The Gaming Den

Mask_De_H wrote:Prak, I don't think Frank is saying your hipster-Nietzschean moral relativism is as reprehensible as FATAL but it sure as fuck is as stupid as FATAL.

A quickie hypothetical: you have a sadist and a masochist who are both Satanists. The sadist wants to hurt and not be hurt, the masochists want to be hurt and not hurt. The sadist hurts the masochist because it's good for them, but it violates tenet #2. If the masochist allows himself to be hurt, he's violating tenet #3 and needs to attack, which would violate #1 (not doing what you want) and #2 (trying to get back what you want through hurt).

Now a neutral Satanist sees the sadomaso couple and starts throwing bones at everybody because this Satanist is a SEIGI NO MIKATA. This causes the sadomaso couple to attack back, which makes the SEIGI NO MIKATA fight back, creating a feedback loop of assbeating and completely fucking the distribution of pleasure.

If you want to get really absurd, the way to cut this Gordian Knot is to fucking kill everybody with a high-powered sniper rifle to the dome because you want to, you are able to do so, are justified if they try to stop you and the dead don't hurt anymore.

Chamomile wrote:The solution to the sadomaso couple problem is trivial: Just assume that it doesn't count as hurting if they actually want it to happen. So, take a slightly more abstract definition of "hurt" which means "to take away from sum total pleasure."

The real place where the philosophy falls down is vengeance loops. If you offend a Satanist in any way while adhering to an even vaguely similar philosophy yourself, the smart move is to kill them immediately. Philosophies that allow you to say "oh, sorry about the beer man, let me buy you a new one" or, on the other end of it, "gosh that guy's a jerk for spilling my beer, but I think I won't start a blood feud over it" are objectively superior to ones that prohibit that kind of behavior.

I was going to ignore this whole thing, but then I remembered the comic above.

Ok, let me address BDSM. A sadist does not want hurt their partner, they want to inflict pain. A masochist does not want to be hurt, they want to feel pain. Any sentiments to the contrary are the result of the English language sucking and human expression not always being exact. BDSM does not cause an endless loop of satanic vengeance.

Similarly, spilling a satanist's beer need not result in him curb stomping you. The wide majority of reasonable satanists would, at most, flip you off and order another. Possibly they would say "you spilled my beer, mate, mind buying me another?" LaVey says to destroy people over the slightest provocation, but first he's speaking metaphorically, second that's for nutters (like a lot of the strongest parts of religion in general), and third the fucker prostituted his female followers and abused his pets, so I'm not about to take his word as gospel.

Here are my beliefs:
1- If it's not causing harm to anyone who a)does not consent and b)does not deserve it, do whatever the fuck you want. This includes both indulgence and abstinence, provided it is what you want and, again, not harming people. You will notice this does not prevent punishment of crime, safe sane consensual bdsm, or require you to always over indulge regardless of outside circumstances. If you're gorging yourself on birthday cake, and your kid is on fire, by all means, put down the fork and save the little fucker.
2- Do not let others stop you from fulfilling part number 1 without good reason. Them being bigger/stronger/in greater authority than you is a pretty good reason to allow them to interfere with your desires in a short frame of time-namely, while they're around.
3- Be responsible for your own damned self, admit your failings, and hold others to the same standard.
4- Take care of your own first and foremost. "Your own" differs depending on circumstances. This means protect yourself from your family, your family from your neighbours, your neighbours from your town's criminal element, your town from other towns, your state from other states, your government from other governments, your species from other species, your planet from other planets, and, should it ever some how come to it, your universe from other universes. I believe in concentric circles of "Us" in the "Us vrs. Them" structure.
5- Animals and children are the purest of the pure, and should be protected at all costs. Animals should only be killed in self defense and survival, and should always be treated in a humane manner. It is totally fair for a satanist to eat meat and wear fur, but animal abuse or sacrifice is not to be tolerated.
6- Should any of these tenets turn out to be counter productive or counter to one's best interests, step back, think about it, and ultimately do what makes the most sense.

I just wanted to say that that list feels woefully incomplete: 5 implies a "purity must be preserved" rule which is not only not explicit, but at odds with what people normally associate with "satanism".

EDIT: "not only explicit" => "not only not explicit"

Prak_Anima wrote:Similarly, spilling a satanist's beer need not result in him curb stomping you. The wide majority of reasonable satanists would, at most, flip you off and order another.

Now presume the beer-spiller is also a Satanist and is obligated to respond in kind. You have started a vengeance loop which can only escalate, and the rational solution is to, upon offending a fellow Satanist, to skip to the end of the vengeance loop and kill them immediately.

Or, you know, be reasonable and realize that it's an allowance not an obligation and not start a blood feud over a spilled beer.

There we go, Satanism has an implicit "No use avenging spilled beer" clause.

@Nocker: Why is something being at odds with expectations something one should worry about at all?

What is this argument about? I don't have the basis required to know what this is about. If Prak is a moral relativist then he is correct about how morals are relative but what is this argument against? What are the positions in this topic, what is this thread, help where am I???

Satanism lacks a coherent moral philosophy and relies heavily on local mores and customs to filter out the stupid ideas. Just like most Christians would object to publicly stoning adulterers and claim that it's OK not to follow part of the bible literally and most Muslims agree that eating pork is not something that you should shun someone for, Satanists typically agree that it's OK to not follow through on the "get revenge" part of the message to the extreme of murdering anyone who spills their beer.

This isn't particularly praiseworthy, it just means that Satanism and other such religions will only partially destroy a person's natural moral intuition.

This is why arguments over religion are pointless: the believer will make all sorts of equivocations for their belief because their interpretation of it is a core part of themselves. It's why criminals find religion and militant atheists are such wastes of organs.

Prak, what you practice as Satanism is just an edgy version of basic, First World twentysomething liberal social mores. Those parts are also, funnily enough, the only parts of your belief system that aren't retarded or breakable.

Mask_De_H wrote: It's why criminals find religion and militant atheists are such wastes of organs.

Needless to say I disagree with your incorrect assertion.

Mask_De_H wrote:This is why arguments over religion are pointless: the believer will make all sorts of equivocations for their belief because their interpretation of it is a core part of themselves. It's why criminals find religion and militant atheists are such wastes of organs.

Mask, some people believe that Earth is flat and stands on turtles. Doesn't mean they are right or that you should listen to their opinion.

Mask_De_H wrote: Prak, what you practice as Satanism is just an edgy version of basic, First World twentysomething liberal social mores. Those parts are also, funnily enough, the only parts of your belief system that aren't retarded or breakable.

Yep. I can't find a belief system in there at all. Just general young american 'let me do what I want' with a weird teenage rebellion tag on it to make it sound... something. Edgy might be the word, but stupid seems closer, as it apparently still feeds a demand for a nonexistent skyfairy to justify everything, but this one wears darker clothes and stage makeup.


Also, Longes, you need to fix your post tags.

Oh, wow, so are you guys going to compete to be the first to claim the Randi Foundation million, or split it? Because apparently you guys are clairvoyant and can read my entire belief system from what I put forth as the core tenants of Satanism. Perhaps you'd next like to tell Buddhists that they don't have a belief system because their core tenants don't mention a fucking skyfairy.

We're saying that "Satanism As Described by Prak" is incoherent and relies on lots of unstated premises and non-obvious interpretations to even approach being a reasonable ethos. Also, that you seem to be doing hella mental gymnastics to get stuff LeVay said to justify trendy liberal social mores instead of acting like a total bastard who abuses animals and pimps out women.

For the record, the last time I called you out on moral relativism in a thread it was mostly just because I think the way you often put things is needlessly complicated. Language is complicated enough without sticking to the Christian paradigm of "God is always defined as good" even in the context of a game where everybody knows he's the bad guy.

First, Whipstitch, because the rest is a rant for Grek

@Whipstitch: Personally, I voluntarily identify as evil because it is essentially a religious construct and the majority of religious people in the country I live in follow a belief system which says I am because I am a sinful, spiteful, god-hating blasphemous wretch. I own that shit, and would proudly wear the label they would apply to me.

It's dumb, but fuck it.

Grek wrote:We're saying that "Satanism As Described by Prak" is incoherent and relies on lots of unstated premises and non-obvious interpretations to even approach being a reasonable ethos. Also, that you seem to be doing hella mental gymnastics to get stuff LeVay said to justify trendy liberal social mores instead of acting like a total bastard who abuses animals and pimps out women.

LaVey said one thing and did another. When I read the Satanic Bible, a lot of what he said were things I already believed. When I later found that what he believed and did was completely separate, the things he wrote were no less the things he wrote. Yes some of his writing gets weird--like him letting on that he liked watching girls piss, or talking about becoming a shut in because you can control your environment--but the writings at least stick to the realm of the legal. It's valid to say that Christianity endorses pedophiia, but that's because their book literally encourages it, not because some members are pedophiles. LaVeyan Satanism does not encourage animal abuse or sexual slavery, even if the man who wrote it partook of both.

If anyone is interested in the full belief system of Satanism, they can go read the fucking Satanic Bible[download link]. Fair warning- yes, LaVey fucking rants. That's why I boiled out the basic beliefs. I can field questions as well. I explained the very basic tenants. LaVeyan Satanism does not believe in a higher power. The closest it gets are a belief in a divine potential within people, or a force of nature which represents the idea of balanced opposing forces, like a personified yin yang.

The use of Satan/demons is out of a desire for shock value--LaVey's desire. I do like the rebellious byronic hero of Satan. I do like demons, but it's an aesthetic thing. I do not worship spirits of evil and hatred. I don't really worship fuck all!

