“We have the RIGHT…”
“To wage war, Captain? To kill millions of innocent people? To destroy life on a planetary scale? Is that what you’re defending?”
Star Trek, ‘Errand of Mercy’
“We have the RIGHT…”
“To wage war, Captain? To kill millions of innocent people? To destroy life on a planetary scale? Is that what you’re defending?”
Star Trek, ‘Errand of Mercy’
“People should not give up their hope. They should endlessly work hard to find hope.” – John Woo
The systematic attack of spirituality and belief by fervent Atheists seems to take place in much the same way that Albert Einstein noted when he said that most fervent Atheists are simply intellectuals and quasi-intellectuals rebelling against forced belief with active disbelief. As if because one thing was wrong (as forced belief is) it somehow makes the equal and opposite reaction correct. To force one to believe in any form of Spirituality is incorrect, but to force one to disbelieve in any idea of possible Spirituality is incorrect, arrogant, and just plain stupid.
“During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries…The term ‘atheist’ was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist.” – Karen Armstrong
As to historical injustices performed in the name of Religion versus those performed in the name of Atheism, the fact that Atheism has only been widely ALLOWED to be an even POSSIBLE belief system explicitly disavowing the existence of anything at all “Divine” for less than 300 years makes the comparison irrelevant, although the Pol Pot’s and Stalin’s of the world have certainly done their best to make up for lost time.
– Puppy >.< Yip!
“traffic in the half-baked nihilism of a stoned high school student who has just discovered Nietzsche and Nine Inch Nails” – Laura Miller on Palahniuk
Puppy: I think that’s not accurate. “Half-baked” and “stoned” imply use of drugs, ostensibly to amplify creativity, and I see none of that in Palahniuk’s ‘Fight Club’. They also imply that the writer in question is not fully in control/command of their writings, which is doing a dis-service to every half-baked work ever made, by a high school student, college student, professional writer, or anyone with half a brain that is literate. Invoking Nietzsche and NIN, besides bringing up two vastly different talent levels, degrades the at-least-well-meaning nature of those who are fascinated by them and write inferior works in an attempt to live up to them. Palahniuk is different. Here is a grown man, clean and sober, intentionally writing high-school level chaotically uneven I-guess-you-could-call-them-“philosophical” rants about vastly different subjects and somehow attempting to link them, and he is working at the HEIGHT of his talent level. Sad, really.
“Until you can create something that captivates people, I’d invite you to just shut up.
It’s easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It’s a lot more difficult to perform one.” – Chuck Palahniuk
Puppy: Let’s analyze this.
“Until you can create something that captivates people”.
Puppy: The use of the word “Until” states that IF the conditions FOLLOWING the word are reached, THEN the person quoted is in fact giving their approval for the action being criticized to be TAKEN, in fact with their blessing since no other caveats are made.
So, IF “you” = anyone that wants to blast Palahniuk’s “creations”, and I think it does, since he expands to a broad scope later in the quote…
It follows that if anyone in the world “can create something that captivates people”, they thereby have Chuck Palahniuk’s blessing to trash Chuck Palahniuk’s work, if they so choose.
Semantically speaking, anyone “can” create something that captivates people…just because they haven’t DONE it doesn’t mean they CAN’T…but let’s assume he made a semantic mistake intentionally or was just really peeved.
something = anything
people = more than 1 person
IF anyone creates anything that captivates more than one person, THEN they can trash his work, by his own admission.
So, Justin Bieber has every right to criticize ‘Fight Club’.
And everyone that put a video on YouTube that got 2 or more “Likes”.
“I’d invite you to just shut up” – Well isn’t that grown-up of him. NYAH NYAH!
“It’s easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It’s a lot more difficult to perform one.”
So Chuck you’re saying her criticism has destroyed your works?
I think “act” is the definitive word here, as Chuck’s “performance” on ‘Fight Club’ is pandering to the mindset mentioned by the critic. Nothing more. That some other people buy into such transparent horsesh1t is a testimony to the fall of the novel as a means of great expression.
“It is easier to destroy than to create”.
Also, 1+1 = 2
-Puppy >.< Yip!
“I nurtured the hope, that there was hope.”
-Puppy >.< Yip!
“Good…Honest…Hatred. Very refreshing.” – Commander Kor, Klingon Occupation Army
-Puppy >.< Yip!
MTV Unplugged in New York [DGC, 1994]
Not only did Kurt Cobain transcend alt-rock by rocking so hard, he transcended alt-rock by feeling so deep. On this accidental testament, intended merely to altify the MTV mindset by showcasing the Meat Puppets and covering the Vaselines, Cobain outsensitives Lou Barlow and Eddie Vedder in passing. His secret is sincerity, boring though that may be–he cares less than Barlow without boasting a bit about it, tries harder than Vedder without busting a gut about it. The vocal performance he evokes is John Lennon’s on Plastic Ono Band. And he did it in one take. A (Robert Christgau)
“You know that I care…
what happens to you.
And I know that you care…
for me too.
So I, don’t feel alone
On the way to the stone
Now that I’ve found somewhere safe
To bury my bone.
And any fool knows, a dog needs a home
From pigs on the wing.”
“X is the image of the arrested adolescent. Entirely self-oriented. Still intimidated by the people around them and attempting to prove themself superior to them. Through sexual conquest they can, for a time, quell their constant feelings of inferiority and failure. Indeed the idea of a non-sexual relationship is completely foreign to them. As the years pass, and their physical attractiveness diminishes, they’ll be doomed to a life of loneliness, and despair, unable to give or receive Love.”
