Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4
Topic Options
#435772 - 10/21/10 09:55 AM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Lust]
Adveser Offline


Registered: 06/27/04
Posts: 429
Loc: California
Yes, I think this is correct too. Regardless of how legal something might be on a local basis, the federal statutes still apply here in the USA.

Top
#435782 - 10/21/10 11:21 AM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Lust]
Roho_the_Rooster Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 6999
Loc: Pre-Apocalypolis
Legal question aside, there also other good reasons not to waste your time...even if it were legal.
_________________________
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces

http://theepicureandilettante.blogspot.com/

"Life is the only race you lose by reaching the end." - M.M.

Top
#435785 - 10/21/10 12:31 PM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Roho_the_Rooster]
Lust Offline


Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 4214
I agree. I do what is best for me. The laws of Satanism and observing the example set by, Doktor LaVey, is what is best for me, as an individual. I could care less what someone else does as I decide what is just.



Edited by Tier Instinct (10/21/10 01:28 PM)
_________________________
�Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.�
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

Top
#435821 - 10/21/10 08:15 PM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Lust]
Liberterius Offline


Registered: 01/06/10
Posts: 241
Ok, well, you don't have to nitpick non-essential parts of my post.

I also said that I consider doing drugs stupid regardless of legality, I just believe that people should have the choice do in general, so long as they bear the consequences.

Other people have the right to want drugs to be illegal; we all have free political thought. My main point was that I'm apologizing for being obtuse about my personal political views on this board. I'm not begging for forgiveness, nor am I trying to inflate my self-importance by acting like I'm a HUGE topic of trouble.
I simply want to improve my reputation on here and apologize for having annoyed members of this board in the past.

I hope my message is understood.

Top
#435830 - 10/21/10 09:07 PM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Liberterius]
Lust Offline


Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 4214
I wasn't aware that I was nitpicking. Some mistakes that people make are based on false information.

Some travel to Nevada just to indulge their sexual desires with a legal prostitute. Some go to Nevada based on this information and pick up an illegal prostitute but then end up with regrets. This is an example of stupidity being painful and can be avoided rather easily. Wouldn't you agree?

Your reasons for your actions are your own. I was content with leaving you with them and still am.

I am not familiar with your problems with others here but have had no major issues with you that comes to mind. I wish you well and compliment you for owning your mistakes.
_________________________
�Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.�
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

Top
#435831 - 10/21/10 09:17 PM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Lust]
Liberterius Offline


Registered: 01/06/10
Posts: 241
I've never been to Nevada but yeah, I believe prostitution is only legal in brothels there and then only in certain counties, not including wherever Vegas is; that's where trouble seems to arise for many people. wink

But yes, I understand your point now, I apologize for my undue defensiveness.

Thank you, I just hope the people I have offended read this then.

Also on the topic of the sterilizations, I wonder if this program could be reasonably widened to more general criminals, like thieves and violent offenders? Voluntary still I'd say, but...hm. I have mixed feelings on forced sterilizations, especially by methods that are difficult to reverse. There are criminals who can become "normal" productive members of society again if given the chance if they have the personal drive, and it would be wrong in my opinion to permanently stop them from having children 10, 20 years down the road. But also a lot of them have kids when they really shouldn't, and then we have all these slums...eh. smirk

Top
#435839 - 10/21/10 10:03 PM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: MoongleMoose]
Citizen Jonesy Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 09/22/02
Posts: 994
Loc: Palm Springs, California, USA
You have obviously not had to deal with hardcore drug addicts on a day to day basis. I have. It is my opinion that police should be allowed to shoot a drug addicted criminal at the scene of whatever crime they have committed. Their downward spiral destroys everything around them. That is why I'm against across the board legalization that you hear hippies cry for.

If we cannot get rid of them (as per my suggestion), maybe we can keep them from destroying an innocent life-like a child who did not ask to be born to addicted human garbage.

Better to not be born at all then be born into a fucked up situation you cannot change or even control.
_________________________
Hail Satan!
Jonesy
I Member, Church Of Satan
Webmaster
The 8FoldPath Network-Just updated

Top
#435842 - 10/21/10 10:17 PM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Machismo]
Riddles Offline


Registered: 10/16/10
Posts: 82
Loc: Maryland
Originally Posted By: Machismo
Originally Posted By: Riddles
Might is right.


I've never interpreted that statement as meaning, might conveys rights, but rather, might conveys moral authority. The first interpretation would be an accurate description of reality, of course, since rights can only be granted and defended by force. The second interpretation, which is the one I always applied to Redbeard's use of the phrase, seems to me misleading, because it merges in our imaginations two domains, force and information, which in reality are separate, intrinsically and fundamentally distinct. Better to say, might trumps right, which would mean, might renders moral authority moot, an accurate description of reality, since might trumps everything, and renders moot all that opposes it.


