with carnivores'. I made it because it is my truth, and I wish to speak it, as is my right and the right of everyone else who has commented here. I have done so politely. Now you have spoken yours as well. Thank you. I should perhaps mention in closing that I am Heathen, as well as vegan, and I oppose the sacrifice of animals in our faith as well. Our Gods do not need the blood or meat of animals to thrive, they need our respect and our worthy deeds. Human and animal sacrifice, while certainly indicated in the lore, were as inappropriate then as they are now. History does not equal morality. Moreover, I cannot imagine calling the death of any animal a sacrifice of mine, if I have done nothing but buy it and slit its throat. Where is the honor in that? Nowhere that I can see. What of my own am I sharing with the Gods? Nothing that I can see. I understand that others feel differently and passionately about this issue. But since I am as Heathen as I am vegan, you can bet I won't be backing away from the discussion any time soon. =) In the spirit of cordial debate, and in glad, spirited frith, Ceallaigh

The Wild Hunt : Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats

Thu, 2 Apr 2009 19:55:05 +0000

No slaughter is humane. The two words are contradictory in nature. Beyond that, arguing that animal sacrifice was a bedrock of ancient Paganism and so should be supported now is a logical fallacy, specifically an Appeal to Tradition. Recent archaeological evidence supports the Roman assertion that Druids practiced ritual cannibalism ref: http://tinyurl.com/cc2vmz Should this be permitted in the Druidic community now? It too, was a bedrock of Pagan practice. I think not. Similarly, I do not think the Pagan community should be encouraged to support destructive religious practices in order to ensure that their own rights as Pagans remain unsullied. Not all Pagan practices are constructive ones, and animal sacrifice, in particular, does a great deal to cement the notion that modern Pagans are misguided, backward and dangerous. We are better served to step away from this issue and realize, among other things, that the metaphysical exchange implied by the sacrifice of animals was more suited to civilizations wherein privation was the norm, and so appeasement of the Gods was necessary. Beyond that, we must realize that the sacrifice of an animal is not a sacrifice at all, because the individuals performing the sacrifice aren't giving anything up. It is the animal in question who is giving up its life, under duress, and this action cannot and should not be sacralized by modern Pagans. I agree with your perspective on many things and continue to enjoy your blog. However, in this I must stridently and respectfully continue to disagree. Yours in the spirit of cordial debate, C.S. MacCath-Moran P.S. I must also respectfully disagree with respondents who insist animals give up their lives willingly to sacrifice, since any animal treated gently during life is likely to trust its human companion. I rather think this a horrific betrayal of an animal's trust and not an appreciation on the part of the animal for the ritual. In any case, wouldn't this appreciation constitute higher consciousness, and then wouldn't there be a serious cognitive dissonance involved in killing the creature in spite of that higher consciousness? Finally, to anticipate the first question I might receive in response to my posting, yes. I am indeed vegan.