– Adapted from D. Chambers.
“Am I insinuatin?” “No, just dancin”
– Adapted from M. Howard and C. Howard
-Puppy >.< Yip!
It’s easier to live without something if you hold it in disdain, or know you can never attain it.
-Puppy >.< Grrr…
Click and Save!
-Puppy >.< Grrr…
Goths. Yes, goths. What are they? Well, even THEY don’t really know. Most of them, at least.
– This isn’t entirely accurate. It was meant more of as a slam against the pretentious, angsty, “rebel-without-a-clue”, and/or truly nasty people that revel in the lifestyle without caring that it’s all just bullsh1t to them because they’re using it for fun and they don’t actually believe in sh1t.
7/9/12: It is in fact accurate. However, it is not precise. My point was to say F you to that portion of the “goth” community that is described below. I’m not saying it NOW…now, I just ignore them. I wouldn’t walk up to a cockroach and insult it, by the same logic. There’s really no point, and it would be a waste of (even a single) moment.
First, a historical and unbiased cultural appraisal. Second, my experience with those that choose to label themselves “goth”.
– If you want this, look up “Gothic Subculture” on Wikipedia. It’s irrelevant for my purposes here.
7/9/12: Or, if you want to, talk to some of them. A person’s true nature usually comes out after brief initial pretenses that some have. This is an option to consider, not a suggestion.
So, if all this is taken as true, a real “goth” is someone that
recognizes that we all have a dark side, isn’t afraid of that side, and
is disturbed by those that pretend they are somehow “better”
because they follow different ideals, dress differently, etc.
– You don’t need to dress in black and listen to mopey music to despise hypocrisy. Come to think of it, EVERY subculture hates hypocrisy (supposedly, as is the case here). We all know (except for the fanatical Puritans amongst us, of which there are FAR fewer than you would be led to believe) that everyone has a dark side, we all know some people who embrace it, some who deny it, some who just control it, some who are somewhere in the middle…it’s got nothing to do with gothique, sorry. Gothique is a fashion statement, a trend, like 80’s new-wave hair and acid-wash jeans, nothing more.
7/9/12: Perhaps I went a little too far near the end. But I believe my point is made fairly well.
This is, of course, propaganda.
– Why did I even need to say this??? That’s like saying “1 plus 1 is, of course, 2.”
7/9/12: Repetition. The key to analysis. Repetition.
In my experience with self-proclaimed “goths”, I have found that at
least 90 percent of them are either stupid, ignorant, malicious, greedy,
selfish, manipulative, users, abusers, addicts, “victims”(that is,
those that revel in being hurt, the “victim mentality”), fakes, or a
combination of two or more of these elements.
– MONTHS later…ditto.
7/9/12: I didn’t actually make a mathematical study out of it, but this is also accurate, if not precise.
Most “low-ranking” goths I have encountered like to dress in black
because it hides their bellies and emphasizes their bosom. I mean, if
you weigh 250 pounds, a corset is BOUND to produce some cleavage.
– Ok, this is just mean. And I’m not insulting overweight people. I’m insulting the 90+ percent of the female “goths” that are overweight, because they’re all the nasty things listed above…not BECAUSE they’re overweight. They simply can’t stand being ugly on the outside because there’s very little on the inside.
7/9/12: See above, and if you have a feeling of Deja Vu when reading the last sentence look up “Jim Jarmusch” on Wikipedia for the explanation.
The “high-ranking” ones are those that have discovered the joys of
reality, be it via a real relationship, a family, etc…and they are a
bit amused by their past, seeing it as more of a post-adolescent angst
period than any real stage of development.
7/9/12: Or, they’ve incorporated the non-abusive/manipulative aspects into their lives. Just as good.
The true goth, of which there are some, adheres closely to the
definition given above…that is, they admire darkness as well as light,
for are we all not dark in some way?
– Uh huh.
7/9/12: 20,000 Leagues Deep.
I believe I can summarize the “goth” population as follows-
10 percent like George A. Romero’s ‘Night of the Living Dead’
because it is a bitter, biting social commentary on man’s tendency
to fight amongst ourselves and within ourselves.
90 percent like George A. Romero’s ‘Night of the Living Dead’ because zombies eat human flesh and it looks really cool.
7/9/12: Not really all that funny, but I wanted to type “HAHA”. And ‘Land’ is better.
In the interests of not-being-a-rat-unless-someone-betrays-me, I won’t state any names, but…
The predictable response to this will be “Well, you’re just jealous”.
In a way, I am.
I find “goth” women, by and large (no pun intended) to be absolutely beautiful. Physically.
However, when I’ve actually ventured into their minds, I’ve found
twisted car wrecks that inevitably out-wreck even my own…quite a
feat, since I’ve been institutionalized.
So yes, I’m jealous that so many beautiful female bodies are inhabited by so many UGLY “spirits”. Quite sad, really.
– Oh well. There ARE exceptions…but then again, not ALL human beings are born with a spleen. Exceptions, you see.
7/9/12: More than that…but not all THAT much more.
The next response will be “Well, they don’t want you anyways”.
This is not true.
I spoke to several “high-ranking” goth women, who assured me they
viewed their “followers” as nothing more than amusing toys, and that
if I wanted to, I could rank quite highly among them.
I’m sure this would lead to lots of sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll…and, probably, happiness.
But only at the expense of morality and by using and abusing the weak, scared, hurt, and confused.