I suppose I would agree. It reminds me of debates I've had with people on the whole concept of objective morality (which I don't believe exists). I prefer the term "moral relativist", but if you want to mince words and use reductionist arguments, you could possibly say that I am a moral nihilist, a term I don't care for since people think that moral nihilists don't have any kind of ethical standards. I have ethical standards; I just don't believe that there is any kind of magical arbiter which justifies my standards. Then they play the game where they make me out to be a psychopath by tricking me to admit that "[insert despicable act] isn't objectively wrong." I respond by saying, "does it really matter what I think regarding this? Subjectively, I find [insert despicable act] to be wrong because I don't like it, so I will do my best to fight against it, and if it appears to be despicable enough, the powers at be will agree with me and set legal and social standards to prevent that kind of behavior. And if someone else is really inclined to do [insert despicable act], they're going to do so whether or not any objective moral exists." Any kind of objective "should" never enters into the equation. So, yes, might renders the point moot.

Although maybe I wasn't clear, the gist of what I was saying before is that there's no reason we should refrain from using might because of fear of infringing on someone's "God-given rights". They don't exist. And freedom isn't going to mean much if we define it to be total anarchy. I like the concept of freedom, but if the concept is to have any utility, lines have to be drawn somewhere. Maybe I don't think there is any objective optimum for where the lines are drawn, but we draw them where we like to see them.

Ultimately, I don't think the whole concept of self-interest should lead to the idea that we should live in some fairy tale "live and let live" anarchy. The simple fact is that interests clash. Laws and social contracts help us to maintain some semblance of order, but I'm not too concerned about assuring someone else's interests are met when they clash with my subjective interests/ethics. Under the most liberal interpretations of freedom, am I infringing upon the freedom of a pedophile when I say they should be killed? Sure, and I don't fucking care. Why should I?

Originally Posted By: Machismo

As for the question of moral authority, I've wrestled with that on various threads, many of them on forums you don't currently have access to. None of my thought experiments satisfied me for long. Redbeard, of course, would say that moral authority is a chimera, that amorality is the only non-delusional perspective for man. I had sympathy for that position and espoused it for a while, but finally couldn't maintain it, as there is something in me that wants to be moral. So then I tried to categorize morality as a kind of indulgence, for example as principled malice, or alternatively as principled pride, but in the end this didn't work for me, because morality as it functions in my head is usually a No rather than a Yes, a denial, thus an abstinence. Equating abstinence with indulgence would be oxymoronic.


I think you are getting too caught up in language. I get my best results and clearest thinking when I don't worry about rigorous definitions, and instead just go with my gut. Trying to label all of my actions as either "moral" or "amoral" makes my head spin. The truth value of what you said really depends upon what we mean by "moral" and "amoral", and I'm not interested in that kind of rigor. Pragmatically, abstaining from something can be an indulgence (in some sense at least) if that something is harmful to you (feeling bothered or guilty because of defying your moral compass counts as harmful). An "abstinent indulgence" is only an oxymoron if you have the need to break everything down into simple black and white concepts. The same goes with your discussion of morality. I have a moral compass, and going against that bothers me, so following that moral compass is for me an indulgence, and if one equates selfishness with amorality, it is "amoral". Even people who admit to being PURELY selfish can show kindness and participate in philanthropy without being hypocritical even if it doesn't appear that they get anything in return. They get something in return; they don't get to be bothered by their conscious, they improve their relations with others, and they may get a sense of satisfaction out of being charitable. And it can be an indulgence even if you don't consciously recognize WHY it is an indulgence. That's why I say "go with your gut." It sounds like you got tired of breaking it down, but that doesn't mean you became any less selfish. There's often not a need to consciously break it down like that. Clearly, according to your conscience, "morality" is in your interest. And there's no need to figure out why. Just go with your gut.

I consider myself to be EXTREMELY selfish, if not purely so, and I can be a "nice guy" in many situations. Also, I don't feel the need to break everything down into transactions, or to worry about "does this necessarily benefit me?" For example, I'm very charitable and kind to my wife (well, usually wink ), and I don't evaluate every interaction with her in a selfish way. I just love her. However, I recognize there are most likely selfish roots to my actions (being good to her makes me happy, and seeing her happy does too), but I don't have any compelling need to consciously break everything down like that. But that doesn't mean I'm not being selfish/"amoral".

Short version of the last two paragraphs:

Generally, I find that admitting self-interest is the first step toward achieving rational self-interest, but sometimes self-interest doesn't have to be admitted to reap the rewards. If you think you have innate "morals", go with that and don't worry about why it feels right.

