Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:25 pm**

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 10:57 pm Utterly clueless. Perhaps a discussion on self-awarness would be more useful

Any time you'd like to pursue a substantive discussion regarding human identity with me just say the word and I'll start the thread.

Posted: **Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:35 pm**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:22 pm
accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 10:33 pm 'Abortion' is a modern term, argued over by foul religious males who are determined to keep women under the control of foul male religious arseholes. Women have been terminating their pregnancies with whatever means necessary for as long as there have been women. Men never cared what women did regarding that until it became safe for women. They still don't care as long as it isn't safe and legal.
But then this part:

Maia posted: Infanticide is an ancient practice that gradually became increasingly frowned upon as we became more civilised. And yet abortion has become increasingly common. There's no real difference, in my opinion.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Then you are an even bigger moron than you have appeared to be so far.

Maia posted: If by moron you mean someone who doesn't agree with killing babies, then it's a title I proudly accept.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Fuck off you crazy bitch. And don't breed because you obviously have no empathy or imagination. Go back to worshipping your ridiculous 'earth goddess' crap.

So? What the fuck does that have to do with me? Translate 'civilised' to 'kristian male control'. Women who are anti-choice are just as bad as men who are.

Now little man, have another whine about the big meanie woman 'bullying' you

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 12:01 am**

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 12:16 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:35 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:22 pm
accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 10:33 pm 'Abortion' is a modern term, argued over by foul religious males who are determined to keep women under the control of foul male religious arseholes. Women have been terminating their pregnancies with whatever means necessary for as long as there have been women. Men never cared what women did regarding that until it became safe for women. They still don't care as long as it isn't safe and legal.
But then this part:

Maia posted: Infanticide is an ancient practice that gradually became increasingly frowned upon as we became more civilised. And yet abortion has become increasingly common. There's no real difference, in my opinion.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Then you are an even bigger moron than you have appeared to be so far.

Maia posted: If by moron you mean someone who doesn't agree with killing babies, then it's a title I proudly accept.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Fuck off you crazy bitch. And don't breed because you obviously have no empathy or imagination. Go back to worshipping your ridiculous 'earth goddess' crap.

So? What the fuck does that have to do with me? Translate 'civilised' to 'kristian male control'. Women who are anti-choice are just as bad as men who are.

Now little man, have another whine about the big meanie woman 'bullying' you

Note to others:

Enough said?

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 1:27 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:35 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:22 pm
accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 10:33 pm 'Abortion' is a modern term, argued over by foul religious males who are determined to keep women under the control of foul male religious arseholes. Women have been terminating their pregnancies with whatever means necessary for as long as there have been women. Men never cared what women did regarding that until it became safe for women. They still don't care as long as it isn't safe and legal.
But then this part:

Maia posted: Infanticide is an ancient practice that gradually became increasingly frowned upon as we became more civilised. And yet abortion has become increasingly common. There's no real difference, in my opinion.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Then you are an even bigger moron than you have appeared to be so far.

Maia posted: If by moron you mean someone who doesn't agree with killing babies, then it's a title I proudly accept.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Fuck off you crazy bitch. And don't breed because you obviously have no empathy or imagination. Go back to worshipping your ridiculous 'earth goddess' crap.

So? What the fuck does that have to do with me?

Well, if you are not the poster otherwise known here as vegetariantaxidermy nothing at all.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 1:35 am**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 1:27 am
accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:35 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:22 pm

But then this part:

Maia posted: Infanticide is an ancient practice that gradually became increasingly frowned upon as we became more civilised. And yet abortion has become increasingly common. There's no real difference, in my opinion.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Then you are an even bigger moron than you have appeared to be so far.

Maia posted: If by moron you mean someone who doesn't agree with killing babies, then it's a title I proudly accept.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Fuck off you crazy bitch. And don't breed because you obviously have no empathy or imagination. Go back to worshipping your ridiculous 'earth goddess' crap.

So? What the fuck does that have to do with me?