I don’t do that.
– Let me correct something…if someone is scared /weak/hurt/confused and is ALSO a scumbag…well…that’s a different story. You can’t do fcked up sh1t and then go crying home to mommy…grow the hell up, ok?
7/9/12: This is concerning those that abuse/manipulate those that are “easy” to, but turn into utter cowards when confronted with a challenge. “I don’t run away from bullies”.
I mean, I dated a “goth” that was a pure psychopath (unbeknownst to
me at the beginning) and justified this by saying “Well, I’ve been
horribly hurt, so I get to do it to others…”
This is tripe. Michael Tripe. HA!
I’ve been more hurt emotionally than the vast majority of these posers, but if I do something wrong, I take responsibility.
It’s called “growing up”.
– Not exactly accurate…and Michael Stipe isn’t as bad as I thought. Musically.
7/9/12: Comparing pain isn’t really proper. And I don’t know the man.
Many “goths” also tend to be Anarchists, Satanists, or LaVeyan Satanists.
– Not exactly accurate, and I forgot Atheists…but that’s neither here nor there.
7/9/12: Replace “Atheists” with “Crusading Disbelievers”.
Anarchists in the pure sense believe in complete and total individual freedom.
In practice, they believe in pretending to believe this to get what they want.
Much like Stalin used the idea of Communal Living “Communism” proposed by Karl Marx to enforce his Totalitarian will.
So most anarchists are exactly the opposite of what they claim.
– Again, there are exceptions…but real PURE “Anarchists” are about as common as “Pure” Psychopaths…that is, less than one percent.
7/9/12: I would say this is fairly accurate.
Satanists believe that everyone is their “Own God”.
That we don’t know what exists after death, so we must be true to ourselves and do what is right, here and now.
In practice, most Satanists believe that they are stronger than others
either physically or mentally, and so if religion is done away with
(e.g. ‘1984’ or ‘Brave New World’ or ‘Animal Farm’) then others, with nothing to hope for, will bow down before them and serve their goals,
which inevitably tend towards greed, manipulation, meaningless sex,
abuse, domination, cruelty, etc…
– This is not correct…it is in fact LaVeyan Satanists (see below) that believe this. Real Satanists actually worship Lucifer, for reasons I understand but think are stoopid. It’s not beyond me…I just think it’s stoopid.
7/9/12: “I’m glad you approve.” * “I do NOT “approve”…I understand.”
LaVeyan Satanists are those that are either REALLY stupid and
believe that you should BUY a MEMBERSHIP CARD to a religion
that advocates INDIVIDUALITY (Insert laugh track here)…
They are the ones collecting the money, thereby making them frauds, manipulators, and abusers of “weaker” minds.
– First comment dead-on funny…second one a bit over-reactionary, since it was meant as a joke and if someone WANTS to buy a joke, hey, there’s one born every minute…just ask LaVey. And one positive point about LaVeyans: They believe that while you shouldn’t love everyone, you should be loyal and protective to/of those you CHOOSE to love, those that you deem worthy. I agree.
7/9/12: The True believers, that is. True believers are very difficult to find.
Basically most powerful “goths” prey upon people that have been
hurt or abused, telling them that they really care about them, and
inviting them to join a group…ANY group, because any group is better than nothing.
7/9/12: Repetition. The key.
Sort of like Ed Norton’s character in American History X.
– Bit of a stretch there…more like Cam.
7/9/12: Or, if they’re not very clever, the big fat guy.
Luckily, he woke up.
Oh…how many Hispanic, Black, Asian…ummm…Non-Caucasian “goths” are there? Not many…
What does that say? Oh, I dunno…
“Be tolerant of us!!!! You aren’t tolerant of us!!!!”
“Can I join???”
“No way man you’re black!”
– Uh huh.
7/9/12: There are a token few allowed “in” for plausible deniability purposes.
I mean, “goths” despising Society for the “Evils” perpetrated on them…
Well, should black people despise society for having been enslaved 150 years ago?
Should Jews hate society for Millenia of persecution?
I mean, grow the heck up, ok?
Get over it.
Yeah, you’ve suffered. A single tear rolls down my cheek. GET OVER IT!
7/9/12: The key.
Anne Gwish is a goth woman that has her own strip in the later part of the series. Her name is a pun on the word “anguish.” Her storyline is completely unrelated to Johnny’s, though she lives in the same fictional universe. The strips featuring her are largely a satire on goth culture’s tendencies towards pretension.
In most of her strips, you can find puns and parodies on gothic subculture. Like “Johnny the Hamicidal Maniac” (with Johnny as a
pig), “Ditchspade Symphony” (a parody of the band, Switchblade Symphony), “The Shmoe” (a rather obvious parody of The Crow, who proclaims “I stole this look from KISS”) and “The Dirtman” (a Sandman joke).
Vasquez ends the Anne Gwish strip with an aside comment,
“With just a touch of self-mockery,” due to his personal goth
lifestyle as well as the cultural category his comic books are
In the back of the JTHM: Director’s Cut, (naming her
AKA “bitch”) it was revealed that Jhonen Vasquez liked the idea of
Anne Gwish being the “most physically attractive” of his characters,
as it “only frames more distinctly how HORRIBLE a person she is inside.”
(That’s Jhonen Vasquez, “hero” of the “goth” community, saying what he really thinks of most “goths”)
-Puppy >.< Yip!
If you’re reading this because you agree with the title, are bored, wanted a potential chuckle, etc…Great.
If you’re reading this because you disagree with the title, I would suggest the following…
Any argument I can make can probably be out-argued by you, because you’re so much smarter than I am in that “useless beyond-genius no-real-value Rain Man” sort of a way.
So just think about the following two quotes, and continue to worship Stephen Hawking as your Deity.
“You don’t understand, and you never will.” – Diane Chambers (A fairly logical character)
“Computers make excellent and efficient servants, but I have no wish to serve under them.” – Spock (Also, fairly logical)
-Puppy >.< Yip!
To Jenna Greene, for being the truly nice person that she is.
And for sharing with myself (and everyone) her beautiful, mystical music.
Greeneladymusic.com if you’d like to see for yourself.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
It has been argued that humans are inherently poly-amorous, that all people truly want to have sex with as many people that they find attractive as possible…that “relationships” are only entered into by those that cannot succeed in routinely obtaining sex from more than one attractive person, that wish to allow themselves to not have to “keep up their appearance”, because of societal pressures, because it’s the “easy” thing to do, and so on.
This argument is just as blatantly flawed and self-serving (as it is made, of course, by those that are NOT in committed “relationships”) as the argument that it’s “wrong” to be with more than one person even if noone is hurt, that you shouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, that homosexuality is wrong, that one must wait 7 dates before having sex…and so on. These arguments, of course, are made by those that adhere (or at least pretend to adhere) to the “wrong”-ness of choice.
Every Human Being is different. To suggest that it is IMPOSSIBLE to truly WANT to be with only one person, for the sole reason of that is truly what YOU want, is absurd. Simply because one cannot “understand” that desire, because one does not feel it themself, does NOT by definition mean that it cannot exist and that anyone that says that’s what they want is just “pretending” or “kidding themselves”.
The most ridiculous part of the argument AGAINST voluntary fidelity is that the people making it are completely disdainful of the other-side-of-the-coin argument (that you MUST be in a heterosexual, monogamous, married, etc etc etc relationship).
The reason I (And many people) don’t have random sex with any other attractive adult possible is NOT, as some might suggest, because I’m “repressed” or “afraid”.
I’m not afraid of “Sinning”, I’m not worried about my ability to obtain sex, I don’t feel that it’s “wrong”, I don’t care about public perception…and so on.
The reason I don’t have sex with every attractive adult I COULD have sex with is because, quite frankly, I don’t want to.
From a logical perspective, I think everyone except those bent on sexual “conquest” to prove their virility would agree that the POINT of sex, apart from procreation, is PLEASURE.
Therefore, the aspect to be considered is…what do I derive the most pleasure from?
Having had meaningless sex in the past, I’ve found that the empty, awkward, rather dull feeling that comes (no pun intended) immediately after the act is completed is FAR worse than the act itself is more pleasurable than just THINKING about it. It just doesn’t make sense to spend SO much time trying to obtain something that, once obtained, becomes meaningless and leads you to think “Ok, who’s next?” if the feeling arising from the “success” of the attempt is, in fact, BAD.
Not to suggest that meaningless sex doesn’t feel GOOD…sure it does. But the period and amount of pleasure achieved, for me, is just simply not worth the post-meaningless-act depression over the sheer meaningless-ness of it, the resources (Time, money for *insert foreplay meetingplace here*, etc) wasted, and so forth.
Sex with someone that I actually CARE about, at least somewhat, lacks these negative results and is therefore something to be strived for as a vastly superior option.
From a purely logical standpoint, for me, meaningless sex is just plain stupid.
It also displays an appalling lack of self-control, which, if you’re doing something you know will just make you feel worse afterwards, is akin to doing hardcore drugs (I assume, never had the urge to try) only this is a VOLUNTARY addiction, and hence lacks ANY sort of reasonable justification outside of the inability to control one’s most base animal instincts.
I mean, if a wolf can be platonic, can’t a “superior” human? It’s not a sign of weakness or herd mentality, it’s a sign of Self-Control, Logic, and Love.
Of course, if you actually feel GOOD after having sex with someone you care nothing about, and you both want to…go for it! I won’t make the same pretentious, inane assumption that critics of Fidelity make by criticizing other people’s emotional choices, as if I have any idea what it’s like to be inside their head.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
Anyone that tells you that “the only constant, dependable thing in Life is change” is either trying to sell you something or get something from you(physically, morally, financially, emotionally, etc).
-Puppy >.< Yip!
Recently I’ve been trying to re-analyze and re-assess my views of people that have an affinity for particularly gory films.
The important distinction here is between “gory” films and gore films…that is, movies that have incredibly disturbing scenes (‘Land Of The Dead’, ‘Saving Private Ryan’, ‘Schindler’s List’, ‘Platoon’, ‘Seven’, etc…) but that include them for a non-obligatory point, and also feature brilliant acting, character development, and intelligent scripts; and movies that exist, it seems, merely as a means for people to voyeuristically watch disgusting things happen and (more often than not, in my experience from contact with such people) cheer for the one doing these things.
I think the second category has four types of fans:
1) Those that admire the “ingenious” ways in which these things happen,
2) Those whose lives are so boring and dull that they rely on these movies for their excitement,
3) Those that are viewing them as instructional videos, and…
4) Those that secretly wish they could do these sorts of things, lacking the basic morality to care if they “should” or not, but also lacking either the intelligence or the courage to follow through.
As with my “goth” analysis (Although my percentages there need adjusting in a positive manner, admittedly) I find that the majority fall into either 2, 3, 4, or a combination thereof.
I mean, are there people who watch films from a coldly clinical viewpoint, taking no “sides” and feeling nothing for the characters (good or bad)? Sure. A few.
Most people, in my experience, feel emotions from/towards a film and its characters.
So it follows that the vast majority of the people that intentionally sit down in front of ‘Saw 15’ are doing so not because they “like being scared” or out of “admiration”…
They’re doing so because if your life is monotonous and dull, if your senses are dulled by prolonged exposure to things so extreme that you need to keep upping the ante to get the same effect (See “Heroin”, only without the addiction excuse), watching “normal” films just doesn’t do it for them any more.
Of course there are the Psycho/Socio-Paths that watch them for ideas, I assume…but since pure Psychopaths are very rare and pure Sociopaths even more so, I think this percentage is very small.
On a slightly lower level are those(Trust me, I’ve met them, unfortunately) that are secretly (or in some cases, not so secretly) cheering for the lunatic because it gets them off in either a strange sexual way (See “Extreme BDSM”) or because it fills them with a sense of power/vengeance/defiance because (get the tissues out) they’ve had horrible things happen to them and so relish in seeing the same happen to others. Although, as previously stated, the vast majority of these people stop at this point. They’re NOT “dangerous”…I’m not suggesting that at all. Most of them, at least. In order to be dangerous they’d have to be extremely intelligent, somewhat courageous, and/or totally lacking in any sense of morality.
The intelligent part isn’t that difficult. Even the lack of morality isn’t THAT hard to find…
But the courage is.
Again, it’s difficult to find True believers, even in the sickest sh1t.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
5/10/16: In all fairness, if one has been traumatized in some way by the unfair actions of another(s), then to feel anger and bitterness is not only natural, but completely acceptable: You have every right to be angry and bitter at people who have unfairly fcked you over (for unfairly fcking you over). And, speaking as one with major depression (among other things), a person is not “better” or “worse” because of their feelings and moods…since to a large extent, for some people, these things are out of your control.
Where the DISTINCTION comes into play between decent people and scumbags is in what you choose to DO with these (justified or not) feelings and moods. So if you get some sort of vengeful joy out of seeing nasty things happen in movies, that – BY ITSELF – doesn’t mean anything.
It’s what you choose to do with that, as always, that means something.
If you simply indulge those feelings/moods in ways that are purely non-harmful to anyone, I can’t (I don’t think anyone can) rightfully say you’re doing anything “wrong”, or that there is something wrong with YOU because of said indulgences. If you disagree, ask yourself (where applicable) “Why do I WANT to watch two men try to hurt each other?” (MMA, Boxing, Hockey Fights, Etc…) or “Why do I WANT to see the results of a car wreck?”, or a number of other similar questions.
There is a MASSIVE difference between indulging in fictional activities – that were consented to by all involved – that cause NO harm to ANYONE ELSE (Gore movies being just one example)…
And indulging in REAL activities – that were NOT consented to by all involved – that cause REAL harm to one who DID NOT CONSENT to such harm.
THAT is the difference between “harmless cathartic indulgence” (e.g. watching graphic gore movies…works of FICTION) and “harmful, vicious, self-centered indulgence” (taking the step from fantasy to reality in any way harmful to a non-consenting other).
So, in THAT sense…I was wrong. There’s nothing wrong with someone for enjoying pointless gore flicks any more than there is for watching and enjoying pointless agreed-upon violence (boxing, etc)…AS LONG AS such actions remain as such: harmless, FICTIONAL, cathartic indulgence.
The moment they become in any way REAL – cause real harm to another or in any way alter one’s BELIEFS and/or ACTIONS in any sort of real-world sense as opposed to simply one’s cathartic FEELINGS – is the moment they become deplorable and unacceptable.
And, as we see from real events, there are many people that CANNOT make that distinction, and abide by it.
And that is why it is inherently more dangerous to receive catharsis from such things than from, say, inspirational movies, Disney movies, positive-bent movies/music, etc…
One who “snaps” and incorporates cuteness, positivity, etc…into their real lives is a LOT less dangerous than one who snaps and incorporates a desire to see gore, to see people suffer, etc.
And that’s not a MORAL “self-righteous” judgement…it’s a logical statement.
All that being said…it is fair, in my opinion, to state the following as truth: “Enjoying watching gore movies simply for the gore does not make one any less of a person.”
It just HAS TO STOP there…as fantasy.
To paraphrase D. Vinyard: “(Show) a little self-(control) (for Chrissakes).”
Here is my honest appraisal:
To say that Humans do not have Free Will is, to me, a copout. It is a convenient excuse for those that choose, for one reason or another, to act in a manner deemed improper by the majority of society. If a person is completely insane, then yes, perhaps. But the vast majority of people know EXACTLY what they’re doing, and why they’re doing it, even if only on a semi-conscious level.
Most people choose to do things because they want to…out of weakness.
Be that weakness lust, greed, envy, laziness, maliciousness, arrogance, etc.
Personally, I think the notion that “Good” behavior is only done because it’s programmed or learned or “accepted” is false, at least as a general label. Yes, there are some people that do “Good” things because it makes them feel better, to get something back, etc…
But me, personally…I do “Good” things because I believe in them. I’ve done things I’ve found uncomfortable, things that have actually hurt me in some way and in no way, physically, mentally, or in any other way, benefitted me. I did them because I believed they were the correct and proper things to do.
Are MOST people like that? No. I think most people are greedy, selfish, self-centered, and somewhat cruel. But this is a choice, not a condition.
Using sexuality as an example is incorrect, to me. No, we cannot determine what we WANT to do…but, just as in every other area, we CAN determine what we DO do. I couldn’t choose to change my desires, but I could choose to change my actions. In terms of sexuality, that simply makes no sense, so I never would…but I “could”, hypothetically.
I also totally disagree with your view on charity.
I think you’re minimizing the HUGE numbers of people who don’t WANT charity, but require it in desperate times. There’s a huge difference between sending money to help someone from starving to death because they’ve been the victim of a natural disaster and need a one-time aid before they can recover, and walking by a homeless person every day and giving them 100 dollars.
Also, the term “friend” would become completely meaningless if charity was considered a “bad” thing…I help my friends because I believe they deserve it, not because I want something back, or because I feel obligated, or even because it makes me feel good. I have clinical depression, sometimes NOTHING makes me feel good. So I can either be a random scumbag and just do whatever gets me off, or I can show a little self-control and do what I believe in. I’ll go with the second one.
– Puppy >.< Yip!
“It wasn’t much of a fight…I stood like THAT…but not for long.” – Curly Howard
“He’s the Truth, man…” – Shaquille O’Neal
-Puppy >.< Yip!
Contrary to Occultist (and undeserved Cult Figure) Aleister Crowley, whose drug-induced “revelations” have about as much credibility as “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” (Yes, I know about the drawing), Anton LaVey actually tried to put forth an intelligent intellectual argument in his conglomeration of mostly other people’s ideas known as ‘The Satanic Bible’. John Doe, from the film ‘Seven’, would likely take issue with LaVey’s stance that the “Seven Deadly Sins” in fact reflect man’s inherently carnal nature and should be embraced, not avoided. Granted, John Doe was an incredibly sick and disgusting character, but what makes ‘Seven’ so scary is that he is perfectly lucid in his explanations, which are rather more articulate than LaVey’s…e.g…
9/6/12: I’m big enough to admit when I’m wrong…I didn’t really understand Crowley when I wrote this. Although I put no faith in his spiritual/theological arguments, nor do I “oppose” them…they are, at least, genuine. Unlike LaVey. And Crowley, while in my opinion quite flawed and, at times, completely incorrect in his non-spiritual musings, was from what I now understand an extremely intelligent man whose one-line philosophy doesn’t mean what many people think it means. As a wise(r) man once said, “Those things that are easily understood are rather shallow.” Unlike LaVey, Crowley was NOT shallow. Now, onward…
LaVey: Believed it should be embraced in whatever (consensual, legal) way you wanted, including extramarital affairs and relationship infidelity.
Doe: Although he objects based on the morality of the marriage contract with God, he also seems to think it’s wrong to have sex with someone after you’ve promised someone you supposedly Love that you will always be faithful to them.
LaVey: Believed that one should be Proud of their accomplishments and abilities, and that Immortality is achieved by performing great deeds on Earth, and being thus remembered.
Doe: Believed that, as was taught in Medieval Times, Pride is a “Sin” even if you don’t believe in the concept of Sin because becoming too full of oneself often leads you to underestimate others and overestimate yourself, and has caused more amazingly stupid defeats than can be counted on all digits (INCLUDING toes).
LaVey: Believed that it was proper and just to exercise one’s Wrath upon one’s enemies, assuming (supposedly) it was within the constraints of the Law. A bit of a contradiction, since violence is rarely lawful. Then again, the law hasn’t exactly always been in keeping with truth and justice (See “Slavery”).
Doe: Believed that exercising one’s Wrath upon another was a weakness, something only God had the right to do, and would inevitably lead to your own destruction in one form or another.
Winner: Call it a draw…Revenge rarely leads to happiness or closure, but the law itself is a form of revenge against those who do wrong.
LaVey: Believed Envy was a driving force in man trying to achieve one’s goals and obtain things desired.
Doe: Believed that everyone should be content and happy with their place in life, and not want for anything they were not provided with.
Winner: LaVey. From a purely logical standpoint, he makes sense…in moderation.
LaVey: I’m not quite sure how Anton justifies endorsing doing absolutely nothing as part of the basic nature of man. Sad, really, if he believes it is.
Doe: Believed that Sloth (Apathy, laziness) was wrong as a form of omissive destructiveness.
Winner: Doe…I mean, come on.
LaVey: Again, as with Envy, believed Greed motivated people to better themselves. Or, to quote Gordon Gecko – “Greed is Good”. Sounds a bit too Capitalistic.
Doe: Believed that Greed motivated people to do things they knew were wrong simply for monetary gain or other relatively meaningless factors.
Winner: Doe. I’m not a BP fan.
LaVey: Believed that one should indulge one’s appetites as one wished, that it was every person’s right to consume anything they wished (within legal means)
Doe: Believed that it was wrong for people to eat WAY too much food when millions of people are starving to death.
Winner: Doe, although this only applies if the excess food is in fact given TO the people that actually need it. It does no good sitting on store shelves.
After Se7en rounds, the bout goes to Doe, 5 rounds to 1, with one draw. Still a twisted little thing, though.
-Puppy >.< Yip!
– Anton LaVey thanks Ragnar Redbeard, whose “Might Makes Right” philosophy would be applauded by Adolf Hitler, among others. And, of course, no women (until the secondary “thanks”)…because to Anton (although he would never actually come out and say this) women are here on Earth to please men. I also like the acknowledgement of P.T. Barnum (“There’s a fool born every minute”) as an influence on LaVey…it shows from the start what a fraud he is.
