Satanism and the appeal to principles they do not support

Sent to Xanderman by PM:

Nice commenting on a locked thread… It plain and simple. Live up to your ideas. All I do is hold the man up to his own ideas, and use the methods he advocates of using in life. I find it curious that he objects to being treated in the way he advocates people use. When someone advocates self-interested cruelty, shouldn’t one allow such acts. Its nice of your to apply standards of behavior to which this person objects.

Philosophical question: shoud people’s ideas be accountable to their application?

Dunamis

The thread was not locked at the moment I was actually writing the post. tentative locked it by his own power. The only reason my reply got posted was because of my moderator access level. If you want to address this in public that would be ok with me. I will create a new thread in Mundane Babble. Join me there if you wish.

Moved to Mundane Babble by xanderman

When someone advocates acting against herd principles in self-interest, do you not find it relavant to judge the man by his own principles, and to use his own advocated tactics against him?

When an ethics of abuse-others is being discussed, does not the “tea and crumpets” approach somehow miss the point?

The internal coherence of a system of ethics in part is derived from its universalizability, that you and accomodating “tentative” deprive Satanism from being exposed by this weakness, is a disservice to both Satanism and discussion.

I find it curious that the threads on Satanism are the ones that often get locked, as if these self-contradictory posers need to be protected from the consequences of their very own ideas. Let them experience the reality of what they preach.

Dunamis

I had been staying away from the Satanism thread simply by accident and only decide to look at it today.

I have spent hours and hours here defending or explaining ideas or positions that I have taken. It can be difficult to explain certain things to certain people. However, it can be worth doing and I do think that you should attempt to project whatever image that you are supporting.

That being said, that shit-fest thread should not have been locked. There has been several lockings as of late and I think that it’s too much. There’s a strong core of regulars around here and most of us are capable of handling ourselves. More realistically people just end up getting bored and move one. I think that locking should only be used in the extreme.

Further,

[edit: written blind to your last post, but still very relevant]

What both you and Tentative miss is that it is in direct quotation, and further approximation of Satanism that I criticize Dr. S. It is from those preached values - not from the “holier than thou” approach that tentative likes to cling to in his self-aggrandizing way. My criticism is that it is not Satanic enough. Not individualistic enough, not intelligent enough, not rational enough, not un self-deceptive enough. All of these valuations can be found in their doctrine. That you take applying such a doctrine to itself as an ad hom attack, is due to the very nature of that attacking, parodizing doctrine itself. I’ll let you and tentative sweet talk the ol’ doc all you want. It funny though how when he “bitch slaps” others no threads get locked. But when he gets bitch-slapped, you run and kiss his boo-boo. The Prince of Darkness should sue these guys for defamation of character.

Dunamis

Are you Justice itself? Is an eye for an eye really the best way? Do you advocate blindly meeting violence with violence?

Is stabbing the sharp end of the stick in someones eye the best way to prove to them that it is sharp? What do you want when you more ruthlessly use those tactics that you are tying to criticize?

If it was done in parody then your attempt at parody needed more work.

I abhor hypocracy, let it be said. I abhor it from those that see themselves as “spiritual” elites, such as tentative and Nick A, and I abhor it from bullshit egoists such as Dr. Satrical

I did not start the thread on “satanic philosophy”, but only applied satanic philosophy to itself. What could be more fair, what could be a higher complement. What such adolescent thinkers want though is to be criticized from the “fair and lovely” approach, so that they can spit blood and put their Dracula teeth in. I’m sorry, not so. If you are going to espouse something, live it. If you are going to espouse “destroy others” in your self-interest, embrace it when others try to destroy you in their self-interest. If you are going to make “Stupidity” the first of your Cardinal sins, don’t be so goddamn stupid. If you are going to toss around “rationality” as a measure, know how to defend it. There is something remarkably inauthentic about Dr. Satirical, something that is of a poser and a closet whiner. Forgive me if I expose him via his own values.

Dunamis

Hello F(r)iends,

Locking that thread was fucking bullshit.
Dunamis is right to call you mods out.

-Thirst

In the past I have defended Dr. S in that I view satanism as being just another version of some classic ideas with a bit of comedy and theatrics thrown in, so I have little negativity towards the whole concept.

However, Dunamis makes a good general point that should be applied to all people that promote a certain value system. A person must be ok with getting treated in the way that they propose. Sartre said that the, way we behave is how we would have the world behave. I suppose that it could be said here that, the way you propose the world should behave then so should you.

Defending satanism should’t be too hard as the current world situation seems to provide many models for its success.

I believe judging a person by the very own principles they espouse is fair. If said person’s principles can be codified into certain acts (what Dunamis calls tactics) then those same tactics are merely extensions of the principles first mentioned (assuming they follow from the principles). Employing these ‘tactics’ then is simply demonstrating the results of the original normative statements as applied in the real world. In other words, Dunamis is showing Dr. S the end from which the very means Dr. S advocates.

Edit: Some people would also call that Justice.

Not to change the subject, but

There is an incredible amount of relativism/subjectivism/egoism/emotivism that goes on at ILP. I say incredible because, to me at least, a site dedicated to Philosophy would seemingly contain a more broad and honest look at what passes for ethical behavior aside from the ever popular view of the masses. That isn’t elitism per se, it is simply taking note of the number of egoists et al that populate this site.

I am surprised that when someone feigns a stance advocated by egoists(to prove a point) the thread gets locked, but other threads that begin along the lines of ‘right and wrong is a matter of individual choice’ remain untouched and unchallenged by the staff here.

If the argument is that it isn’t the job of the mods to engage in these discussions, why the seeming endorsement of one view over another? Why lock a thread when the aforementioned unchallenged view actually becomes challenged?

It does seem odd to me that the thread was locked, as apparently, the criteria for right and wrong posts at ILP is not simply a matter of individual choice.

GCT,

Its because tentative sees himself as an albeit very “humble” spiritual elite who needs to kindly and gently nurture others - Dr. S has made himself somehow immune to this by his stated position - all of us being like tender vines needing his stick to cling to, as we rise up to the over-arching all-nourishing Sun (solar truth).

In otherwords, he needs to exercise his power. (Perhaps a closet Satanist.) :wink:

Dunamis

Let the libra do the weighting around, guys. I checked out that thread in the philoforum, and didn’t really understand why Xanderman rode out with his shotgun. I’m not shooting back at Xanderman here, as I’m no longer interested in this doom game that you still love to play. Anyway back to the case. “Wimp” sounds to me rather soft language in comparison with many other cases around town. Please don’t misunderstand me now, what I mean is that “fuck yo mazafucka” sounds to me soft language nowadays, anywhere… now, guess who are blushing right now in front of their screens? Can you be so thick to hide yourself from your shame? Planing on to spend another night to fight back with another few smart worded, pretentiously minded posts, hypocrites, is that what you guys really want to be? Your foolish vanity and immodest self-denial, i.e. your lack of righteous intellectual consciousness, drives me further and further away from this forum day by day. Shit, you make me write some clicheish stuff! Spare us the rigmaroles about locking a thread, guys, spare yourself toying with extra large penises. Ladies are watching. Kids are around. Time to overcome your own drunken mind.

Posts such as this above are the exact answer to Jerry’s question posed elsewhere in M.B.

Dunamis

It’s a funny old website. The bias here is populist and inclusive. Which is well at odds with the trend of elitism and exclusion that runs through a lot of what might be called the secondary market of philosophy.

You cannot turn the world upside down. At least you cannot do it alone. If you want to change things then start making alliances.

X.,

The bias here is populist and inclusive.

Yes, those thread lockings are quite populist and inclusive.

Dunamis

Dunamis,

Cute.

Two observations: I posted to this thread twice. One was to say that I thought Satanicals position was just another religion in wolves clothing. The second was to lock the thread.

The thread locking had nothing to do with anything about the subject matter. It had to do with the name calling. That was ALL it was about.

ILP rules are explicit. NO AD HOMINEMS. You are welcome to rationalize your ‘positions’ all you wish, but name calling is out of line, and wrong is wrong.

JT

a fight, a fight! hoory! i looove these!

as you were…

.