Opinions vs Facts

[MorningDove030202]

What do you do when someone belives their opinions are facts and are useing them against you in a debate?

For instance...in another forum someone was saying that you arn't wiccan unless you follow Gardner's 161 laws....... I was trying to tell him that's his opinion, but he says it's a fact that you have to follow these laws to be Wiccan.... Obviously I'm not going to be able to convince him that his facts are opinions.... So then what? I thinK asked him to let go of his need for us to agree and to just let us agree to disagree, but that didn't make him happy either.

Dove :broomride

[GaiaDea]

Refuse to participate in the argument.

Arguing simply strengthens this person's conviction they are "right" and you are "wrong", even when the argument is over opinion.

So, refuse to participate in the argument.

[Shanti]

Well a fact can be supported by evidence, proof.

[Valnorran]

Ask him for his source and supporting evidence. It would also be good if you had a source and supporting evidence for your position.

[Aelfoak]

I read in a book once that Gardner was a bit of an odd ball who created Wicca just to satisfy his own sexual needs, is that not a fact or am i wrong?

[Theres]

"agreeing to disagree" is pointless in a forum which exists for the purpose of debate.
you'll either need to prove your point with indisputable facts, or as GaiaDea said above, just refuse to argue.

[nyteshade]

Never argue with an idiot. They will take you down to there level and beat you with experience.

[morrigen]

Ask for references. Stipulate that these references be from reliable sources.

Back up your own claims with references.

Alternatively, imagine he's sitting at his computer in a set of raunchy, red, women's underwear complete with stockings and suspenders...and you won't be able to take him seriously...

[Holly Ariadna]

Alternatively, imagine he's sitting at his computer in a set of raunchy, red, women's underwear complete with stockings and suspenders...and you won't be able to take him seriously...

LMAO, gonna have to try that! :hehehehe:

[MorningDove030202]

Ask for references. Stipulate that these references be from reliable sources.

Back up your own claims with references.

Alternatively, imagine he's sitting at his computer in a set of raunchy, red, women's underwear complete with stockings and suspenders...and you won't be able to take him seriously...


I think this is the best advice yet....

I keep telling the guy that Gardnerians today don't claim to be the only valid Wiccan path, but that's not good enough evidence for him.

*red womens underware with stockings and suspenders, and red high heals*

I feel better already!

Dove

[Ben Trismegistus]

I read in a book once that Gardner was a bit of an odd ball who created Wicca just to satisfy his own sexual needs, is that not a fact or am i wrong?
You're wrong. But that's besides the point.

I'm a Gardnerian Wiccan and I've never heard of "Gardner's 161 Laws". Best to just remove yourself from the conversation.

[Phoenix Blue]

I found the 161 Laws (http://wicca.timerift.net/laws/161.html) on the "Wicca for the Rest of Us" website. It's kinda interesting reading. But required? Hardly. Take a look at Verse 4: " As a man loveth a woman by mastering her..." How many Dianics would go for that? And the verses on persecution, in this day and age, are meaningless. Likely they were even meaningless when they were written, since they're derived from Gerald Gardner's "Old Laws," which at their oldest are certainly less than a hundred years old.

[Sabrina]

Well - it's grey area that's for sure. From his viewpoint - he's stating facts. That's because he sounds like a died-in-the-wool traditionalist. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But I think you've fallen into an argument/debate with this fellow and the two of you are comparing apples and oranges. You have your viewpoint of what living Wiccan means - based upon your own exposure, decisions and training and so forth. He has his. Problem lies in the part where he's a true traditionlist and you have more space for an eclectic style - which CAN be certainly - by definition - looked upon AS Wiccan.

Many trads do not accept the eclectic viewpoint. And sometimes they lump us all up together in the "wrong" catagory for only purist in nature may be accepted by them....down to the last letter and rule.

Personally, I have always believed there is room and respect for both and that area of definition that lies between the two. But most trads (especially European ones) are very diehard about how they Will and Will Not define Wicca.

I once had a scrap myself with a diehard who told me that I dishonored THEM by being eclectic.
I told them that I was NO dishonor to them and thought them cold and cruel to claim I was. But, you see, in his mind.....By NOT going thru the rigurous same grueling and lengthy training he'd been through - my shorter version of training recieved was insignificant. He thought for ME to claim to be Wiccan as he did - was a disservice to him AND what he stood for.

No amount of my explaining what kind of person I am, how hard I Try everyday to work hard and lead a good life, no matter any of my accomplishements - nothing impressed him. Who and what I am didn't matter to Him one whip. He was already convienced that my Eclectic status was an insult to his own training.

We finally agreed to just disagree...for there was no way for me to not be hurt by his accusations and I was Never going to get him to understand that I was no dishonor to him...nor would I ever want to be.

It's a matter of principle. Most traditionalist will feel that those eclectic or self-trained or self-dedicated will not meet their standards and keep their purist ways.
I admire their level of dedication. It's just that some of the ceremonial stages do not resonate within me. Last time I checked - I am responsible for my own spirituality.

So bottom line...I have to answer for myself and no one else. And there will always be those who may disagree - but I cannot be what I am not. And I won't feel wrong for what I know is true.

You're not going to get anywhere with him if he's a diehard or purist. He's allowed his feelings and decisions. And his *facts* are true for him....just not *facts* to you.

hope it settles happily and not in frustration or anger.
Sabrina

[Aine of the Fae]

Never argue with an idiot. They will take you down to there level and beat you with experience.

True, so true... there are times you just have to walk away... a difficult thing... I know... I'm guilty of it...

[Pandoras]

I think one of the hardest things I've ever had to learn in this life is to just shut up.

You hear people saying stupid things and all you want to do is make them realize that maybe, just maybe, there might exist some tiny, tiny possibility that there are other possibilities, other opinions that are valid. But no. They dismiss you as dead wrong. And it's so tempting to keep going, keep arguing, try to find middle ground, something to agree on. Maybe you think (as I often do) that it's important to educate people, express yourself, blah blah blah, the personal is political, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, yadda yadda yadda.

But you can't argue with some people. So you have to shut up and walk away. It's hard, I know.

[Wascally Wabbit]

Well, he's just wrong, for what it's worth. There is a strain of silly officiousness among certain people who think they are pagans. That's not what it's about. It's not Dungeons and Dragons, or the military. As Lao Tzu said, Those that know don't tell and those that tell don't know. More recently, Ralph Waldo Emerson said, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Finishing with a killer quote won't do anything to quiet him, but it does make you feel better.

[Gede]

MM~

I think one of the hardest things I've ever had to learn in this life is to just shut up.

I totally agree. I've grown up with a sister whose defiance surpasses the very epitome of stubbornness. I've also debated with 'diehards' who just can't get passed the fact that what they are saying is merely opinion and often unfounded at that.

There are many things in the 161 Laws that are as backward as some Catholic dogma, in fact if I can remember my history correctly, Doreen Valiente, Gardner's first High Priestess left his Coven after having a disagreement with him concerning the Laws and their implications for the role and pre-requisites of the High Priestess; basically it said that the High Priestess should step down gracefully when she got 'too old' so as to allow a younger, presumably beautiful girl take her spot, while the High Priest could remain for as long as he pleased. Then again I remember reading somewhere that even Gardern considered the Laws rather erroneous and having read the first few chapters of The Meaning of Witchcraft, what I can gather from his attitude to the subject, the High Priestess was given much more power than the High Priest in that she could choose whoever she felt would serve best as her consort. In essence the 161 Laws are merely productions of a fanciful romanticism about persecution and Coven dynamics.

It's best to leave the diehard to his own devices. The further you let yourself fall into his trap the more aggravate you will feel.

Namaste, Gede...

[Phoenix Blue]

Well, he's just wrong, for what it's worth. There is a strain of silly officiousness among certain people who think they are pagans.
For all their officiousness, they are still Pagan. :) They just have their own set of traditions to follow. . . and yes, sometimes they take the issue a bit too far with people who don't agree or who choose not to follow their traditions.

As a military member, I understand the appeal of tradition--and the fact that not everyone can, will, or even should be a part of any given tradition (I'm very eclectic in my Pagan practice). Ideally, more traditionalists would carry a "live and let live" attitude; but just because someone else won't let it slide doesn't mean you shouldn't, if that makes any sense. :)

I guess I'd be kinda offended if someone claimed to be in the US military but wore a jacked-up uniform and couldn't render a proper military salute to save his life. No one likes the idea of someone who claims to be something they're not, and I suspect that's what's at the core of this entire debate. But the better way for traditionalists may well be to try and interest eclectics in their traditions, rather than look down their noses at people who don't share their interest.

[Partly Cloudy]

In this kind of situation, it's best if you don't let what he's saying get to you. Just ignore it- you don't have to change your own mind, but you don't have to get wound up arguing with a person that obviously won't be agreeing, either.

[Sabrina]

[QUOTE=Phoenix_Blue]For all their officiousness, they are still Pagan. :) They just have their own set of traditions to follow. . . and yes, sometimes they take the issue a bit too far with people who don't agree or who choose not to follow their traditions.

As a military member, I understand the appeal of tradition--and the fact that not everyone can, will, or even should be a part of any given tradition (I'm very eclectic in my Pagan practice). Ideally, more traditionalists would carry a "live and let live" attitude; but just because someone else won't let it slide doesn't mean you shouldn't, if that makes any sense. :)
QUOTE]

I spent some considerable time communicating with some rather hard-nosed traditonalist from Europe awhile back- trying to gain better insight into their mind set. What I came to understand was this:
Since they hold their traditions so very sacred, they're disinclined to observe eclectic practices as anything short of an insult to their path. Wicca in particular. It's as though to recognize or allow for *lesser* standards devalues their own beliefs somehow. While some of this mentality gave me great heartache, for I see us all basically striving towards the same goal, I did admire their ability to commit on a more traditional manner.

I think problems arise when one group (either) decides to make judgements against the other camp in lieu of allowing that spirituality is defined by the individual need and not the chosen path, persay. But there are many out there who seem to take great pride in their *witchier than thou* status and carry that banner a bit too far when they weild it against their neighbor. And I've seen both camps - Eclectic And Traditional behave in such a manner.

My main concept in debate with the die-hards was simply this: "If I respect Your path, why in turn, do you Not show respect for mine?" The question continued to plague us both, for to show understanding For my eclectic practice, they are basically saying that they accept my ways. And in the long run to stay true to their own convictions OF a traditional method - they can accept nothing less. And since - by definition - eclectic equals Less....they are pressed to remain firm to their convictions and not be swayed, even in the face of true and heartfelt, earnest commitment - such as mine.
It's a riddle really.

Sad but true.
Sabrina