Well, if you are not the poster otherwise known here as vegetariantaxidermy nothing at all.

Yeah. I'm accelefine, dimwit. That's what the word on the screen says. Perhaps you need to visit Specsavers. Not that I have anything to explain or justify to any male weirdo freak on here, yourself included.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 2:36 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 1:35 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 1:27 am
accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:35 pm

So? What the fuck does that have to do with me?
Well, if you are not the poster otherwise known here as vegetariantaxidermy nothing at all.
Yeah. I'm accelefine, dimwit. That's what the word on the screen says. Perhaps you need to visit Specsavers. Not that I have anything to explain or justify to any male weirdo freak on here, yourself included.

Note to others:

So, do I owe her an apology for confusing accelefine with vegetariantaxidery?

On the other hand, if she's not vegetariantaxidery, I sure as shit can't tell them apart.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 3:00 am**

Wizard22 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:34 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Fri Dec 20, 2024 12:28 amOh, my God [one of them], is this you, Lyssa?!

If so, then a hearty "Har Har Harr" right back at you.
Didn't you say that [we] are all Satyr? You can't tell the difference, can you? You've never been a bright one.

Note to others:

If Wizard is Satyr, there can be little doubt regarding just how obsessed with me he is over at KT.

I'm a "she" here because he really is contemptuous of all those who are not...white Anglo-Saxon straight men?

