Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#35535 - 02/12/10 10:02 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Fnord]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
To question implies the search for stated facts which empowers statements. It is to search/observe "beyond" face-value. To research facts/actions which looked "logical" or normal on first sight.

Questioning means staying critical and open-minded at the same time. To doubt means a person is taking so-called contradicting "facts" for granted and is stuck between them, making it impossible to come to a conclusion. The questioning means taking a critical position against all information given.


Edited by Dimitri (02/12/10 10:03 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35538 - 02/12/10 10:53 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
To doubt means a person is taking so-called contradicting "facts" for granted and is stuck between them, making it impossible to come to a conclusion.


Doubt, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is simply: "to be uncertain about something; to be undecided in opinion or belief."

To my mind, doubt leads to questioning and questioning leads to critical thinking.

Doubt is not an opposed position to questioning.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35543 - 02/12/10 12:03 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Fnord]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
Please reread the part you came to quote, it should be clear enough when the braincells are being used.

Lets make it more easy; how does someone become undecided/doubtfull in opinion or belief? --> by taking contradicting "facts" for granted.
The point is that facts cannot be contradictory, if they do so then there is
a) a mechanism which should link them together (only in science, barely happens when it comes to belief or ideology)
b) the wrong questions being asked
c) wrong interpretations
d) too much of an "open mind" without consideration of the "information" you let in.

Points b,c,d are indications of problems understanding this .
Simple isn't it?

Questioning is easy, asking the right questions is a bit harder.


Edited by Dimitri (02/12/10 12:06 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35544 - 02/12/10 12:17 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dimitri]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Nice story, but in addition to misusing the word "doubt" you're also misusing the word "fact" (also, the notion of taking something for granted, but that's neither here nor there).

Why don't you tell me why you said:
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
To doubt is a bad word, to question is more wise.


Why is doubt a bad word? Perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps LaVey should have used the word 'question' to describe 'doubt' in his TSB in your mind, yes?

Also, I can do without the snide tone. It doesn't help your argument and it doesn't make you appear to have superior points, especially since you've decided it worthwhile to argue the semantics of word meanings when a reference (the dictionary) is readily available to all who seek it.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35547 - 02/12/10 01:03 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Fnord]
delusion Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/30/07
Posts: 77
Loc: hawaii
Spinning the wheels much?

 Quote:
Also, I can do without the snide tone.


I'd be willing to bet that at least 60% of the posts here are absolutely ripe with snide tones. I've never seen it done any differently in the "satanic community" be it this board or any other.
Whether it is worth it to you to take ANY of the opinions on this board seriously is the real question.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled pointless debate...

Top
#35550 - 02/12/10 01:15 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: delusion]
Fnord Offline
senior member


Registered: 01/11/10
Posts: 2085
Loc: Texas
Yeah it's par for the course.

That being said, someone who's using that critical thinking video as a means of supporting their argument should be above making the mistakes referenced in the video. Just sayin'.

There are some great opinions on this board... none of which I take as fact. I wouldn't be here unless I found some value in being here.

As for the 'debate', I'm done with it.
_________________________
Dead and gone. Syonara.

Top
#35562 - 02/12/10 03:15 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Fnord]
Noctuary Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/01/10
Posts: 92
I can't believe we are debating the ideas of 'doubt' and 'question'

questioning is imperative in your day to day life. Doubt is one reason (amongst a number of other ones) that lead to a question. No one questions with the facts unless they are just liking to hear their own voice or have no need for an answer.
_________________________
Devils speak of the way in which she'll manifest

Top
#37257 - 04/02/10 02:55 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Noctuary]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
It might be a good idea to fetch a sandwich and a glass of wine before continuing; this post is a bit lengthy.



Dan_Dread:

 Quote:
Yes yes, anybody can attempt to follow any set of principles they wish, but you will always fail unless acting and being that way is congruent with your core nature.

Is it not possible that "being and acting that way" can be sharpened by conscious action and human volition to a point equaling or surpassing a person who is a 'native Satanist' (if you will) but not as intellectually or practically equipped to make use of it? Do you have reasons for answering in the negative?

I have never taken literally the statement that Satanists are born and not made. That has never been demonstrated to me in any concrete way, and as far as I’m concerned is as metaphorical as the role and existence of Satan himself. Some Satanists are born, and some are made. It is a myth, unsupported by psychology or cognitive science, that a person cannot radically change the way he or she thinks and lives. Indeed, the remaking of oneself as an Übermensch, I would argue, is fundamental to Nietzschean thought concerning human life after the death of God, and thence to its accented element within Satanism. The Nietzsche scholar Robert Pippin discusses this in his article, "Love and death in Nietzsche," which I highly recommend. A person who has lived first as complacent prey can, with the seizing of his or her own destiny, become the most acute predator.


 Quote:
There are Satanists and there are followers of Satanism.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits."




Maw, Nemesis, and Noctuary have each contributed what I believe are the most valuable points in this thread.



MawhrinSkel:

 Quote:
When you're finished, there's no call to pretend your experience of the book was anything other than what it really was. Your experience is yours. The worst thing you could do afterwards would be to fake a response. If you want to live inside your own skin, accept your reading of the book and move from there.

Well said. It is all the more astonishing from the pithy simplicity and naked truth of your words that there are people, even normally careful readers, who seem completely unable to do this. Most theists notwithstanding, I am always baffled when a Satanist responds to open-ended skepticism with bitterly defensive (and often shallow) retorts when the object under scrutiny is The Satanic Bible. Demolishing sloppy assertions is one thing—I strongly encourage it—but reproaching offhandedly the mere existence of uncertainty, doubt, or rejection of some aspect of the book is the product of an imbecile. To such people, it's as if reading the book should, must, excite one to such ecstasy at the realization of long-held agreement with its principles that the declaration "I am a Satanist!" will inexorably soon follow, or if not, proves that the individual in question is a mindless sheep by tautology. In addition to being slipshod reasoning, this is simply not commensurate with reality, and even if it were, mere congruence with the points of Satanic philosophy bears no more import for their truth or falsehood than does the expressed belief of a 12th-century bishop (Robert Grosseteste) that the universe began with a single point. Grosseteste had only conjectural and scriptural reasons for arguing as he did, and simply had the good luck to be proven correct on entirely different grounds. Even if a belief system is accurate to the way the world functions, its status as an untested belief system remains, and that is its trap, the ultimate solipsistic conflation of preference with rational evidence. I will return to this point somewhat more pointedly in my response to Nemesis.


 Quote:
I know plenty of people who read it and thought "This is cool, but it isn't really me." This is fine. Some people find different sections senseless, and wonder if they can leave those out. In many cases, these revisions are made from an unenlightened point of view.

Agreed in full. My only postscript is a suggestion, and I'm not accusing you of having done this by any means, that individuals not presume from the outset that someone's disagreement or omission is necessarily due to a lack of enlightenment. Consider for example that the majority of space in The Satanic Bible, and the whole of it in The Satanic Rituals, is devoted specifically to ritual practices, a facet of Satanism in which not every Satanist chooses to engage. If they are no less Satanic for excluding something which occupies ~84% (1.67/2) of two primary books at the heart of Satanism, then doing so with something of less importance hardly strikes me as an issue. Choosing to jettison a central tenet which defines Satanism, such as attempting in vain to fuse it with one or another kind of theism, is manifestly absurd, but the same is true of those who lash out at others' disagreement with Satanic minutiae simply for doing so. Even Anton LaVey knowingly violated one of the major proscriptions of his own philosophy—theft—with the plagiarism of passages from Might is Right without attribution.

"Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved."



Nemesis:

 Quote:
Reading this book should feel like the gears (is that what they're called?) of a lock clicking into place. There doesn't have to be an epiphany, not even a mild one, for the book to be valid to you. I didn't have a POW! either, but I didn't expect to. Never bring any expectations into the reading of a book, or anything else for that matter. Take your experiences for what they are, not for what you THINK they should be.

Sound advice indeed, and advice in desperate need of application. I emphasize your second sentence especially, having encountered ad nauseam the implicit and explicit belief that the opposite is true. I had no such "POW!" moment either. My first reading of The Satanic Bible was with unhurried seriousness, foregoing the tendency toward any conclusions until I had finished the entire book, and my treatment of it since has been very much the same.


 Quote:
Aside from the rituals, TSB is all of, what? Thirty pages (if that)? There really isn't that much to glean from it if you've been living it all of your life. LaVey didn't speak in couched terms either, so how much left is there to over analyze? I think I've read it twice, and I don't feel the need to keep poring over particular chapters or sections. That starts to smack of dogma, in trying to 'absorb' the tenets of a belief system or philosophy because I just couldn't wrap my head around the ideas presented the first time I read the book.

I state the following in as sincere and complimentary a way as possible: thank you for stating the obvious. Your last statement, however, is slightly problematic. Aversion to dogmatism could not be more reasonable, but stopping to reexamine a passage, section, or even the book itself does not oblige you to kowtow or swoon over what is, as you say, really a straightforward book. I think your point, unless I'm mistaken, is oriented more toward the spirit in which one returns to The Satanic Bible than anything. The book, in other words, only becomes an inviolable tablet of dogma when a person begins to read it as always having a 'deeper' meaning which must be rooted out. If so, your argument is well-taken. If not, feel free to explain further if you wish.

I mention that because my profession and field of study draw their strength from the critical reading and rereading of sources with an exceedingly careful eye for content, structure, and meaning. I could never embrace a text, no matter how strongly my intuition might accord with its thesis and arguments, without the employment of precise, logical, methodical, self-critiquing and above all external reflection on the veracity of its claims. Nor, for that matter, could I respect anyone whose ultimate agreement with Satanism came into being without these elements; such people are no better than their enemies. This is especially necessary with The Satanic Bible, wherein virtually none of the claims made are supported by rigorous argument of any kind. As an academic grandfather of mine once said, "Give me eight axioms and I can prove anything to you." One-third of the book's entire length is devoted to 'Satanized' 16th-century gibberish, which, while achieving the end of spitting in the eyes of paranoid Christians and witless New Agers, contributes little of real significance to advancing Satanic philosophy. What content remains beyond that, the descriptive summary of Satanic ritual, lists of infernal names, and [regularly mistaken] historical information—what in other words constitutes the delineation of Satanic philosophy qua philosophy—is contained only in a handful of passages and collections of aphorisms, one of which, as I have already said, plagiarizes the writing of someone else. The book is simply not an extraordinarily impressive piece of work, regardless of whether or not its claims are philosophically justifiable.

It is for these reasons and others that I view The Satanic Bible solely as a broad catechism and manifesto, and I have never found compelling reasons to believe that it could be otherwise. LaVey's contribution was to bring together a particular constellation of ideas under the name Satanism, the ideas themselves (including the word 'Satanism' and a metaphorical Satan representing the indulgent side of life) having all been derived from earlier individuals who by and large, in my strong opinion, had made the case for their conclusions in a far more thorough and meticulous way than LaVey himself ever did. Even he acknowledged it when he said that Satanism is "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added." In this sense I might be called a Satanic structuralist, if I might borrow a term from the philosophy of mathematics, since it is from the structure of Satanism, given cohesion by The Satanic Bible, that it acquires its definition and purpose as a philosophy of life.


 Quote:
In short, The Satanic Bible is just not that 'deep', and it sounds as if these newbies are trying to read too much into it.

It isn't just the newbies. Encountering Satanists who seem intent on reading the deepest possible levels of nuance and profundity into every word, at least in my experience, has not been as rare an occurrence as I would like it to be.



Noctuary:

 Quote:
TSB is about Satanism. Is it NOT Satanism. We are the living embodiment of Satanic ideas..not the xerox machines of some book.

All that I have said in this post is an elaboration and extension of your maxim.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37258 - 04/02/10 03:31 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3139
 Quote:
I have never taken literally the statement that Satanists are born and not made. That has never been demonstrated to me in any concrete way, and as far as I’m concerned is as metaphorical as the role and existence of Satan himself. Some Satanists are born, and some are made. It is a myth, unsupported by psychology or cognitive science, that a person cannot radically change the way he or she thinks and lives.

The plain fact it cannot be demonstrated is just because the philosophy of Satanism being a personal one and which uses personal experiences.
To be born a Satanist actually means being born in a place and being raised in a community wherein the general ideas of Satanism are not frowned upon (under the condition there is no relation with the term itself). To be born a Satanist means being born as a normal person, acting "naturally" on pulses from your envirronement. To be born with the proper mindset to become a Satanist (or at least have the virtues of one) is doubtfull, yet possible.

I can only relate to myself (by personal experience) a person CAN change his ways radically when it comes to religious views.
I, for one, was high up in the pagan belief it was untill I read the SB I started to change my ways and actually began getting more related to what I truly was: a Satanist.
You can take it or leave it, I cannot provide the evidence for this change and I bet you know a way to counter it. I might battle that statement, but I only have the experience which you will disregard anyway.


 Quote:
Well said. It is all the more astonishing from the pithy simplicity and naked truth of your words that there are people, even normally careful readers, who seem completely unable to do this. Most theists notwithstanding, I am always baffled when a Satanist responds to open-ended skepticism with bitterly defensive (and often shallow) retorts when the object under scrutiny is The Satanic Bible. Demolishing sloppy assertions is one thing—I strongly encourage it—but reproaching offhandedly the mere existence of uncertainty, doubt, or rejection of some aspect of the book is the product of an imbecile. To such people, it's as if reading the book should, must, excite one to such ecstasy at the realization of long-held agreement with its principles that the declaration "I am a Satanist!" will inexorably soon follow, or if not, proves that the individual in question is a mindless sheep by tautology.

Is it? Experiencing is a huge factor. The hands-off approach can be a result of a continuos flow of ignorant people who only read without the thinking. The defensive position can also be a result of not being able to explain an experience.

I can tell about the fun of doing investigation on the "biodiversity" of maritime species and what joy it might bring if you start finding seastars, brittlestars, different kind of fish,.. . But somehow the emotion and experience cannot be shared (unless the other person(s) did the same thing). This might result in very defensive positions and a seemingly lack of insight or misplaced arrogance/egoism.

The book on itself requiers the reader to experience and think. I can easily see ASL's intentions when he wrote his books, I can also disagree with some of his views, and I can see where his ideas might have come from. In the end, all that matters is on a personal level and what you make of it.

 Quote:
Even Anton LaVey knowingly violated one of the major proscriptions of his own philosophy—theft—with the plagiarism of passages from Might is Right without attribution.

Actually.. that can be countered with the argument he wrote that copying a person of imitating someone (how bad it even is) can be considered as flattery.
You can disagree with that statement but in his views it can make perfectly sense.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#37316 - 04/02/10 10:06 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Dimitri]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
 Quote:
The plain fact it cannot be demonstrated is just because the philosophy of Satanism being a personal one and which uses personal experiences.

Satanism also relies on the employment of reason and evidential criteria, which through science provides us with knowledge about things which we can't necessarily perceive. If I were talking merely about an issue of personal experience, I wouldn't have said anything at all.

My issue is with Satanists who proudly assert a type of nativism with regard to Satanism itself, arguing that the personality structure of a Satanist (usually prefixed with the word "true" or "real") is innate within some people and not others. More to the point, most of them go on to say that those who "don't got it" never will. Not one has been able to show that this is the case. If there were corroborating scientific studies from developmental or personality psychology to accompany the claim, I would more than happily concede. All of the studies I have seen, however, show a distinct combination of genetics and environmental factors as the arbiters of personality, and these persist as such throughout a person's life.

People change, and with sufficient strength of will can change to quite an extraordinary degree. There are Satanists for example who were at one time fully committed and indoctrinated Christians—I am one of them. Either I made a series of conscious decisions which drastically altered my most basic approaches to thought itself, or else my tendency toward fierce questioning and resistance to external control was innate. The former is obviously true by virtue of the fact that I was at one time a practicing Christian and now am a resolute Satanist, while the latter is not. Prior to my leaving Christianity, I was very much a passive, slavish teenager developing into a passive, slavish adult, and very little of that actually had to do with my religion. Skepticism, philosophical investigation, and scientific inquiry came only much later. Thus if my Satanic tendencies existed prior to its manifestation, which does not appear to be the case prima facie, there are absolutely no epistemological criteria by which we could adduce the fact. The claim that Satanists are born and not made, therefore, lacks support from either science or logic, being demonstrably against the findings of one and impossible to show at an individual level through the other. Better simply to allow the actions of particular Satanists to speak for themselves.


 Quote:
To be born a Satanist actually means being born in a place and being raised in a community wherein the general ideas of Satanism are not frowned upon (under the condition there is no relation with the term itself).

Clearly you have failed to realize that the very origin of Satanism and its antecedent philosophies via Nietzsche, Rand, Mencken, London, Crowley, Redbeard, and others came to exist precisely because their originators did not live in a time or place that condoned them. Indeed, it might even be argued that many of the ideas advocated by these people will never by their very nature and definition receive wide acceptance. Like Satan, they rebelled against what they saw as the hypocrisy and falsehood of then-dominant cultural values, asserting the primacy of responsible human independence and the exertion of will toward genuine excellence. Even since the initial cohesion of Satanism's philosophical structure in The Satanic Bible, there have been droves of people who have stepped through its gates from a prior involvement with Christianity, Wicca, and other religions.


 Quote:
To be born a Satanist means being born as a normal person, acting "naturally" on pulses from your envirronement. To be born with the proper mindset to become a Satanist (or at least have the virtues of one) is doubtfull, yet possible.

Please define a "normal person," and give criteria by which we can know whether or not a child has been born with the "proper mindset to become a Satanist." A child of three or even ten is incapable of thinking at the abstract level required to make a well-informed decision about whether or not he or she is a Satanist, and by the time this faculty has come into being, it is impossible for us or even the individual in question to know whether that decision is a product of a particular innate genetic arrangement or one of experience. Both, again, appear to contribute significantly, although to what degree remains a matter of scientific question. Excluding this, Satanists are different, often extremely different, people. What list of characteristics can be given to determine that a person has the "proper mindset"? A tendency to question proves nothing, since cases can be furnished in which strict atheists ultimately become theists (the case of Anthony Flew immediately comes to mind), and a ferocity of will is equally superficial, since few would doubt that an idiot like Al Sharpton or George W. Bush possesses that. The relationship between a human mind and a specific philosophical model is far too complex to be placed squarely in nativist or empiricist categories.


 Quote:
You can take it or leave it, I cannot provide the evidence for this change and I bet you know a way to counter it.

Generalizing the radical change you describe was precisely what I used as my basis for arguing that Satanists can in fact be made. Having given my reasoning at length, why would I counter it?


 Quote:
Is it? Experiencing is a huge factor. The hands-off approach can be a result of a continuos flow of ignorant people who only read without the thinking. The defensive position can also be a result of not being able to explain an experience.

In what way is my argument "hands-off"? If anything, the defensiveness of some Satanists marginalizes the role of experience by the very nature of its nativist claim. A "true" Satanist, being born with a disposition toward the behavioral traits of Satanism, will become one (whether merely in action or both name and action) by that fact alone rather than by a specific set of experiences. Otherwise nativism itself dissolves, since it is due in significant part to the role of experience that one becomes a Satanist. I have shown that the limits of our own experience don't permit us to say whether or not an individual Satanist was "born" or "made," and that the epistemological criteria for evaluating Satanic innateness or lack thereof do not exist. Put simply, you and I agree on this matter, not disagree.


 Quote:
The book on itself requiers the reader to experience and think. I can easily see ASL's intentions when he wrote his books, I can also disagree with some of his views, and I can see where his ideas might have come from. In the end, all that matters is on a personal level and what you make of it.

Agreed, although I should specify that "what you make of it" does come with certain stipulations and limits with regard to the definition of Satanism. As I said in my earlier post, there are certain fundamental ideas which are incompatible with what Satanism is—a professed Satanist who believes in any god is not a Satanist at all. I'm merely stressing that point.


 Quote:
Actually.. that can be countered with the argument he wrote that copying a person of imitating someone (how bad it even is) can be considered as flattery.

Wrong. To quote Jim Carrey's spin on that adage, "Imitation is the sincerest form of plagiarism." That a Baptist pastor of all people has brought forth this case with greater intellectual honesty than you have is fairly amusing.

In LaVey’s authorized biography, [Blanche] Barton says that LaVey “attacks most savagely those who ride on his coattails, or who steal his ideas, all the while pretending at originality or innovation—with, at best, begrudging acknowledgement of their inspiration’s very existence.” Barton, The Secret Life of a Satanist, 222. LaVey’s hypocrisy here speaks for itself. Similarly, Barton speaks of those who obviously drew from LaVey’s philosophy, but “routinely give not so much credit as a notation in their bibliography.” Ibid., 14. However, most of LaVey’s books, including The Satanic Bible, don’t even have a bibliography. (Source, section 3.5.2 and footnote 153)

Only much later, in his preface to the 1996 edition of Might is Right, did LaVey admit in print to having stolen material from Ragnar Redbeard, although even there he fails to distinguish it as such explicitly. LaVey's hypocrisy in this regard is a matter of fact.

Satanism is a philosophy of the ego. Taking someone else's ideas without due credit and representing them as your own is a paramount example of psychic vampirism. I don't care who does it or what reasons they offer for it; theft is theft, pure and simple. I have dealt with a plagiarist who tried to steal my research without properly crediting me for having done it, and I assure you that the experience is anything but flattering.


 Quote:
You can disagree with that statement but in his views it can make perfectly sense.

I repeat: "Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved." I challenge you to find any reconciliation between that statement and theft. Plagiarism is incompatible with Satanism.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37329 - 04/03/10 04:41 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Look, apparently you can debate and argue your way out of a paper bag. But that doesn't change how many of us feel.

If you had read many other older threads, you will see that this has been debated, explained, claified, and examples given.

I find it amusing that you have gone to such lengths to try to convince people here that Satanists are made and not born that way. Almost like you are trying to prove it to yourself.

Age is not a factor in wheather a person is a Satanist or not. It has been explained previously and examples were given. These ranging from personal experiences to the fact that at one point back in the day we had a 13 year well spoken mod here. Just because it took you so long to decompress yourself and come to find Satanism doesn't mean that is the route everyone takes.

What about the ritual chamber in regards to Dark Gods and personal creative drama as a motivating factor. Why do you think that using them in rituals doesn't make you a Satanist, esp. considering the space given to rites in the Satanic Bible or Satanic Rituals? Just because you can see no use in rites doesn't mean that no one else can either.

Jim Carrey is an asshole. People who can quote him are more than questionable already in my mind. The only thing he did well was hook up with Jenny Macarthy.

So now you want to make more action to discredit what LaVey wrote. Big Fucking Deal, most people ala most Satanist understand that the man combined and brought forth a book that summed up a personal path of philosophy that was previously not in any one book. Since you feel such a book is full of hypocrisy, and plagiarism don't fucking read it.

It sounds like you have sour grapes against a man who organized something new, something you have failed to do in whatever research you claim you did.

As for that statement you posted in red, are you dense? Most sheep, cry out to relieved of their brains, money, and lives. They disguard this world and pray for the next where they can lay at the feet of J.Christ and company. Every day old and young are fleeced by churches, ministers, and priest who tell them to give up onto the lord. They urge them to give of their cash, their, homes, and bodies to satisfy the carnal urging of a church and ministry that tells them everything they feel is a sin.

Just because you can't see outside the box doesn't mean that the end of everything.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#37338 - 04/03/10 10:34 AM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Morgan]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Morgan:

You have managed so completely to misunderstand and by extension to misrepresent my arguments that, in order to point it out to you and anyone else who reads this thread, I have quoted each sentence or passage containing such misrepresentation in orange. Either read my posts more carefully, citing exactly where I say the things you claim I do, or don't bother wasting my time and yours by responding to them.


 Quote:
Look, apparently you can debate and argue your way out of a paper bag. But that doesn't change how many of us feel.

In turn, that doesn't make the way you feel any more relevant to me or this discussion. I am concerned with logical argument, not personal feelings.


 Quote:
If you had read many other older threads, you will see that this has been debated, explained, claified, and examples given.

Your presumption that I haven't already is mistaken. If the "Born a Satanist" thread hadn't been locked, I would have responded to it there and left a link to it here. The issue came up here as a direct consequence of my response to Dan_Dread, who in both threads has advocated the nativist position. I politely asked him, out of curiosity and interest in what he has to say, to provide demonstrable evidence for his claim. I have seen conjectural arguments provided elsewhere, certainly, but not, as I will explain later, evidential reasons behind them. That Satanists are born and not made is a type of claim known as a universal affirmative, and to be true requires that criteria be established, and demonstration based on them given, which has not been done. Both science and logic are structured in exactly this way, including the need for ongoing inquiry into constructs of dominant belief. If you wish to ignore that fact by making indefensible faith statements, be my guest.


 Quote:
I find it amusing that you have gone to such lengths to try to convince people here that Satanists are made and not born that way. Almost like you are trying to prove it to yourself.

And I find it amusing that you equate length (read: ongoing discussion) with insecurity. That might be true of men and their genitals, but it has no bearing here. Find for me even one passage where I state that Satanists are invariably made and not born. I quote: "Some Satanists are born, and some are made." It can't be stated any more plainly than that, and I'm not going to try.


 Quote:
Age is not a factor in wheather a person is a Satanist or not. It has been explained previously and examples were given. These ranging from personal experiences to the fact that at one point back in the day we had a 13 year well spoken mod here.

Have you even read "A Field Guide to Critical Thinking" in the Satanism 101 section, or watched the video on it in the Video Discussion Forum? Arguments from personal experience, whether the given experience itself occurred or not, do not in any way qualify as evidence for a rational claim, leastwise for a universal affirmative. Unless you're prepared to accept the personal experiences of the religious as somehow legitimating their beliefs too, your personal experience brings you no closer to evidential justification than theirs, and the sooner you realize it the better. That this forum had a 13-year-old moderator at one point is inconsequential, since I never said that Satanists could not have the tendency to be so from an early age. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite.


 Quote:
Just because it took you so long to decompress yourself and come to find Satanism doesn't mean that is the route everyone takes.

Once again, where did I say otherwise? Find one passage and show it to me. What I said was that some Satanists are inclined to mesh with Satanic philosophy from an early age or possibly birth, and some come to espouse it through a radical change from their former ways of thinking and living, whatever those might have been. There is no consensus, even a vague one, on the extent of genetic innateness of personality even in the scientific community, so how and why you feel that you are uniquely qualified to tell us is a justification I would love to hear.


 Quote:
What about the ritual chamber in regards to Dark Gods and personal creative drama as a motivating factor. Why do you think that using them in rituals doesn't make you a Satanist, esp. considering the space given to rites in the Satanic Bible or Satanic Rituals? Just because you can see no use in rites doesn't mean that no one else can either.

What the hell are you talking about? I never said anything even remotely similar to that. I perform rituals myself on a nigh-weekly basis, and simply remarked that not all Satanists do or see reason to. My skepticism that you even grasped what I said is increasing at a geometric rate.


 Quote:
Jim Carrey is an asshole.

Agreed.


 Quote:
People who can quote him are more than questionable already in my mind.

Quoting a fact stated by an idiot in order to lighten the mood is exactly that. He deflated the stupidity of a piece of folk wisdom in a way that I found humorous. Obviously you do not. Move on.


 Quote:
So now you want to make more action to discredit what LaVey wrote.

I want you to reread those words, especially in light of what I have said so far, until you internalize the absurdity of your statement. I, a Satanist who in no uncertain terms has gone on record acknowledging the cohesive structure provided by The Satanic Bible as the central bastion which defined what Satanism is, am attempting in the same post to completely discredit its author without any desire whatever to reject the Satanism of which I acknowledge him as the founder. Unbelievable.


 Quote:
Big Fucking Deal, most people ala most Satanist understand that the man combined and brought forth a book that summed up a personal path of philosophy that was previously not in any one book.

I dare you to use that rationale with a doctoral dissertation that contains a stolen paragraph, or a work of fiction that plagiarizes a famous author; your credibility and career will evaporate in an instant. Plagiarism is a "Big Fucking Deal." My own revulsion of it comes from working in an academic position, where from time to time it does occur at a professional level. I am an unrelenting supporter of intellectual property rights, and I will defend them without mercy no matter who violates them, friend or foe. If you believe for even a second that I am going to excuse it selectively or operate on a double standard merely because the plagiarist in this case is an individual whose philosophy I live, you are sadly mistaken. And since you have totally ignored Anton LaVey's own words on the matter, I will repeat them.

In LaVey’s authorized biography, [Blanche] Barton says that LaVey “attacks most savagely those who ride on his coattails, or who steal his ideas, all the while pretending at originality or innovation—with, at best, begrudging acknowledgement of their inspiration’s very existence.” Barton, The Secret Life of a Satanist, 222. LaVey’s hypocrisy here speaks for itself. Similarly, Barton speaks of those who obviously drew from LaVey’s philosophy, but “routinely give not so much credit as a notation in their bibliography.” Ibid., 14. However, most of LaVey’s books, including The Satanic Bible, don’t even have a bibliography. (Source, section 3.5.2 and footnote 153)

The fact, and it is a fact, that Anton LaVey plagiarized Ragnar Redbeard in no way discredits him outright or diminishes the truth or falsehood of any aspect of his philosophy. Again, the brute fact that a Baptist pastor has been more intellectually honest on this matter than you or Dimitri is both puzzling and comical. Even if LaVey had been a rapist, serial killer, and pedophile—even if at some point in his life he had converted to Christianity—that would still not change the degree of validity of his philosophy, but nor does it mean that we should slavishly downplay reality in order to hold a view of The Satanic Bible which is blatantly false. I admire and practice Satanic philosophy daily, but the fact remains that Anton LaVey was a human being capable of error and occasional stupidity, just like the rest of us. Had he taken ten seconds to include a footnote crediting Ragnar Redbeard for his contribution, all would be well, but he didn't. Stop offering meaningless attempts at justification and accept it.


 Quote:
Since you feel such a book is full of hypocrisy, and plagiarism don't fucking read it.

I never said that the book is "full" of anything. The incidence of plagiarism is thankfully small, which changes nothing in principle but does keep LaVey free from the accusation that he simply cobbled together plagiarized bits of material to produce The Satanic Bible and had no originality of his own.

Moreover, I don't "feel" that the book contains plagiarism. That, as I have already said clearly, is a matter of fact, and there is no way around it. John Smulo's explanation and side-by-side comparison of LaVey's words with Redbeard's shows it beyond question. If you disagree, please tell me then, Morgan, what is it when a man knowingly steals from the work of someone he respects without giving due credit for the brilliance of his or her work? It would seem that a Satanist, being a creature of the ego who wishes to honor worthy individuals and their ideas, would be more than happy to cite his or her influences precisely as such, most especially if some aspect of their thought is to become an integral part of the given Satanist's philosophy. What you seem to be describing above is a philosophically connected anthology of sources paired with commentary, in this case LaVey's. That is not what The Satanic Bible is, and if it were, the same standards would still hold—anthologies list their sources.


 Quote:
It sounds like you have sour grapes against a man who organized something new, something you have failed to do in whatever research you claim you did.

That would be very hypocritical of me, wouldn't it? Or could it be that I am holding LaVey to the same standard to which his philosophy holds him and, for that matter, everyone else?

I have absolutely no personal problem with LaVey. I never knew him, and certainly don't resent his codification of Satanism. The difference between you and I is that I refuse to apologize for Anton LaVey merely for being Anton LaVey, while your faulty defense has omitted what he himself believed about those who practice plagiarism alongside a claim to originality. If you don't understand the basic principles of intellectual property, citation, and the fact that presenting the ideas of others as your own is a form of psychic vampirism, I have no intention of continuing to explain it to you. Refute my logic or concede the point.

I will lastly mention, in response to your certainty of my failure at originality despite the fact that you have no idea what I do or what my contributions have been, that I am happy in my position. I am well-paid, well-sexed, permitted to travel anywhere in the world whenever I wish at virtually no expense to me, given regular stipends which allow me to devote maximum time to the work I love, granted access to the cutting edge of scholarship in my fields and others, placed in the company of intelligent people on a regular basis, and allowed to operate entirely as I see fit, with my own schedule of work, sleep, and play. I say all of this to advise caution with your words, since the ethos of Satanic meritocracy may place your false conclusion on a two-way street, urging me to ask what your own practical success or advent of novelty has been in this world.


 Quote:
As for that statement you posted in red, are you dense? Most sheep, cry out to relieved of their brains, money, and lives. They disguard this world and pray for the next where they can lay at the feet of J.Christ and company. Every day old and young are fleeced by churches, ministers, and priest who tell them to give up onto the lord. They urge them to give of their cash, their, homes, and bodies to satisfy the carnal urging of a church and ministry that tells them everything they feel is a sin.

If you really believe that that block of irrelevance offers a rebuttal to my quotation of the Sixth Satanic Rule of the Earth, then you have missed the point of its inclusion to such a degree that I will do better than your inane reply by not countering you at all.


 Quote:
Just because you can't see outside the box doesn't mean that the end of everything.

I assure you that I am enjoying the fresh air to my heart's content, while your view seems to be from inside a paper bag.


Z.


Edited by Zophos (04/03/10 11:08 AM)
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
#37342 - 04/03/10 04:08 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3888
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Pretty much anything can be rationalized. When you say that personal experience is not solid grounds for debate or a communicable form of evidence, you are entirely correct.

But really, so what? Satanism is for those that get it. We don't proselytize or try to gain converts, or claim any sort of epistemological 'rightness' to weigh and measure. I have been who and what I am since I can first remember. Whether by genetics from birth or early pre-memory experience or a combination of both is entirely un-important. Convincing you or anyone else is equally unimportant. Those that need to know already know.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37343 - 04/03/10 04:14 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Zophos]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Okay, Zophos sweetie, I will be more clear for you.

"My issue is with Satanists who proudly assert a type of nativism with regard to Satanism itself, arguing that the personality structure of a Satanist (usually prefixed with the word "true" or "real") is innate within some people and not others. More to the point, most of them go on to say that those who "don't got it" never will...........Thus if my Satanic tendencies existed prior to its manifestation, which does not appear to be the case prima facie, there are absolutely no epistemological criteria by which we could adduce the fact. The claim that Satanists are born and not made, therefore, lacks support from either science or logic, being demonstrably against the findings of one and impossible to show at an individual level through the other......That Satanists are born and not made is a type of claim known as a universal affirmative, and to be true requires that criteria be established, and demonstration based on them given, which has not been done."

Your own words above, so if you want to get technical, you actually said/implied it. You took the roundabout route, but that is the simple jist of all of it. The idea/ understanding that many people have in regards to being born a Satanist may not be proved to your satisfaction, but that doesn't mean it is not true. This has been explained, examples cited, and further debated. Since you don't want to understand this simple thing there is no point in discussing it with you. We each completely disagree on this and never the twane shall meet.

You like to use smoke and mirrors in your arguments to deflect thoughts. Previously you wrote... "A child of three or even ten is incapable of thinking at the abstract level required to make a well-informed decision about whether or not he or she is a Satanist, and by the time this faculty has come into being, it is impossible for us or even the individual in question to know whether that decision is a product of a particular innate genetic arrangement or one of experience."
Now you write...
That this forum had a 13-year-old moderator at one point is inconsequential, since I never said that Satanists could not have the tendency to be so from an early age. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite... As well as....some Satanists are inclined to mesh with Satanic philosophy from an early age or possibly birth....

I like how you try to change the things you say from your previous post to your current one in order to try to change your position.

"There is no consensus, even a vague one, on the extent of genetic innateness of personality even in the scientific community, so how and why you feel that you are uniquely qualified to tell us is a justification I would love to hear."

Love that you pulled this one out because I stated how long it took you to decompress yourself and find Satanism compared to other people. Feeling a little insecure? That statement had no real bearing on what I said.

"Agreed, although I should specify that "what you make of it" does come with certain stipulations and limits with regard to the definition of Satanism. As I said in my earlier post, there are certain fundamental ideas which are incompatible with what Satanism is—a professed Satanist who believes in any god is not a Satanist at all. I'm merely stressing that point."

Once again you you change your words, and try to mock my grasp of your post in regards to what you said about Satan/Ritual chamber issue. Maybe if that was not what you meant you should think and write more clearer.

"I, a Satanist who in no uncertain terms has gone on record acknowledging the cohesive structure provided by The Satanic Bible as the central bastion which defined what Satanism is, am attempting in the same post to completely discredit its author without any desire whatever to reject the Satanism of which I acknowledge him as the founder."

Actually, in your various posts, you seem quite happy to bash the book and him, while calling yourself a "Satanic structuralist". You also are calling the book at one point "not an extraordinarily impressive piece of work, regardless of whether or not its claims are philosophically justifiable."

I guess you got upset with my choice of the words "Big Fucking Deal". Your personal experiences should have no place in discussion as you are fond of saying. I happen to agree with you in regard to personal intellectual/music rights. Once again, I will say it's well known, most people understand that he combined and summed up a personal philosophy that was not previously in one book. Fine, I agree with the Redbeard bit, he should have put a note in. If his book was so full of plagiarisms why wasn't he sued?

I don't see where I ever brought up the need to apologize for LaVey being LaVey. It seems that my sour grapes comment brought forth the need in you to explain who you are and your life. Then question who I am.

"Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved."

You used it in regard to intellectual theft, I used it in regards to physical, monitary, and spirtual theft.

Boxes, bags, inane bullshit places. It would seem that we disagree on things, and we should keep this more civil.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#37349 - 04/03/10 10:39 PM Re: Decompression chamber [Re: Morgan]
Zophos Offline
member


Registered: 03/28/10
Posts: 115
Loc: U.S.A.
Dan_Dread:

 Quote:
But really, so what? Satanism is for those that get it. We don't proselytize or try to gain converts, or claim any sort of epistemological 'rightness' to weigh and measure. I have been who and what I am since I can first remember. Whether by genetics from birth or early pre-memory experience or a combination of both is entirely un-important. Convincing you or anyone else is equally unimportant. Those that need to know already know.

Let me first be clear by reiterating that when I speak of experience, I refer to both pre-memory and post-memory experience, not the former alone. You never mentioned the latter in your post. Satanism is indeed, exactly as you say, for those who get it, but my point is that not every Satanist "gets it" by simply finding a reflection in The Satanic Bible of what he or she already is. Consider a proponent of intelligent design who encounters a reputable source debunking it and advocating evolution. During the following period of cognitive dissonance and rejection, the individual nevertheless gradually begins reading more on the subject and, overwhelmed by the evidence only after said dissonance has been put aside, accepts the facts as they are. Through gradations of careful inquiry, rather than wholesale acceptance, the individual in question has come to shed previously cherished beliefs in favor of objective reality. The same is true of the "made" Satanist.

You and I share a strongly analytic, scientific mind, and if I might make a reasonable assumption, also a deep appreciation for knowledge. The discussion here is significant because it has relevant implications for the psychology of how individuals become Satanists or find their Satanism expressed, which I feel is certainly worth examining and knowing more about. That its practical applications may be limited or absent is extraneous, at least to me, since the same can be said of a great many scientific discoveries, to say nothing of music, theatre, art, literature, history, pure mathematics, and so forth. The advocate of a philosophy which prides itself on indulgence and self-gratification can surely see the value in exploring the facets and distinctions of his own way of life, nicht wahr?



Morgan:

 Quote:
Your own words above, so if you want to get technical, you actually said/implied it. You took the roundabout route, but that is the simple jist of all of it.

I have addressed this claim several times, both preceding and in what follows.


 Quote:
The idea/ understanding that many people have in regards to being born a Satanist may not be proved to your satisfaction, but that doesn't mean it is not true.

Allow me to cite the video on critical thinking posted in the Video Discussion Forum: "Even though demanding valid evidence may lead you occasionally to reject ideas that are poorly supported but nonetheless valid, if and when evidence accumulates for those ideas, an open mind will allow you to reconsider them, and possibly dislodge false ideas you'd previously accepted as true. This approach is promoted by science. [This is what I am doing.] By contrast, when you have an open mind that demands little or no evidence before accepting things, you leave your understanding of reality much more up to chance. Even worse, if you've accepted false ideas uncritically, and close your mind to anything that contradicts them, you won't recognize true ideas even when the evidence is overwhelming, and you'll sabotage your own capacity for learning. [This is what you are doing.]" (Open-mindedness, 7:30-8:11)

State the epistemological criteria by which we could know that your belief is universally true and provide me with valid evidence which supports it, and you have my word that I will be the first to retract my position in concession to yours. Until then, beliefs and faith statements will get you nowhere.


 Quote:
This has been explained, examples cited, and further debated. Since you don't want to understand this simple thing there is no point in discussing it with you. We each completely disagree on this and never the twane shall meet.

Examples do not prove a universal affirmative. A collection of white rabbits does not prove that all rabbits are white. Science demonstrates and supports the hypothesis that both genetics and life experience significantly determine the development of human personality. I have evidence, you do not. It's that simple. Refute my logic, or concede the point.


 Quote:
You like to use smoke and mirrors in your arguments to deflect thoughts. Previously you wrote... "A child of three or even ten is incapable of thinking at the abstract level required to make a well-informed decision about whether or not he or she is a Satanist, and by the time this faculty has come into being, it is impossible for us or even the individual in question to know whether that decision is a product of a particular innate genetic arrangement or one of experience."
Now you write...
That this forum had a 13-year-old moderator at one point is inconsequential, since I never said that Satanists could not have the tendency to be so from an early age. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite... As well as....some Satanists are inclined to mesh with Satanic philosophy from an early age or possibly birth....

The key phrase is "by the time this faculty has come into being." Human beings do not develop the intellectual capacity for abstract thought until between ages 12 and 15 (Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition, © 2009, Elsevier). What I have stated very clearly is that by the time a child comes to an age at which the abstract thinking necessary to grasp certain Satanic principles is possible, it is then impossible to determine scientifically (since epistemological criteria cannot be established) whether or not that tendency is innate. Since, however, science has shown that there is a complex interplay of genetics and environment at work in this process, the best claim is obviously the one supported by scientific evidence. That's as straightforward as it gets.


 Quote:
I like how you try to change the things you say from your previous post to your current one in order to try to change your position.

My position has not changed. Satanists become Satanists at different rates and in different ways. Some are inclined, and some are not. Once again, that's as straightforward as it gets.


 Quote:
Love that you pulled this one out because I stated how long it took you to decompress yourself and find Satanism compared to other people. Feeling a little insecure? That statement had no real bearing on what I said.

No insecurity at all. After all, the length of time a person has been a Satanist does not necessarily affect in any way his or her ability to employ its principles. This is true in any case, but especially if, as you yourself have so faithfully maintained, Satanists are born. Just as one mathematician may do in five years what others before could not in their entire lives, the relative real-world attainments and abilities of individual Satanists will speak for themselves, including yours and mine. Meritocratic stratification will out. And yes, it has everything to do with what you said. You stated a claim, failed to defend it in any evidential way, and then asserted the same claim with a pretentious undertone.


 Quote:
Once again you you change your words, and try to mock my grasp of your post in regards to what you said about Satan/Ritual chamber issue. Maybe if that was not what you meant you should think and write more clearer.

This from a person who writes "more clearer." I am loath to accept writing advice from a person whose own vacillating grammatical and linguistic integrity, conceptual misunderstanding of almost everything I have said notwithstanding, has not given me reason to do so. If what I have said is still unclear to you, perhaps I am not the cause.

Satanism as codified by Anton LaVey is atheistic, and I did nothing but say so in the passage you cited. Any "Dark Gods" are purely symbolic and do not exist. This is an elementary dogma of Satanism.


 Quote:
Actually, in your various posts, you seem quite happy to bash the book and him, while calling yourself a "Satanic structuralist". You also are calling the book at one point "not an extraordinarily impressive piece of work, regardless of whether or not its claims are philosophically justifiable."

How naïve. Is stating a demonstrable fact really bashing someone or their work? Is a Nietzschean forbidden from critiquing Nietzsche? The Satanic Bible simply does not support its claims with any kind of evidential rigor, nor does it intend to. My own position has been given already: The Satanic Bible is a manifesto structuring disparate but interrelated philosophical elements into a cohesive whole, a view by the way which you yourself have already affirmed. As stated in The Satanic Rituals, "Satanism demands study—not worship!"

I fully acknowledged without flinching that the components of Satanism were given cohesion by LaVey through The Satanic Bible, and I do so again now by repeating it not once but twice. Yet as Noctuary pointed out so sharply and accurately, "[The Satanic Bible] is about Satanism. [It is] NOT Satanism. We are the living embodiment of Satanic ideas..not the xerox machines of some book." The congruence that a person finds in reading that book, whether immediately from the first time or following gradations of inquiry, is the first step only, and if the fledgling Satanist is not to become a parrot or drone, justification through sound logic and evidence must follow. There is nothing wrong with this process. An enormous amount, perhaps the vast majority, of discoveries about the natural world have been made by people who began with a set of ideas that were speculatively accepted as educated hunches. These intuitive beliefs were nevertheless not justified by demonstration, which sparked their claimant's attempt to provide such. In other words, that a given perspective "suits" you does not make it true, and this includes the ideas put forth by LaVey in The Satanic Bible. No one with even a meager background in philosophy is going to tell you that a book with ~30 pages of unproven aphorisms and declarations is a rigorous argument. It very simply is not, and for my part, I'm glad that the book is structured this way, and appreciate rather than disparage the fact, since its lack of demonstration forces self-proclaimed Satanists either to construct an edifice to verify it, or else to fall prey to mindless acceptance of its every word. The same is true of its plagiarism and unreliable historical information, which likewise force one either to investigate them further, realizing that LaVey just like the rest of us was susceptible to instances of hypocrisy and incorrectness, or else to hold them implicitly as indubitable knowledge. "Ye shall know them by their fruits." Fate has afforded us a fallible book which both organizes a justifiable philosophy and at the same time includes elements which serve as cautionary notes for avoiding certain pitfalls. That is not bashing; that is rational skepticism.


 Quote:

I guess you got upset with my choice of the words "Big Fucking Deal".

No.


 Quote:
Your personal experiences should have no place in discussion as you are fond of saying.

Yes, but the difference is that, where I used my personal experiences to explain my fervency but not to defend my points, your argument was itself an appeal to personal experience as a form of evidence, which it is not.


 Quote:
I happen to agree with you in regard to personal intellectual/music rights. Once again, I will say it's well known, most people understand that he combined and summed up a personal philosophy that was not previously in one book. Fine, I agree with the Redbeard bit, he should have put a note in.

Yes. Error made by LaVey, lesson learned from it. Show respect by giving explicit credit to your sources.


 Quote:
If his book was so full of plagiarisms why wasn't he sued?

For the second time, I never said that The Satanic Bible was "full" of anything. It contains some passages of plagiarism, end of story. The reason he wasn't sued is very simple: Ragnar Redbeard was dead. The first edition of Might is Right appeared in 1890, and whether the book was written by Arthur Desmond or Jack London (the latter having no scholarly basis at all), the book's author had died before LaVey was even born. It took me less than two minutes to find and cross-reference all of this on Wikipedia. If you're going to ask a question on something independent of my own answer, please at least try to answer it yourself first.


 Quote:
I don't see where I ever brought up the need to apologize for LaVey being LaVey. It seems that my sour grapes comment brought forth the need in you to explain who you are and your life. Then question who I am.

I never questioned who you are, and I don't particularly care.


 Quote:
You used it in regard to intellectual theft, I used it in regards to physical, monitary, and spirtual theft.

You did, and that had nothing to do with what I was talking about or why I included the Sixth Satanic Rule in the first place.


 Quote:
It would seem that we disagree on things, and we should keep this more civil.

As with LaVey, I have no personal problem with you. Since you directly insulted me first, I will simply agree and encourage you to do so.


Z.
_________________________
Nihil sit tam infirmum aut instabile quam fama potentiae non sua vi nita.

Top
Page 3 of 4 <1234>


Moderator:  SkaffenAmtiskaw, fakepropht, TV is God, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.042 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.