You remind me of me. I overanalyze things when, pragmatically, I don't need to. I've only met a few Satanists in real life, and I hate to generalize, but most that I've met fall into one of two categories: armchair philosophers and people who just want to kick back and share a bottle of Jack. I respect the intellectualism of many Satanists, and I understand "Satan demands study", but ironically, the latter group tends to do a better job at actually implementing Satanism. I'm not lumping you into either category, but a good question to ask ourselves is: why am I worrying so much about if morality is in my interest, or if my interests are "right" or "wrong"? Self-interest is not a choice, so I don't feel that my moral instincts get in the way of that, whether I have a conscious justification or not.



"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one."
--Mark Twain (on why I need an editor smile )


Edited by Riddles (10/22/10 12:20 AM)
_________________________
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
--Mark Twain

"Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#435892 - 10/22/10 10:11 AM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Riddles]
Machismo Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 02/05/10
Posts: 1132
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: Riddles
I suppose I would agree. It reminds me of debates I've had with people on the whole concept of objective morality (which I don't believe exists).


Me either. I came to realize that saying morality is subjective doesn't negate morality but merely clarifies its primary attribute.

Quote:
I have ethical standards; I just don't believe that there is any kind of magical arbiter which justifies my standards.


The arbiter is of course you.

Quote:
Then they play the game where they make me out to be a psychopath by tricking me to admit that "[insert despicable act] isn't objectively wrong."


Yes - they act as if the phrase subjectively wrong is an oxymoron. It isn't. Subjectively right is right. Subjectively wrong is wrong.

Now a person who wants to use morality as an instrument of persuasion directed at other people can never be satisfied with anything less than objective morality, which doesn't exist, and which therefore leaves them with three options, either (1) give up persuasion; or (2) find another instrument; or (3) sink into a morass of unreality.

Quote:
Although maybe I wasn't clear, the gist of what I was saying before is that there's no reason we should refrain from using might because of fear of infringing on someone's "God-given rights". They don't exist.


Only gun-given rights exist. cool

Quote:
And freedom isn't going to mean much if we define it to be total anarchy. I like the concept of freedom, but if the concept is to have any utility, lines have to be drawn somewhere. Maybe I don't think there is any objective optimum for where the lines are drawn, but we draw them where we like to see them.


Guns enable laws which enforce common sense so that a practical freedom can emerge in the real world.

Quote:
Under the most liberal interpretations of freedom, am I infringing upon the freedom of a pedophile when I say they should be killed? Sure, and I don't fucking care. Why should I?


I can't think of a reason.

Quote:
I think you are getting too caught up in language.


WHAT??? But - but - getting caught up in language is my favorite game! zombie

Quote:
I get my best results and clearest thinking when I don't worry about rigorous definitions, and instead just go with my gut.


A good strategy so long as your gut isn't an ass. cool

But see, there's a difference between knowing the right thing to do, and being able to explain why it's right. The latter matters if I'm a policy maker - and there are many roles in society that entail policy-making; for example, parent, business executive, senator, editor, publicist.

Quote:
if one equates selfishness with amorality


I don't, incidentally.

Quote:
Also, I don't feel the need to break everything down into transactions, or to worry about "does this necessarily benefit me?"


The transactional mentality certainly gets tedious quickly.

Quote:
You remind me of me.


No no no. You remind me of me. jack

Quote:
I overanalyze things when, pragmatically, I don't need to. I've only met a few Satanists in real life, and I hate to generalize, but most that I've met fall into one of two categories: armchair philosophers and people who just want to kick back and share a bottle of Jack.


I like both kinds. jack
_________________________


Top
#435897 - 10/22/10 11:14 AM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Machismo]
Riddles Offline


Registered: 10/16/10
Posts: 82
Loc: Maryland
Originally Posted By: Machismo


Quote:
I get my best results and clearest thinking when I don't worry about rigorous definitions, and instead just go with my gut.


A good strategy so long as your gut isn't an ass. cool

But see, there's a difference between knowing the right thing to do, and being able to explain why it's right. The latter matters if I'm a policy maker - and there are many roles in society that entail policy-making; for example, parent, business executive, senator, editor, publicist.



I agree, but I feel that it is an unfortunate fact of life. If only I were a dictator...

Of course, given that we're on a forum, we're expected to explain things. I can't convince anyone using my gut.

Originally Posted By: Machismo

Quote:
if one equates selfishness with amorality


I don't, incidentally.


"Morality" doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I'll happily call myself "amoral" or "evil", but in a somewhat ironic sense. I'm not saying I'm "wrong", just selfish. It's just one definition of "evil", so I don't feel guilty when I employ it so long as the context is clear.