"She speaks for millions, in her head, directing her comments towards unseen audiences, in the form of ‘notes’ and patronizing rhetorical questions directed towards invisible receivers.
Text after text, repeating an encoded message to an imagined audience.
She’s a Borg Queen. First among equals – one of many drones.
She has adopted the feminine tactic of linguistic sparring, never positing any arguments, any reasoning, but only insinuating in her condescending tone, undermining the psychology of her interlocutors, she hopes. It’s all subjective, so her hopes are as good as truths. If she thinks so, it is so; it is so for her and her collective, who share her psychosis, her desire to disappear in a collective – cease to be individuals.
She calls her inability to rationalize her positions her ‘fracturing & fragmentation,’ knowing that the adversary is too superior to deal with on his level. She knows that she is incapable of abandoning her emotional crutches, so she demands that they prove them to her, placing herself at the center of all dialogues, bringing them down to her level – the final arbiter. She’s made herself the standard, the one who will decide right from wrong, whilst pretending she has no preferences and no ethics. But she does, and it shows.
Every dialogue she converts to a discussion about her, and how others must prove themselves to her, as if she were a ‘philosopher queen,’ and yet, if she is personally attacked or critiqued, she turns to her patronizing accusation “stooge,” – demeaning, patronizing – and if the insults become too hurtful, “huffing & puffing,” – dismissive – and if the critiques cut too close to the bone, she resorts to the infantile ” look what I’ve reduced him to,” always directing her commentary to the unseen collective in her hive mind. She wins, no matter what. If she does not reduce you to a drone, she reduces you to a manimal.
She must make herself the final arbiter, and yet nobody can critique her, nor speculate about her motives. They must, only prove themselves to her. Her subjectivity will determine if the arguments are good or bad. Her subjectivity will determine who is the stooge and who is the “clever” one, focusing no the speaker not the spoken.
If you cannot convincingly explain your positions to her, then your theories are too “abstract,” “up in the skyhooks,” meaning they are incomprehensible to her, therefore they are nonsense; if you cannot convince her, then nothing you say is true. Her and her collective, will be the ones who decide, “compelled” by fate to be the final judges – chosen, by unknown agencies.
Her intelligence is now the standard, and yet she admits that she’s confused and subjective, so her confused subjectivity is the final standard. Her emotions, her interests, her feelings, her comprehensions… she says it straight out. It’s not how Heidegger meant “Dasein” it’s how she understood it, ‘here and now.’
All must be brought down to her level of confused subjectivity. And if you turn away and ignore her, she will follow you around, taunting, patronizing, implying, commenting, until you pay attention to her, as if she mattered, as if her subjectivity had to be overcome, seduced, convinced, otherwise everything being stated is of no significance.
And others fall for it… are pulled into her ‘up in the sky’ orifices, not realizing that her subjectivity can never be swayed, because it has a secret agenda… and is not ‘fractured & fragmented,’ at all. She’s a Marxist, a collectivist, but she will never admit it.
Her pretence is meant to wear you down, and pull you into her gaping orifice, her ‘hole.’
She’s the Borg Queen… of the Borg collective. “Resistance is futile,” she believes… because she will ware you down until you surrender. Taunting, patronizing, undermining, condescending… until you turn on her in frustration, “huffing and puffing,” to be “reduced,” by her formidable feminine tactics, to an emotional wreck, primed for capitulation. Then, she will declare victory, and move on, until she returns, again, and again, to toy with you. She’s succeeding, she believes, and her subjective belief is all that matters.
She’s made objectivity a slur, associating it with Ayn Rand’s “objectivism” and its defence of capitalist ideals, implying that objectivity, as an intellectual approach, is brutal, confronting her comforting subjective shelters, associating it with triggering events and injustices, like the holocaust, or with abortions denied to women who have made a terrible mistake, or have been victimized, and want to ‘correct’ it with a quick and easy operation, just to repeat it in the future.
All errors can be collectivized, so that everyone is made equal – I am a drone, my brother’s keeper. Their pains are my own. Their mistakes, are my own.
Philosophy is about becoming objective, but not for her. Objectivity is now authoritarian, totalitarian, another term for ‘evil’ – might is right.
She’s not really a “philosopher,” even if she throws the term around, like all the other crap she throws around; she’s an ideologue, masking as some two-bit internet “intellectual,” with a secret agenda. Objectivity is her nemesis, and that’s why she’s demonized it. All must become subjective, where emotions and self-interests, stupidity and ignorance, hedonism and ego dominate. There, she hopes, she can assimilate her victims, into the collective, her collective.
She calls it “compromising,” and it is how she will eliminate wars and conflicts. All will become automatons in the collective – drones, with no free-will.
That’s the issue. That’s what prevents her collective from becoming cosmic. Free-will and ‘self.’
She claims to be amoral, but her methods always employ indirect shaming, using ethical triggers, trying to convert by reducing others into submissive automatons, following her collectivized ethical standards – this is why the holocaust, and Nazis, and mass shootings, and abortions, are continuously brought up as “contexts,” for her faked amorality to unload its moralizing tactics. It’s those damn objectivists, and their unemotional criteria, see?
It’s those objective males, and their reasoning, that stands in the way of universal assimilation.
If she were truly amoral, the Nazis, and their victims, denying abortions to women, victims of paternalism, would not be such an emotional issue, to her.
Under what principle would a true amoralist claim that such actions were wrong?
She denies morality to conceal her own moralizing practices, subverting by casting doubt into the minds of those who do not want to wrong people – those with morals and principles, otherwise why would the predicament of some theoretical Mary, and her unwanted pregnancy, matter? On what grounds would Mary deserve to be helped, in a world with no “ethical authority”? Everything has to be made into a “social construct” to justify her collective’s planned social engineering? In a ‘no god world’ where ethics are invented, out of nothing, men can step in and create their own, right?