7/23/11: Apparently he thanks him a lot, according to those that contend much of his book is plagiarized from ‘Might Is Right’. This philosophy is, of course, abject nonsense, the sort of mindless drivel spouted by the physically and/or mentally strong when they’re at the height of their powers and conveniently forgotten whenever they actually need help from anyone else.
9/7/12: I suppose there are those who espouse this when physically and/or mentally strong, AND who continue to espouse it even when they become physically and/or mentally weak…but I’m pretty sure the ratio of those “true” believers to fraudulent, bullying scumbags is about 1:1000.
10/21/15: For some reason I was thinking about bugs and this naturally came to mind. Bees, ants, and other insects that have a sense of “community”, at least in SOME way, are NOT LaVeyan. Spiders, cockroaches, ticks, mosquitoes…these are the best LaVeyans on the planet: existing to exist, thinking only and always of themselves (each one), producing nothing. Well, spiders are at least good organic vacuum cleaners.
– The introduction, in which Anton is described as dedicating things to “The Devil”, although he by his own definition defines “The Devil” as a Christian concept…and, being a Christian concept, he must see it as ignorant and foolish. So, he’s dedicating his ceremonies to ignorance and stupidity. Brilliant.
7/23/11: This isn’t completely fair, as he is using “The Devil” as a metaphor in an attempt at parody/mockery/shock value/etc…I don’t think he’s doing it very WELL, but he is doing it.
10/21/15: It’s comedy that’s not funny. Simple as that, really.
– “man’s carnal nature will out no matter how much it is purged or scourged by any white light religion.” – Anton LaVey
Really, Anton? Then how do you explain Mother Theresa, amongst others? You didn’t say “Usually”…you said WILL…meaning always. STRIKE.
7/23/11: My response sounds a bit petulant in retrospect, so I’ll expand it…there’s a huge difference between “carnal” and “brutal and selfish”. To use the example of sexual repression, as opposed to the (non-destructive) display of lust in a consenting manner, as THE nature of man and as something “opposed” by white-light religions is simply deceptive. White-light religions do not by definition attempt to “purge”, “scourge”, or really even repress sexuality. Not ALL of them, at least…the generalities are unfounded and the basis for his reaction is therefore false.
9/7/12: “The sensuous Pagan ritual begins…” – Tom Servo. Sorry, I LOVE that one. No offense to Pagans in general meant in any way.
10/21/15: Clarification: No offense to NON-LaVeyan Pagans meant in any way. If you’re LaVeyan, please stop visiting my website.
– “I came to detest the sanctimonious attitude of people toward violence, always saying it’s God’s will.” – Anton LaVey
I never said that. So…you formed a cult. Brilliant.
7/23/11: Here I agree that to explain something horrible by saying it’s *Insert Deity’s Name Here*’s will is insufficient, at least from an intellectual point of view. But I think, again, he’s lumping in EVERY Theist into the same category, which is, again, a false premise.
9/7/12: Let’s be frank: He’s an angsty post-adolescent venting his frustrations.
10/21/15: He’s a showman with nothing to show, a comedian without material.
– “In my case, I found I could conjure up parking places at the last minute in front of theaters, when none should have been there.” – Anton LaVey
So you just blinked the cars out of existence that otherwise
would have been there…did you wiggle your nose or fold your arms
and nod your head quickly?
7/23/11: I still think my response here is amusing and I have nothing to add.
9/7/12: Personally, I always preferred ‘I Dream Of Jeannie’ to ‘Bewitched’…but that’s a whole other (more interesting and worthy of thought) topic.
10/21/15: Of course the reason I preferred ‘I Dream Of Jeannie’ wasn’t really the writing…also, it strikes me that he must have done the nose-wiggle ‘Bewitched’ thing, because the other one would be really hard whilst driving.
– “Satanism is a blatantly selfish, brutal religion.” – The guy that wrote the foreword.
…ummm…aren’t you supposed to PRAISE what you’re forewording?
10/21/15: Personally I think the vast majority of LaVeyans are idiots, lunatics, or (the majority) a$$holes who want to pretend that they have a “philosophy” behind why they’re such an a$$hole when the reason is…they’re an a$$hole.
– “This is the book of our era.” – second foreword guy.
HAHAHAHAAHAHA!!! Oh…ummm…you’re serious. I wrote better sh1t in Junior High.
7/23/11: Actually according to its Precepts, it isn’t supposed to NECESSARILY be a “blatantly selfish” or “brutal” philosophy (No, it’s not a religion). It’s only used in that way by blatantly selfish and/or brutal people. As for the “book of our era” quote…I think Joel Hodgson said it best – “That’s a reach…that’s a reach.”
– “Crucial to the concept of Satanic ritual is an appreciation of its illustrative and inspirational qualities without necessarily regarding it as inflexible reality.”
Translation – It’s good theater! Well…so is Rocky Horror…
7/23/11: Form over function is perfectly fine for a lifestyle or a hobby, but as a personal guiding philosophy it leaves a lot to be desired.
9/7/12: Do not AVOID the Hounds of Hell…do not AVOID the Beasts of Brimstone…do not AVOID the Pup..pies of…Pur..ga…tory…
10/21/15: I’m sorry, I lost interest, where was I?
– “Satan…Although condemned to the most hideous of domains, a Hell totally shunned by the divinity, he embraced such privations as the burden of his intellectual prerogative.”
Ummm…no. Actually Satan/Lucifer/TheDumbAngel was cast out
of Heaven, according to Christian mythology. So unless Anton found some Holy books that say otherwise, he’s using Christian mythology to denounce Christian mythology…which doesn’t quite
work. If Satan (If he exists) was offered a chance to go back to Heaven, he’d say “OK!” and leave all his pathetic “followers” behind.
7/23/11: This part is actually the most convincing/factual of all the quotes thus far…Lucifer WAS, in fact, cast out of Heaven for refusing to obey God’s will (If you believe in such things), and he did start off as a bit of a “tragic hero” before being consumed by his own (justified or not) hatred and bitterness. I still stand by the last part though…he’d leave in a second if he could (Again, if you believe in such things).
9/7/12: To wage a war you know you cannot win can be considered noble. It can also be considered insane. A matter of perspective, I suppose. <=== That’s NOT a snide comment.
10/21/15: Ten bucks says Anton used a Thesaurus for this.
– “The Satanic Bible is a most insidious document.”
No…it would have to be clever to be insidious.
9/7/12: If it’s so insidious, why do you have to SAY that it’s insidious? That’s like one of those cr@ppy 50’s horror film posters with the word “TERRIFYING!” on it.
10/21/15: EXPLOSIVE…A MUST-SEE…
– “As candid and conversational as the Satanic Bible might seem at first glance, it is not a volume to be gently dismissed.”
Sure it is!
7/23/11: Ok, ok…perhaps not “gently dismissed”. It’s better written than that. But dismissed nonetheless.
9/7/12: You are the weakest LaVey. Goodbye.
10/21/15: Well, at least you can take a picture of it.
– “You, the reader, are about to be impaled upon the sharp horns of a Satanic dilemma. If you accept the propositions of this book, you condemn your most cherished sanctuaries to annihilation. In return you will awaken – but only to the most fiery of Hells. Should you reject the argument, you resign yourself to a cancerous disintegration of your previously subconscious sense of identity. Small wonder that the Archfiend’s legacy has won him so many bitter enemies! Whatever your decision, it can be avoided no longer”
WOW! This sounds like it’d make a decent “Choose-Your-Own-Adventure” book…maybe Steve Jackson can re-write it and make it more interesting.
7/23/11: Hmmm…I certainly was a bit bitter, no? Although I was a funny guy…
9/7/12: I was just funny, you know.
12/19/12: You know…just, the way I talk…you know, like a clown…
10/21/15: Get the fck outta here…
10/21/15: Edited for appearance.
“When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought
like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became
a man, I put childish ways behind me.” – Corinthians 13:11
“…I do not know what I may appear to the world; but
to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing
on the sea-shore, and diverting myself by now and
then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell
than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay
all undiscovered before me…” – Sir Isaac Newton
“”A deep man“, he says, “believes that the evil eye can wither, that the heart’s blessing can heal, and that love can overcome all odds.'”
Robert Gould Shaw, quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson (‘Glory’)
-Puppy >.< Yip!
‘Atlas Shrugged’ appears to be saying – Creative people are inherently better than everyone else, even though for the most part, you’re either born creative or not…you can’t “work” on “making” yourself creative. Yes, there’s a certain element of hard work that goes along with producing works of art, but if you have no Creativity to begin with, the likelihood of producing the next great film or novel simply by “trying hard” is virtually nil.
So, what Rand is saying is…if you’re born lucky enough to be creative, even if you did absolutely nothing to deserve (or not deserve) this, you’re better than everyone else, and if they don’t appreciate you, screw ’em, cuz poor people and “non-creatives” are just parasites anyway, living off the inspiration of the “gifted”.
I guess she’s lucky she was (moderately) creative, though…because, much like, say…Woody Allen, another (VERY moderately) creative person, she is so enormously repulsive physically that the only way she (and he) got (get) laid is by being “deep”.
Although I’ll say this for Rand…at least she didn’t target her next partner while raising them.
Come on, though…shave off E.A. Poe’s moustache and I think we’ve unveiled proof of resurrection.
-Puppy >.< Grrr…
6/3/16: Eugenics is bad, m’kay?
FAIR USE: CRITICISM
This clip is a very good display of the dumb arrogance of eugenics.
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited
human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there
is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” – Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein, Agnostic.
I was offered the suggestion that religion of all sorts should be done away with. The rationalization for this is that, if there were no religions, there would therefore be no religious conflict.
This rationalization is simplistic, incomplete, and completely flawed.
The purpose of the fervent Skeptic is to seek Truth.
The seeking of Truth brings one into areas of different views.
Since no Human Being thinks exactly as another, conflict MUST arise when seeking one’s own Truth in the manner of rationalization.
Therefore, if the purpose of doing away with religion is to do away with conflict, then the purpose of X is to do away with conflict.
Therefore, if removing X would remove conflict, it should be removed.
Imagine then, how many things could be factored in for X.
Love, Lust, Passion, Emotion of any kind, Competition(Sports), Differences of any sort between individuals, as differences can produce conflict.
Therefore, the ideal “Rational” world is one where everyone likes the same music, reads the same books, obeys the same laws, has the same values, has the same (lack of) religion, has no emotions, does not compete in any way, does only what is logical…in short, Human Beings as computers.
As a (fictional) wise man once said…
“Computers make excellent and efficient servants. But I have no desire to serve under them.”
-Puppy >.< Grrr…