If you want to get into my beliefs, fine. My philosophy is what I explained earlier and I'm sorry I'm not quite mentally organized enough to provide an entire personal philosophical treatise on a gaming forum. I do believe in magic, in that I basically believe in what others would call "Positive Thinking," except that I'm absolutely horrible at thinking positively because I am fucking depressed. I am really fucking keen at focusing anger into a beacon of concentration because I have a lot of that bottled up. I believe that one can, through symbolism and psychodrama, focus their will and desire and then impress that onto reality (cue Frank and Kaelik for abuse. Fuck them.) I believe this because I've had luck with that sort of thing, and I follow the LSatanic tenant that if you do not credit "greater magic" when you have successfully used it, you will lose all it has done for you and the ability to employ it. It's like Pascal's Wager, except concerned with resource management and not cowardice.

Further, I believe in something approaching consensual reality. I believe in spirits which wear many masks to answer the names that humans throw out into the universe. I believe that there is a spirit which likes the persona that is created in the Bible and called God and will gladly take up that mask. I believe there is one which probably rather likes the concept of Thor and will take up that mask. I believe there is a spirit which likes the ideal of individuality, intelligence, and sheer bloody mindedness which LSatanism ascribes to Satan as a fictional entity and will take up that mask.

YES it's very fucking hard to square this with my otherwise rational mindset which promotes scientific theory. No, I do not have any evidence for any of this. At least I do not pretend to. It's basically my personal psychodrama and symbolism. When I am fucking cold and reach out to spirits representing the heat created by the light bulbs in street lamps as I'm walking at night, I feel a little bit better. That's enough for me.

I'm basically an agnostic. I'll know when I die, and until then I promote science, the belief that Abrahamic religions are a bunch of bullshit which at best have a spirit that absolutely hates humanity and wants to piss on all of us answering their prayers, and hold my own little beliefs that I don't even pretend are correct.

---

Want to continue tearing my shit apart now that you actually have something approaching my belief system? If so--

Please, continue.

Huh, I forgot about LeVay's Satanic Bible. That book was boring shit.

I now really want to hear Prak's perspective on the Enoshian Keys, because as far as I can tell, magic hasn't been referenced in this thread yet.

What about the Enochian Keys? (and while I didn't say anything about it originally, that's basically what sets LS apart from just objectivism/secular humanism. Also, I did in the post just above you)

My perspective on the Enochian Keys are that they were a bit of occult mumbo jumbo that John Dee fabricated in the 16th century (oh yeah, and Edward Kelley). They were supposedly the language of the angels. LaVey baked them into his bible because they fit his psychodrama, and probably a little bit because he was a fucking troll, as well as trying hard to be Aleister Crowley. They're like ominous latin chanting--they set a good stage for magic, just like candles and incense and calling on spirits.

What perspective should I have?

And god damnit Longes, fix your fucking tags.

If you want to get into my beliefs, fine. My philosophy is what I explained earlier and I'm sorry I'm not quite mentally organized enough to provide an entire personal philosophical treatise on a gaming forum. I do believe in magic, in that I basically believe in what others would call "Positive Thinking," except that I'm absolutely horrible at thinking positively because I am fucking depressed. I am really fucking keen at focusing anger into a beacon of concentration because I have a lot of that bottled up. I believe that one can, through symbolism and psychodrama, focus their will and desire and then impress that onto reality (cue Frank and Kaelik for abuse. Fuck them.) I believe this because I've had luck with that sort of thing, and I follow the LSatanic tenant that if you do not credit "greater magic" when you have successfully used it, you will lose all it has done for you and the ability to employ it. It's like Pascal's Wager, except concerned with resource management and not cowardice.

I don't really want to, but this is your thread on your beliefs- there isn't exactly anything else to discuss. But this crap above? It sounds exactly like PopWicca combined with standard american 20something entitlement to pleasure. And still sounds like the <satanist></satanist> is just there so little old ladies might for some reason be shocked. So the fuck what?

Perhaps you'd next like to tell Buddhists that they don't have a belief system because their core tenants don't mention a fucking skyfairy

Well, no. The opposite, actually. They'd have a fairly functional and coherent system if they dropped the accumulated skyfairy baggage. Because I'm reasonably certain the Buddha didn't destroy castles with laserbeam eyes, so isn't all that pertinent to a modern philosophy that calls for (among other things) restraining emotions in order to live a more balanced, healthy and less harmful life.

You're getting accusations of believing in skyfairies because you're invoking the name of a christian skyfairy and pasting it onto your mishmash tautology of 'I'd like to do thing the things I enjoy because I enjoy them'

Prak_Anima wrote:Perhaps you'd next like to tell Buddhists that they don't have a belief system because their core tenants don't mention a fucking skyfairy.

Buddhists do have skyfairies actually. A lot of them. Right in the reincarnation system. And buddhas often have magical powers. Buddhism has its own mythology, and their belief system interracts with it quite often.

But if you want something right from the core tenets of Buddhism, then there are Karma and Sansara. Do they qualify as a skyfairy?