Right is Might is inverted to Might is Right…and the only ‘ethical might’ is the one practiced by a collective. Her objectives are certainty not rational, because then she would argue them. But she can’t and will not, for this will expose her and her quality of mind and her agenda. Every time she tried, in the past, when she was still an “objectivist,” herself, she failed to defeat those with better counterarguments – she failed when trying to impose her subjectivity on real objective minds. She had no arguments worth stating. So, she stopped arguing, using reasoning, and started undermining, using emotions… as she was taught. She emasculated herself, adopting feminine strategies. Tactics that do not require reasoning, or evidence, or objective standards, or logic, nor definitions of words. Entirely feminine; psychological tactics. Tactics on how to defeat masculine reasoning… those evil objectivists, who are not to be called ‘evil,’ because this would expose her foundational ethics – the same ones that verbally manipulated her into joining Abrahamism, and then Marxism, and now postmodernism. Now she will assimilate others, as she has been assimilated; the ideology “compels” her, to indoctrinate as she was; to manipulate, as she was.
Mary’s sexual mistakes are not hers alone, they are the entire collectives mistake, or they ought to be so, in an “is/ought” world, with “no god.” A world with no absolute authority, she believes, subjectively.
Her amorality conceals a deep moral foundation… based on her Abrahamic upbringing. It has been absorbed into her updated collectivism. She’s progressed from spiritual towards ideological collectivism, rejecting all biology-based categories. Ironically? Predictably.
There are good & evil collectives, and any collective identifier, based on biology, is ‘evil,’ but must be called “objective,” because it is, and objectivity is, by her own subjective definitions of Dasein, ‘evil,’ or ‘’wrong,’ or ‘immoral.’ But she will never say so. She will simply imply, and patronize, and ridicule… until you get it, see? Like she did.
The all-inclusive ideological collective is now her god. It is intentional, willful, so no individuated Will, ought to, be tolerated in the Borg collective. The Borg Queen speaks on its behalf. It’s not her, she is “compelled,” as all are, she believes in her subjective mind.
No arguments required. It is so, because she believes so, and she is part of a collective.
There is no free-will so nobody has a choice; they are all compelled, and she just happened to be compelled by the “good side.” She’s been chosen, by fate, luck, chance, cosmic, or comic, forces, to be on the right side of history. She’s been directed, chosen to do this work. It’s not her choice. She has no choice. She one of the fortunate ones.
If not god, then who or what is compelling us all? She cannot say, without exposing her ethics and motives. All drones must be made to feel equal to all others, for the collective to remain stable; no personal identify will be tolerated; no personal beliefs. No hierarchies. No divisive categories. No divisive collectives. Her collective is universal. All will inevitably submit and be assimilated. There is no choice. Resistance is FUTILE!
She just laughs, knowing that all who resist will succumb, will be assimilated.
Natural selection must, ought to, be replaced by social selection, governed by Borg principles and collectivized ethics. All must, ought, to identify with the all-encompassing universal collective, i.e., ‘self’ must be denounced and rejected. But she cannot explain and convince, using reason and rational arguments, so she must use psychological means to subvert all concepts that resist, demanding that others prove them to her… since she is the final subjective arbiter, and if you fail to convince her subjectivity – as you inevitably will – then ‘self’ is disproven, she believes… she has been compelled to believe. It’s not her fault.
She didn’t even have to rationalize her disproof. She simply chipped away at the imperfections in all theories about ‘self,’ all definitions, leaving the nothing, the absence… where anxiety takes over, and individuals seek comfort in collectives. She learned these techniques from others. Her collectivized brethren. From the hive… the Borg collective mind, replacing the god of Abraham.
She denies self, so as to imply that she’s channelling a cosmic agency, when it is collectivism, she is trying to channel. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ there is no choice, leaving the option of being collectively wrong as the only option. Let’s be collectively wrong, erasing all social and natural disparities – let’s reduce it all down to a level where uniformity is possible.
It’s inevitable… The cosmos will become ‘healed’ of its multiplicities and its conflicts. It will become uniformly perfect. Tikkun Olam.
She’s a Marxist, or a cultural Marxists, or a postmodern, but she will never admit it.
She will pretend that she’s undecided, fractured & fragmented, battling with these complex issues, unable to decide who is correct, when she’s already decided – the collective mind decided it for her – using this pretence as a way of pulling others into her linguistic traps – given to her. Infantile, but effective, around certain types. Her radicalized selective skepticism ought to be universalized. Radical and very selective. Applied ‘here’ but not ‘there’; ‘now’ but not ‘after.’
Doubt only your senses; doubt only certain issues, having to do with human identity and the human condition. Always remain within the human. Never apply this strategy outside human systems.
Her goal is to undermine confidence, because she is unable to confront the ideologies directly. She can only chip away at their imperfections. Her methods do not even require a high IQ, or knowledge of the ideologies, themselves. Her ignorance and simplicity are an advantage. She can never be swayed by reason nor by anything complex. She is immune to the underlying implications.
She, routinely tries to turn others against each other, so that she can glean something from the exchange, otherwise she remains oblivious to everything other than her repetitive devices.
Nothing she is told has ever affected her. She is too thick, too indoctrinated to be affected.
The ideology has “compelled” her to think and do what she does. Making others debate, while she watches, also reinforces her role as the final arbiter. She will be the one who decides the winner, and the criteria will be subjective, i.e., emotional, self-serving, not objective.
Her words don’t even require definitions, because these would create objective foundations from where dialogue can proceed. Her objectives will be thwarted by such objective clarity. She needs it all to remain as subjective as possible – in other words, obscure, chaotic, uncertain, vague, emotionally driven, egotistical, self-serving, hedonistic. The pleasure principle must be paramount – she must reduce all to a manimal state, where pure subjectivity can reign.
By the time these victims of her bad faith become aware of her methods and motives they will have wasted away hours rummaging through her garbage for something valuable.
I doubt most of them will ever realize what she is and what she is doing. They will simply become increasingly frustrated and confused by her repeating tactics, as if nothing they said registers; her responses never altering. It does not matter what reasoning and evidence they present, she will ignore it, because her subjectivity is the final standard.
She is compelled to hammer away, not letting them alone, until they capitulate and assimilate.
They call it nagging, for her its an effective strategy. She will never abandon it.
She is unable to exit from the nihilistic continuity, connecting Christianity with Communism and now Wokism. This time it will work, she believes.