Originally Posted By: Machismo


Quote:
I overanalyze things when, pragmatically, I don't need to. I've only met a few Satanists in real life, and I hate to generalize, but most that I've met fall into one of two categories: armchair philosophers and people who just want to kick back and share a bottle of Jack.


I like both kinds. jack



I do too. You know who I like even better? Armchair philosophers who want to sit back and share a bottle of Jack. I never said the categories had to be mutually exclusive. smile
_________________________
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
--Mark Twain

"Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#435919 - 10/22/10 02:29 PM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Riddles]
John Prophet Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 04/06/09
Posts: 991
Loc: My suburban lair
Originally Posted By: Riddles
"Morality" doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I'll happily call myself "amoral" or "evil", but in a somewhat ironic sense. I'm not saying I'm "wrong", just selfish. It's just one definition of "evil", so I don't feel guilty when I employ it so long as the context is clear.

Thats pretty much my approach as well. Aside from making things simpler (though perhaps less accurate), I find it appealing on an aesthetic and emotional level.
_________________________


Top
#435923 - 10/22/10 03:34 PM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: Machismo]
Riddles Offline


Registered: 10/16/10
Posts: 82
Loc: Maryland
Originally Posted By: Machismo

Guns enable laws which enforce common sense so that a practical freedom can emerge in the real world.


This is the kind of mentality I had back when I was a political Anarchist. Then I realized that my interests do not necessarily coincide with popular notions of "common sense", and I don't put democratic opinion above my own, so I am willing to support a government which supports notions I believe in even if it defies "common sense". Basically, I am okay with "borrowing"/supporting the power of others when I don't have the direct power. Also, I believed that in the absence of strict laws handed down from the government, private forces would deal with criminals according to "common sense". But many new injustices would emerge. I am definitely a fan of "trial by jury." I trust myself enough to apply common sense in day-to-day interactions/vengeance, so I don't need to give a trial by jury, but I can't say I trust the group/herd mentality of militias.

The government has the guns, but I'm not restricted by the idea that they should enforce "common sense". Democratic opinion is often crap.


Edited by Riddles (10/22/10 04:59 PM)
_________________________
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
--Mark Twain

"Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

Top
#436241 - 10/26/10 12:24 AM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: MoongleMoose]
Nammu Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 10/18/09
Posts: 399
Loc: Pacific NW
Bravo Project Prevention! Indeed, it is a rare charity that doesn't make me puke in my mouth.

Top
#436251 - 10/26/10 02:13 AM Re: Chlorinating the gene pool [Re: MoongleMoose]
MoongleMoose Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 11/09/09
Posts: 76
Loc: South O' Sydney
This article and ethical debate was originally referred to my by serving police officer's here in Australia. To my expectations, their direct, methodical and un-bias logic forced the 'ethical dilemma' question of this charity to be blown out of the water.

For one, a point that is seldom systematically digested by the critics... the suffering of children. It is far too easy to jump the gun here and form your own bias and views on what we think is "right" or "wrong", UNTIL you are actually physically and emotionally involved with the REAL victims of this most heinous act (act, being the birth of children by druggies). This is something that the founder of Project Prevention had gone through. I can remember a documentary done on her that aired in Australia a couple of years ago, and it involved her talking about her own history with drug addicted babies as an adoptive parent. Barbara Harris experienced first hand, the effect of drug addicted mother's popping out kids, one after the other, usually because they couldn't keep their leg's together or they sold themselves for drugs.

By that notion, I would argue that critics of Project Prevention that refute their work on "Ethical" grounds, come forward to chat to Barbara. I'm sure she'd be more than happy to take them to a stroll through either a hospital or foster home that's caring for babies and children that are suffering the effects of drug withdrawal.

One thing I did find interesting about Project Prevention was the support of several christian priests (take a look at the board of directors page).
I, myself have had dealings with many Catholic and Anglican priests in my time. Some were fucking idiots that I wouldn't bother wasting another second talking to, and others were probably the nicest and most logical individual's I've ever known, and still talk to on a monthly basis. You take them as you meet them.

Sure, have the expectation that they've all gained wisdom and philosophy from the bible, but that's not to say that they can't think for themselves. Remember... individual church's are very subjective in their proceedings based solely on what the priest says the "go is". This is why some people will go to different churches, even if they are of the same branch. It really does come down to personalities on this. And it's by this that I would like to believe why there are priests involved with Project Prevention.

This isn't a religious issue, it's a common-fucking-sense issue. I'm glad to see a smart, select few leaders of Christianity step up and do what's ethically right here.

Top
Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4


Forum Stats
12017 Members
73 Forums
43828 Topics
405224 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements