FANDOM


  • The Freemasons only accept monotheists and it heavily focused on abarahamic beleifs. They also only accept men and only have ever had real prominence in western civlization. 

    The White Lotus however takes people of very different viewpoints, is spread throughout all of the world's culture, and has both male and female members.

      Loading editor
    • Continental lodges do not have the religious and gender restrictions.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Continental lodges do not have the religious and gender restrictions.

      The continental lodges are not recognized by the freemasons.

        Loading editor
    • Rune Scholar wrote:
      Deist Zealot wrote:
      Continental lodges do not have the religious and gender restrictions.
      The continental lodges are not recognized by the freemasons.

      For that to be true, one would have to be defining "Freemasons" as "traditionalist lodges only." 

      I mean, there's no denying that there's a schism.  But to claim that Continental lodges "are not recognized by the Freemasons" because traditionalists snub them is akin to saying that liberal Episcopalian churches "are not recognized by Christianity" because they're not on the best terms with reactionary fundamentalism.

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Rune Scholar wrote:
      Deist Zealot wrote:
      Continental lodges do not have the religious and gender restrictions.
      The continental lodges are not recognized by the freemasons.
      For that to be true, one would have to be defining "Freemasons" as "traditionalist lodges only." 

      I mean, there's no denying that there's a schism.  But to claim that Continental lodges "are not recognized by the Freemasons" because traditionalists snub them is akin to saying that liberal Episcopalian churches "are not recognized by Christianity" because they're not on the best terms with reactionary fundamentalism.

      That is obviously a rather flawed analogy. 

      This would be more akin to you saying that the Westboro Baptist Chruch is Baptist, even though they are rejected by them. 

      Besides the anology used also refers to them as world-wide which isn't even true for the much larger main branch of Freemasonry, much less the schism group. 

      To use an in-show anolalogy, the White Lotus are the original Freemasons and the Red Lotus are the Contienetal Lodges. 

        Loading editor
    • Seems like we're splitting hairs over technicalities about membership requirements--and when we reach that point, I have a hard time seeing how the comparison is "seriously flawed."

        Loading editor
    • To start with the analogy:

      The Order of the White Lotus' organization mimics that of the Freemasons, another allegedly ancient "society of secrets", whose members of many different cultures and views stretch all over the world.

      Eh, I think this is inaccurate to the point of uselessness. How is freemasonry being "mimicked" specifically? It seems more reasonable to say something like "The Order of the White Lotus is inspired by real world secret societies, such as the Freemasons."

      Now, as far as the Freemasons themselves go, I agree that there's no reason for me to care that the continental lodges aren't recognized by other Freemason groups. All Freemason lodges, including all of the Grand Lodges, are just different branches split off of the same organization. Each claims to be the most legitimate, & many consider various other branches to be illegitimate. But there's no independent way of verifying that claim, & most likely none of them stayed completely true to the original organization anyway. I won't add any analogies, there's been enough of those, but I will address this one:

      This would be more akin to you saying that the Westboro Baptist Chruch is Baptist, even though they are rejected by them.

      "Baptists are individuals who comprise a group of Evangelical Christian denominations and churches that subscribe to a doctrine that baptism should be performed only for professing believers (believer's baptism, as opposed to infant baptism), and that it must be done by complete immersion"

      So, yeah, if you believe that, you're a Baptist. The notion that it "doesn't count" if other Baptists don't want it to is just the No True Sctosman fallacy. It's also rather circular, since it requires us to assume that X group is more legitimate than Y group before we even hear X's argument for why Y isn't legitimate.

      Also, there were female White Lotus members?

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:


      This would be more akin to you saying that the Westboro Baptist Chruch is Baptist, even though they are rejected by them.

      "Baptists are individuals who comprise a group of Evangelical Christian denominations and churches that subscribe to a doctrine that baptism should be performed only for professing believers (believer's baptism, as opposed to infant baptism), and that it must be done by complete immersion"

      So, yeah, if you believe that, you're a Baptist. The notion that it "doesn't count" if other Baptists don't want it to is just the No True Sctosman fallacy. It's also rather circular, since it requires us to assume that X group is more legitimate than Y group before we even hear X's argument for why Y isn't legitimate.

      Also, there were female White Lotus members?

      Your first argument requires the assumption that I accept your defination of what a "Baptist" is. But you are right in that my analogy was no conveyed correctly. I should have said "This would be akin to you saying that the Westboro Baptist Church should be considered part of the Baptist conventions, even though they are rejected by them." 

      There where no named ones, but in the legend of Korra you see several female White Lotus guards. 

        Loading editor
    • Your first argument requires the assumption that I accept your defination of what a "Baptist" is.

      It actually only requires that the definition be correct, & belief in voluntary baptism is the commonality of several readily-available sources.

      I should have said "This would be akin to you saying that the Westboro Baptist Church should be considered part of the Baptist conventions, even though they are rejected by them."

      This is really more DZ's argument, so I'll let her say whatever she wants to say about this.

      There where no named ones, but in the legend of Korra you see several female White Lotus guards.

      Never noticed.

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Your first argument requires the assumption that I accept your defination of what a "Baptist" is.

      It actually only requires that the definition be correct, & belief in voluntary baptism is the commonality of several readily-available sources.


      There where no named ones, but in the legend of Korra you see several female White Lotus guards.

      Never noticed.

      While it is true that many use that as a defination of "Baptist" if one where to go on and say that they still have those core beleifs but did not beleive in....say.... preachers for example, or they believed in the infallibilty of the Pope they woud probably not be considered Baptists by most. Not to mention that many branches of Christianity believe in complete Baptism but are not considered Baptists. 

      Female White Lotus Member

        Loading editor
    • Rune Scholar wrote:

      While it is true that many use that as a defination of "Baptist" if one where to go on and say that they still have those core beleifs but did not beleive in....say.... preachers for example, or they believed in the infallibilty of the Pope they woud probably not be considered Baptists by most. Not to mention that many branches of Christianity believe in complete Baptism but are not considered Baptists. 

      This is intended ONLY to point out the technical flaw in your argument, not as a religious debate: you've completely ignored the first part of the definition Neo provided you. That definition says Baptists are evangelical Christians, and the definition of that term automatically excludes the people you're describing. You're trying to expand the definition to include things that the definition, by its terms, rejects. And NONE of this is really relevant to the original topic anymore.

        Loading editor
    • That last bit is partly why I decided not to keep going on about how you can't exclude a subgroup from a larger group without giving a reason other than that you don't want them to be counted. Also because I don't really care.

        Loading editor
    • Rune Scholar wrote:
      That is obviously a rather flawed analogy.

      As compared to equating Continental lodges with the Red Lotus and the fucking Westboro Hate Cult (the latter of which is especially bass-ackwards)?  Not at all.

      Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Eh, I think this is inaccurate to the point of uselessness. How is freemasonry being "mimicked" specifically? It seems more reasonable to say something like "The Order of the White Lotus is inspired by real world secret societies, such as the Freemasons."

      No argument, but the Freemasons are perhaps the best-known secret society, which is likely why they were specifically named.

      Now, as far as the Freemasons themselves go, I agree that there's no reason for me to care that the continental lodges aren't recognized by other Freemason groups. All Freemason lodges, including all of the Grand Lodges, are just different branches split off of the same organization. Each claims to be the most legitimate, & many consider various other branches to be illegitimate. But there's no independent way of verifying that claim, & most likely none of them stayed completely true to the original organization anyway.

      Pretty much.  As far as I know, traditionalist lodges think Continental lodges are imposters (but are perfectly fine with Lodges of Adoption and the Eastern Star); Continental lodges think traditionalist lodges are backward; and even Grand Lodges will be declaring each other "irregular" for some reason or another at any given moment.  Rune Scholar's attempt to define the entire society as "traditional lodges only" is a No True Scotsman in its own right.

      And there at very least were women in the White Lotus in Korra's era.  Katara is a Grand Lotus, IIRC.

      This is really more DZ's argument, so I'll let her say whatever she wants to say about this.
      What I have to say is as follows:  Ew, no; that is most certainly not my argument.  It's that pesky No True Scotsman again.  The Westboros are the screeching reactionary id of American fundamentalist Christianity (which that body, come to think of it, actually does need to acknowledge and properly denounce instead of just paying hollow lip service to disapproval); framing that as analogous to certain branches of a secret society becoming less conservative is, again, bass-ackwards.
        Loading editor
    • No argument, but the Freemasons are perhaps the best-known secret society, which is likely why they were specifically named.

      Yeah, if I'd said "Illuminati," shit woulda got real Infowars REAL fast.

      Pretty much. As far as I know, traditionalist lodges think Continental lodges are imposters (but are perfectly fine with Lodges of Adoption and the Eastern Star); Continental lodges think traditionalist lodges are backward; and even Grand Lodges will be declaring each other "irregular" for some reason or another at any given moment.

      Even if a lodge had information confirming somehow that theirs was the most legitimate, they'd have to share it in order for it to matter. That's what we call a real kick in the teeth.

      And there at very least were women in the White Lotus in Korra's era.

      Well, now I know.

      Katara is a Grand Lotus, IIRC.

      The Wiki doesn't mention it either way.

      What I have to say is as follows: Ew, no; that is most certainly not my argument.

      What I meant was "this thing that is happening around me is between you 2."

      It's that pesky No True Scotsman again. The Westboros are the screeching reactionary id of American fundamentalist Christianity (which that body, come to think of it, actually does need to acknowledge and properly denounce instead of just paying hollow lip service to disapproval);

      From what I can tell, baptist churches in general are fundamentalist as shit, they probably just hate the Phelps clan because everyone hates the Phelps clan, especially themselves. As far as I'm concerned, religion is all Tolkienists arguing over which book is best, so I'm even more hard-pressed to care. Lord of the Rings sucks.

      framing that as analogous to certain branches of a secret society becoming less conservative is, again, bass-ackwards.

      I don't have any problem with the analogy, unless "more legitimate" is supposed to mean "their beliefs are more correct." I think the following is true in both cases: If the continental lodges/WBC isn't a legitimate branch of the Freemasons/baptists, it's for reasons incidental to the fact that the other branches don't want to recognize them, not because of that.

        Loading editor
    • We are getting off topic. 

      I was trying to convey that groups can splinter off while still claiming to be part of the main body. 

        Loading editor
    • Deist Zealot wrote:
      Rune Scholar wrote:
      That is obviously a rather flawed analogy.
      As compared to equating Continental lodges with the Red Lotus and the fucking Westboro Hate Cult (the latter of which is especially bass-ackwards)?  Not at all.


      Emotional appeal is a very flawed premise. 

      They are all splinter groups that came from a main orginization. 

      I would personally consider the Red Lotus and Westboro Baptist Chruch to be negative splinter groups while the Continental Lodge would be a positive one in my eyes, but that it beyond the point.

      Them being good or bad splinter groups to our differing views of morality is irellevant, them all being splinter groups is what I was trying to convey I was not trying to claim that the contiental lodge was an amoral or immoral group compared to the main Free Mason body. 

        Loading editor
    • Neo Bahamut wrote:
      Yeah, if I'd said "Illuminati," shit woulda got real Infowars REAL fast.

      The funny part is that the historical Illuminati were, at least by the standards of their time, a group who'd pretty much only be suspected of nefarious intent by the likes of Alex Jones and his followers.

      Even if a lodge had information confirming somehow that theirs was the most legitimate, they'd have to share it in order for it to matter. That's what we call a real kick in the teeth.

      So much for secrecy, hmm?  (But, again: traditionalist lodges will disavow other traditionalist lodges at the drop of a hat. Seriously.)

      From what I can tell, baptist churches in general are fundamentalist as shit, they probably just hate the Phelps clan because everyone hates the Phelps clan, especially themselves.

      Southern Baptists, as far as I can tell, are reactionary fundamentalists with little actual ideological difference from the Westboros...but who nonetheless think that they merit an award for refraining from picketing funerals.  Not sure about Baptists proper (except for the old saying which states that they, much like cats, raise hell but never get caught at it).

      As far as I'm concerned, religion is all Tolkienists arguing over which book is best, so I'm even more hard-pressed to care. Lord of the Rings sucks.

      Lord of the Rings is massively overrated and has 10000% more influence on fantasy literature as a whole than it actually merits.  Also, its fans say things like this with no hint of irony.  Those, all on their own, would be enough to sour me on the whole thing.

      I don't have any problem with the analogy, unless "more legitimate" is supposed to mean "their beliefs are more correct." I think the following is true in both cases: If the continental lodges/WBC isn't a legitimate branch of the Freemasons/baptists, it's for reasons incidental to the fact that the other branches don't want to recognize them, not because of that.

      As I see it?  Traditionalists within a society snubbing another faction within that society (because tradition) is rigidity.  Fundamentalists hollowly paying lip service to disavowing a living representation of their own squalling id (because plausible deniability) is hypocrisy.  The two aren't synonymous; and the only particular similarity is the No True Scotsman fallacy inherent in the main groups' disavowal.  But whatever.

      Rune Scholar wrote:

      Emotional appeal is a very flawed premise.

      I think you know damned well that calling you on a false equivalency is no such thing.

      They are all splinter groups that came from a main orginization.

      Again: in the same sense that Christian denominations that go against the fundie party line are "splinter groups" if said fundies proclaim them not to be "real" Christians.

      I would personally consider the Red Lotus and Westboro Baptist Chruch to be negative splinter groups while the Continental Lodge would be a positive one in my eyes, but that it beyond the point. Them being good or bad splinter groups to our differing views of morality is irellevant, them all being splinter groups is what I was trying to convey I was not trying to claim that the contiental lodge was an amoral or immoral group compared to the main Free Mason body.

      So...are you going to admit to the error in your opening post and retract the No True Scotsman that you used in an attempt to be right? Or are you just going to keep escalating the situation by trying to backpedal?

      Your choice.

        Loading editor
    • So...are you going to admit to the error in your opening post and retract the No True Scotsman that you used in an attempt to be right? Or are you just going to keep escalating the situation by trying to backpedal?

      Your choice.


      I did not make a No True Scotsman fallacy, do not try to trow fallacies aorund if you do not know how they work. 

      By your logic, me saying that Christinaity is not a form of Judaism can be called No True Scotsman. 

      The fact is that the continental lodges DECIDED to leave the other lodges. Therefore they are NOT part of the same group. 

      Also, no not all southern baptists are extremists. 

      Also you saying that my anology about splinter groups is false becuase you consider the Westboro Chruch to be "bad" and the Continental Lodges to be "good" is completely off-topic and is absolutely Emotional Appeal as well as a few other fallacies. When I am trying to illustrate how splinter groups work their morality is not a factor. 

        Loading editor
    • Rune Scholar wrote:
      The Freemasons only accept monotheists and it heavily focused on abarahamic beleifs. They also only accept men and only have ever had real prominence in western civlization. 


      Deist Zealot wrote:
      Continental lodges do not have the religious and gender restrictions.


      Rune Scholar wrote:
      The continental lodges are not recognized by the freemasons.


      Textbook No True Scotsman. Would you like to try again?

        Loading editor
    • Rune Scholar wrote:
      I did not make a No True Scotsman fallacy, do not try to trow fallacies aorund if you do not know how they work.

      Oh, you didn't, you say?  Let's see about that:

      The archetypal No True Scotsman fallacy:

      "A Scotsman does not put raisins in his oatmeal."

      "Ben McGregor does."

      "A real Scotsman does not put raisins in his oatmeal!"

      The initial exchange in this thread:

      "The Freemasons don't initiate women and require one to profess belief in Scripture."

      "Not true of Continental lodges."

      "Continental lodges aren't recognized by real Freemasons!"

      Yeah, McJediProbie called it.  You could have just said "I was thinking of traditionalist lodges" and saved yourself a lot of embarrassment; instead, you just kept trying vainly to be right.

      By your logic, me saying that Christinaity is not a form of Judaism can be called No True Scotsman.

      Reductio ad absurdum.

      The fact is that the continental lodges DECIDED to leave the other lodges. Therefore they are NOT part of the same group.

      Ring-a-ding-ding.  Source on them no longer considering themselves Freemasons at all (newsflash: you ain't gonna find it, because they do, and have just as much of a right to the title as the traditionalists), or that's a non sequitur.  (Hence, why your analogy with Christianity and Judaism is ludicrous.)

      Also, no not all southern baptists are extremists.

      I said reactionaries—as in, from the part of the political spectrum that spawned Veep Q-Tip and got the evangelicals endorsing a very embodiment of the Seven Deadly Sins—not "extremists."  But...go off or whatever.

      Also you saying that my anology about splinter groups is false becuase you consider the Westboro Chruch to be "bad" and the Continental Lodges to be "good" is completely off-topic and is absolutely Emotional Appeal as well as a few other fallacies. When I am trying to illustrate how splinter groups work their morality is not a factor.

      And...cap it all off with a strawman!  Great going, you debate-club champion, you.

      Now, I'll admit to having let my utter loathing for Shirley Roper, her late unlamented father, and her whole rabid clan slip in.  My argument, however, was about the completely different rationales behind the main faction's refusal to acknowledge the other faction.  Traditionalists disavow Continentals because tradition; fundies disavow the Phelps-Roper cult because it makes them look bad.  The one is rigidity; the other is hypocrisy.

      In either case: the Westboros are still the squalling id of American fundamentalism; and Continental lodges still have every right to call themselves Masonic (as they do).

      McJediProbie wrote:
      Would you like to try again?

      Don't encourage him.

        Loading editor
    • The funny part is that the historical Illuminati were, at least by the standards of their time, a group who'd pretty much only be suspected of nefarious intent by the likes of Alex Jones and his followers.

      Yeah, I heard that from Steve Shives's "5 Stupid Things" about Illuminati conspiracies.

      So much for secrecy, hmm? (But, again: traditionalist lodges will disavow other traditionalist lodges at the drop of a hat. Seriously.)

      That's the way of insular, elitist groups.

      Not sure about Baptists proper (except for the old saying which states that they, much like cats, raise hell but never get caught at it).

      I wasn't aware there was a difference. I don't keep track of church politics.

      Lord of the Rings is massively overrated and has 10000% more influence on fantasy literature as a whole than it actually merits. Also, its fans say things like this with no hint of irony. Those, all on their own, would be enough to sour me on the whole thing.

      Really, I just thought it'd be funny to make a rant about religion & Lord of the Rings & see which bothered people more. But, to be serious, I do not like that series or its venerated status, & my impression is that Tokien himself was never under any delusion that it was some flawless work of literature, but was more of a hobby & an excuse to invent languages & histories. Which I guess is sort of cool, but it doesn't excuse that the narrative itself is a slog, has overly simplistic themes, & is full of arbitrary things like how the eagles can't fly into Mordor because they'll be shot down, but a couple hobbits can totally sneak past his whole army.

      As I see it? Traditionalists within a society snubbing another faction within that society (because tradition) is rigidity. Fundamentalists hollowly paying lip service to disavowing a living representation of their own squalling id (because plausible deniability) is hypocrisy. The two aren't synonymous; and the only particular similarity is the No True Scotsman fallacy inherent in the main groups' disavowal. But whatever.

      Makes sense.

      This isn't really aimed at me, but I think some of it applies to me, so here goes:

      I did not make a No True Scotsman fallacy, do not try to trow fallacies aorund if you do not know how they work.

      I don't really see what's to be gained here. You insist you didn't, pretty much everyone else seems to disagree, & it doesn't seem like anyone's about to budge.

      By your logic, me saying that Christinaity is not a form of Judaism can be called No True Scotsman.

      We are 2000 years removed from the founding of Christianity. At the time, it really wouldn't have made sense to say this. Jesus, if he existed, considered himself a Jew, & there were various other Jewish sects that seldom agreed on anything. But now that argument is a bit more defensible, because each has a distinct theology that doesn't recognize the other. Of course, even today there are gray areas, like the Jews for Jesus.

      The reality is that it's often not possible to completely distinguish groups based on ideological boundaries, because there's often not an objective standard. We can't get Yahweh or Jesus on the phone & ask them which sects are really following their teachings. Even if we could, the answer may well be none, because none of these groups are exactly like the original Jews or the original Christians.

      The fact is that the continental lodges DECIDED to leave the other lodges. Therefore they are NOT part of the same group.

      Chimpanzees are not gorillas & vice versa, but neither is the "true ape," they are both equally evolved apes, just with distinct lineages.

      Also, no not all southern baptists are extremists.

      Exactly, we can't make absolute judgments, but certain generalities may be broadly true.

        Loading editor
    • You all obviously do not care about the point of the discussion but about saving face. 

      Bye bye, I don't like drama sites.

        Loading editor
    • Rune Scholar wrote:
      You all obviously do not care about the point of the discussion but about saving face. 
      Coming from the person who opened with an error, then tied himself into a giant knot of logical fallacies in a desperate attempt to be right when called on it? That's priceless.
      Bye bye, I don't like drama sites.
      ...he says as he flounces.
        Loading editor
    • Okay, bye pot. You won't be missed. Oh, but on the off-chance you actually care about this random trivia point for some reason other than grandstanding, you can just edit it to be more accurate. That's how a Wiki works. Hell, I might even go in & change it if no one else does, provided I can bring myself to care enough.

        Loading editor
    • Is there even any source to that mimicry? Considering ATLA's themes, i would say the probability of the OWL being inspired by asian secret societies is higher than it being inspired by freemansonry. Aside from both being secret societies, i don't see much in common between them.

        Loading editor
    • An anonymous contributor
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message