Just out of curiosity, what parts did he get right?

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 4:36 am**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 2:36 am
accelafine wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 1:35 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 1:27 am

Well, if you are not the poster otherwise known here as vegetariantaxidermy nothing at all.
Yeah. I'm accelefine, dimwit. That's what the word on the screen says. Perhaps you need to visit Specsavers. Not that I have anything to explain or justify to any male weirdo freak on here, yourself included.
Note to others:

So, do I owe her an apology for confusing accelefine with vegetariantaxidery?

On the other hand, if she's not vegetariantaxidery, I sure as shit can't tell them apart.

The male entitlement is off the charts on here. Who the fuck are YOU 'iambiguous'? Does anyone care?

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 5:53 am**

"Note to others:

Enough said?"

This is killing me, Biggs. You always precede the question "enough said" with reference to it as a "note" when, in fact, it is a question. Now, this is not to say a question can't be a note. I would imply no such thing. But ordinarily, unless there is something more to the question that would constitute its being worthy of being called a note, it would suffice to call it a question. On the other hand, if the question presents information that is important beyond the singular matter addressed by question, it would be appropriate to convey this by informing the reader in the form of a note. As we've seen, however, no such additional information is presented in the question. Ergo, i humbly ask that in the future, you say "question to others:" instead of "note to others:"

Thank you, sir.

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 6:16 am**

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 5:53 am "Note to others:

Enough said?"

This is killing me, Biggs. You always precede the question "enough said" with reference to it as a "note" when, in fact, it is a question. Now, this is not to say a question can't be a note. I would imply no such thing. But ordinarily, unless there is something more to the question that would constitute its being worthy of being called a note, it would suffice to call it a question. On the other hand, if the question presents information that is important beyond the singular matter addressed by question, it would be appropriate to convey this by informing the reader in the form of a note. As we've seen, however, no such additional information is presented in the question. Ergo, i humbly ask that in the future, you say "question to others:" instead of "note to others:"

Thank you, sir.

Note to iwannaplato:

Okay, admittedly, he's that much closer to being a Stooge!!

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 6:44 am**

Question for others:

So, do I owe her an apology for confusing accelefine with vegetariantaxidery?

On the other hand, if she's not vegetariantaxidery, I sure as shit can't tell them apart.

The male entitlement is off the charts on here. Who the fuck are YOU 'iambiguous'? Does anyone care?
[/quote]

What on Earth does any of this have to do with male entitlement? Let alone Pagan morality.

Does she have anything at all to contribute to that discussion?

Posted: **Sun Dec 22, 2024 8:00 am**

If any of these Pagan males with entitlement happen to also be woke, overweight, a pedophile, or have a dislike of Meat Loaf, you can count on it.

Posted: **Mon Dec 23, 2024 2:17 am**

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 1:27 am
accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:35 pm
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:22 pm

But then this part:

Maia posted: Infanticide is an ancient practice that gradually became increasingly frowned upon as we became more civilised. And yet abortion has become increasingly common. There's no real difference, in my opinion.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Then you are an even bigger moron than you have appeared to be so far.

Maia posted: If by moron you mean someone who doesn't agree with killing babies, then it's a title I proudly accept.

vegetariantaxidermy posted: Fuck off you crazy bitch. And don't breed because you obviously have no empathy or imagination. Go back to worshipping your ridiculous 'earth goddess' crap.

So? What the fuck does that have to do with me?

Well, if you are not the poster otherwise known here as vegetariantaxidermy nothing at all.

I have no clue where or when that thread was, but yeah, I would have said essentially the same thing. If Maia is a male-pandering, traitorous, anti-science, moronic dipshit as your 'quote' indicates then she deserved all she got. No wonder you creepy morons are drooling after her. Misogynistic women are as repellent as misogynistic men. So no 'gotcha' moment for you I'm afraid. Awww. Diddums. Go and cwy about the big mean bully...

Posted: **Mon Dec 23, 2024 3:01 am**

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2024 2:17 am
iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2024 1:27 am
accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Dec 21, 2024 11:35 pm

So? What the fuck does that have to do with me?
Well, if you are not the poster otherwise known here as vegetariantaxidermy nothing at all.
I have no clue where or when that thread was, but yeah, I would have said essentially the same thing.

So, you are not vegetariantaxidermy? Because that is how VT responded to Maia on Wed Oct 12, 2022 in "The lie that'll destroy women for generations" thread. To which Maia posted: "I think it's possible to judge a person's capacity for empathy and imagination by the tone of their conversation."

So, if that be the case, what's that tell us about your own capacity for empathy and imagination? If anyone epitomizes a Wokester, it's those like you who, in my opinion, insist that everyone had best wake up and agree with them about, well, so far as I can tell, everything.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2024 2:17 amIf Maia is a male-pandering, traitorous, anti-science, moronic dipshit as your 'quote' indicates then she deserved all she got.

My quote reflects VT's reaction to Maia, not mine.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Dec 23, 2024 2:17 amNo wonder you creepy morons are drooling after her.

As for me drooling over her, that's just one more flagrant assumption that your "my way or the highway" mind seems incapable of jettisoning.

In fact, as I noted to iwannaplato above...

Actually, what stirs -- fascinates, intrigues -- me most about Maia is the fact that this is the first time I have ever exchanged posts with someone who is not only blind but was born blind. How on Earth does someone who comes into the world born blind come to understand the world around her...a world she has never seen? How might that [existentially] give her a frame of mind I can only perhaps come closer to understanding.

Then the part where she seems to accept my argument regarding dasein in the is/ought world but is in possession of an Intrinsic Self that enables her to transcend my own fractured and fragmented assessment of conflicting goods.

Finally, the part where she is committed to Paganism and then makes a 7-year commitment to celibacy. And she brought this up in our exchange, not me. Now, admittedly, I don't know all that can possibly be known about Pagans. But I have always connected the dots here between them [and Wiccans] and Dionysus, myself.

Or, sure, maybe in a mind as woke as yours seems to be, that's drooling.

Philosophy Now Forum

Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality

Re: Pagan morality