|
Post by sin on Feb 19, 2009 10:26:18 GMT -6
VS, I'm still reading it in my spare time. I reached the section where you address sexuality and I have a question for you. You purposely post a disclaimer about cultists indulging in porn, provided the subject content does not contain children - did you do this to cover your ass, or do you strongly believe in this? I ask, because this falls in line with conforming to social norms and recognizing child pornography as a taboo. While I myself find no arousal from children - I recognize that some do. So, what does this say to the cultists? That on one hand you are saying 'you are free, when you awaken' but on the other you are saying 'but, you are still bound to the laws of society' ? Can you clarify your ideologies in that regard? [you know me, I poke and prod - this just struck me as odd ]
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Feb 19, 2009 11:56:45 GMT -6
good question. i suppose there's always the influence of outside opinion. keeping in mind one's audience, creates a self-consciousness which invariably creeps into a writer's work.
however, in this instance child pornography is something i really felt should be explicitly mentioned. why is it necessary to exclude children from direct sexual activity? because i believe it is damaging. an adult woman or man who doesn't consent to sex usually has some recourse... after the fact if not during. however, a child has practically no protection during or after any kind of rape or sexual coercion. studies have shown that sexually abused children, even if they do not consciously remember it, are deeply and negatively affected long after the incident.
causing that kind of psychological trauma (or even the risk of such) is not only personally sickening to me, but totally irresponsible from an "occult scientist" perspective. i find child pornography unethical from a CoC standpoint. we may not believe in good versus evil, but i think a stand must be taken, in certain cases, regarding right versus wrong.
i didn't want to specify in Liber A:O, but i believe that anyone under the age of 15 should not be a participant in any sexual act.
another good question. let me put a question to the whole forum here... does absolute freedom imply or necessitate absolute responsibility?
Venger As'Nas Satanis Cult of Cthulhu High Priest
|
|
|
Post by sin on Feb 19, 2009 14:12:04 GMT -6
I see, thank you for the clarification.
While I will agree with you, that there is some deep-seeded psychological trauma in cases of child molestation and/or rape, it does not happen in all cases.
Having been a sexually active teen myself, as well as dated older men - I assure you, I was not seen nor treated like a child. I often posed for private viewing photography - which would have been considered child-pornography. If for instance my lovers were COC cultists, you would be telling them that it's unethical to view my pictures? It would be unethical to have sex with me; despite my aggressive attitude towards sex? (I've often been considered a predator in my day).
Is that what you are saying? Or only 'special' circumstances would the an exception to the rule, or no exceptions at all?
I'm pushing this issue, because I feel your perspective on the issue of child pornography is too narrow.
Is it ethical to 'prey' on children? Isn't that up to each of us to decide?
Is it ethical to accept sex from a minor? Isn't that up to each of us to decide?
While I agree that the COC should take a stance, I believe the stance it has taken is that of conformity and less of individuality, an awakened consciousness and/or of sovereign attitude. In fact, it seems to be in contradiction with it's theologies.
Now, don't get me wrong - by no means am I advocating child rape, or exploitation - I'm approaching this from a philosophical stance.
**I would also like to add, that I have personal experience with the issue of child rape/molestation - but never have I been a victim. I don't have any deep-seeded psychological issues with sex, men or self-image for that matter (obviously).
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Feb 19, 2009 15:54:17 GMT -6
that's true, not in all cases, but i think enough child molestation/rape is on the psychological trauma side for me to draw a line in the sand.
while i suppose one could hypothetically argue a case for special circumstances, it's a moot point anyway. not only the law, but society as a whole would never accept an adult having sex with a 14 year old boy or girl.
well, the vast majority probably feel like my perspective is too wide... i'm fine with porn which includes depictions of rape, snuff, bestiality, necrophilia, scat, homosexuality, S&M, incest, and practically anything else you can think of... some of these subjects are banned in several countries.
would it be irresponsible of me to just say, "whatever goes"? i don't know... maybe. i would like to think that even the most radical anarchist, nihilist, or libertarian would be able to accept some small regulation or authoritarian concession concerning human behavior.
i'm not sure. would you consider it unethical to torture a child? if something is considered "wrong" by you or others, would that stop you? should there be no barriers at all between how we live and what our neighbors can expect from us?
i consider it perfectly ethical to accept sex from a minor, but not a child. if a 13 year old child or an adult can't wait a couple years, then where are we as a society? or as a tribe? have you thought about the ramifications of legalizing child pornography... even in special circumstances? a complete deregulation might have disastrous effects. would any child be safe?
would a conformist broadcast lesbian twins peeing on each other on national TV every Saturday night? if so, then maybe i'm a conformist...
in my view, one has to take a somewhat rational and logical stance. i'm also against animal cruelty. that might infringe on someone's unrestricted freedom, but i think that's ok. i'm not afraid to draw a line in the sand and say to people, "we'll give you 90% of what you want... anything and everything, but 10% is out of bounds and there are repercussions for those who go too far."
if this were truly the law of the jungle, then i don't think that's asking too much. anyone else have a thought on these subjects? i want to hear your opinions.
VS
|
|
|
Post by sin on Feb 20, 2009 10:19:16 GMT -6
[/b][/color][/quote] I'm willing to bet that 10% will be exercised regularly, even if in secret - which causes self-applied delusions, and false realities of freedom - I strongly feel that this contradicts the COC Mission Statement. That's just my viewpoint, but I also understand yours.
|
|
|
Post by jmsn72 on Feb 21, 2009 4:48:16 GMT -6
I think a stance should be considered and taken on such matters.For the most part I am in agreement that child pornography or what we may term statutory rape should be placed off limits.Though your stance is more liberal than mine (i refuse to partake in sex even with a teen who is at the age of 17) ,still I think a line needs be drawn.This doesn't mean this has to become totalitarian,just somethings need to be restricted.
However you did mention the value of forbidden sex and taking a stance against such act as a cult makes it forbidden.Which means someone will be obliged to do it and possibly do so to get the most energy releasing orgasm they can.What is more dirty than raping another human being or preying on a child.Personally such act are vile to the point where I'd consider accelerating the gears leading to the demise of those who partakes in such acts , but by not condoning it ,it has been made taboo right?If it's taboo,some individual cultist will try it thinking its dirty and will lead to better sex on their own behalf.
Therein lies the problem with leaving it to an individual stance. Someone will get the wrong idea and know not where to draw the line.Paper trail will lead it all the way back here and screw everything up.There are some things that need be conformed to only because in those cases it is more productive to do so.Conforming to the current laws which are against child porn and sex with minors/children is one of those things.
|
|
|
Post by brideofcthulhu on Feb 21, 2009 9:20:39 GMT -6
I concur with Venger and jmsn72 that this is a line that needs to be drawn.
|
|
|
Post by apologist1 on Feb 23, 2009 1:30:21 GMT -6
[/b][/color][/quote] Come on! You write poetry about it. What people are running up against here - amazingly it appears for the first time! - is that some things just feel "wrong." Sure it's easy to rattle on about antinomianism and amorality when talking about liberal vs. conservative morality but child rape is flat out fucking wrong. I wonder why do you think that? Certainly your moral statements - "there is no morality" - can't support your position here. Could it be that decent, ethical, gentlemanly behaviour isn't so bad afterall?
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Feb 23, 2009 6:30:14 GMT -6
not with children, hoss. the whole point of the discussion is the age cut-off. didn't you hear me? and again (not sure why i have to keep reminding people about it), literature or art is one thing. proposing or arguing to do something in real life is another. jeez!
and did you finally take your meds, apologist? why so hyper-active suddenly? not sure i like it.
VS
|
|
|
Post by sin on Feb 23, 2009 9:06:35 GMT -6
I think a stance should be considered and taken on such matters.For the most part I am in agreement that child pornography or what we may term statutory rape should be placed off limits.Though your stance is more liberal than mine (i refuse to partake in sex even with a teen who is at the age of 17) ,still I think a line needs be drawn.This doesn't mean this has to become totalitarian,just somethings need to be restricted. However you did mention the value of forbidden sex and taking a stance against such act as a cult makes it forbidden.Which means someone will be obliged to do it and possibly do so to get the most energy releasing orgasm they can.What is more dirty than raping another human being or preying on a child.Personally such act are vile to the point where I'd consider accelerating the gears leading to the demise of those who partakes in such acts , but by not condoning it ,it has been made taboo right?If it's taboo,some individual cultist will try it thinking its dirty and will lead to better sex on their own behalf. Therein lies the problem with leaving it to an individual stance. Someone will get the wrong idea and know not where to draw the line.Paper trail will lead it all the way back here and screw everything up.There are some things that need be conformed to only because in those cases it is more productive to do so.Conforming to the current laws which are against child porn and sex with minors/children is one of those things. So that goes back to my original question - is it to cover your ass? I mean, common sense would serve that as a 'registered' non-profit organization - you shouldn't promote illegal activity, you will be held accountable. From a philosophical stand-point, you will never be free. You will always be 'part' of societal enslavement; in essence - asleep. How can Chthulhu Awaken in this regard?
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Feb 23, 2009 11:14:09 GMT -6
no. if covering my ass was my intent, then Liber A:O is a gigantic failure on many fronts.
the only place i could ever be totally free is in my own mind... freedom of consciousness. but aside from that realm, no. there is no freedom because every action has consequences. even the Old Ones have barriers.
how indeed?
Venger As'Nas Satanis Cult of Cthulhu High Priest
|
|
|
Post by jmsn72 on Feb 23, 2009 13:42:55 GMT -6
From a philosophical stand-point, you will never be free. You will always be 'part' of societal enslavement; in essence - asleep. How can Chthulhu Awaken in this regard? I could be wrong.Forgive me for deriving the wrong inference. But saying forget all laws, going to rape some kids is gonna help us awaken? There need to be rules.There are rules to awakening,its not an expressionist free for all!There are rules like questioning ones own actions,maintaining self awareness and doing away the the life draining negativity are there not?What makes you think unrestricted sex with minors will in anyway benefit your consciousness or the consciousness of the child in question? Does two consenting adults who both derive pleasure from the act go out of the window?I don't see how scaring a minor's mental state will benefit anyone energy wise.There's alot of peers their own age who can help do that,last anyone needs is an adult in that kid's bed! Awakening was never about running free and doing whatever you want in this world literally at everything else's expense last i checked but I may be wrong and confused.
|
|
|
Post by sin on Feb 23, 2009 14:02:13 GMT -6
From a philosophical stand-point, you will never be free. You will always be 'part' of societal enslavement; in essence - asleep. How can Chthulhu Awaken in this regard? I could be wrong.Forgive me for deriving the wrong inference. But saying forget all laws, going to rape some kids is gonna help us awaken? There need to be rules.There are rules to awakening,its not an expressionist free for all!There are rules like questioning ones own actions,maintaining self awareness and doing away the the life draining negativity are there not?What makes you think unrestricted sex with minors will in anyway benefit your consciousness or the consciousness of the child in question? Does two consenting adults who both derive pleasure from the act go out of the window?I don't see how scaring a minor's mental state will benefit anyone energy wise.There's alot of peers their own age who can help do that,last anyone needs is an adult in that kid's bed! Awakening was never about running free and doing whatever you want in this world literally at everything else's expense last i checked but I may be wrong and confused. No, I'm not saying to go ahead and rape some kids - and be awake. I'm saying why do we need other adults to police our behavior and why are we conforming to societal norms. Who made this so? The weak. Our weak ancestors gave up more liberty for security, now look at us. Born into servitude and slavery - born to answer to someone. No wonder our minds go into remission, and slumber. No wonder the Old Ones are like 'fuck this, wake me when it's over.'
|
|
|
Post by jmsn72 on Feb 23, 2009 14:15:22 GMT -6
Granted,I can understand what you mean.In a good situation,it'd make sense to believe than an adult browsing this site would already know by common sense not to do that nonsense so it should not have to be spoken.Left to their own discretion.I see perfectly where you are going now and do agree to some extent.Most of us are adults of sound judgment,its already understood if you mess up like that consequences will be bad.
I can understand your disgust to societal norms as well,I have my own bone to pick with them.However,do you not see how some rules need to be established.Obviously free for all societies did not work and obviously most adults are not nearly as intelligent or capable of sound judgment not to do some fucked up shit unless someone says "law says don't do it" Much as I loath these norms,without some laws imposed by society,children and women (you included) would be nothing more than sex toys for a bunch of haggard ravenous fools who will fuck you and then use a tree branch or whatever is lying around when they can't any longer.At least,thats how it would be in absolute anarchy.In my opinion there are some norms that are necessary to protect the quality of life for all citizens...I don't like the system any more than you but I can see value in some things that are established.Such things may I call universal laws?
I think they should be upheld anywhere and everywhere because there are more idiots than adults of sound judgment out there.But I digress heavily from the topic into the issue of societal rules.
I get what you mean about cultists decided for themselves.Its just you cant think all of em are gonna be of sound mind.Some people won't walk unless it says don't run.Some idiot cultist wont refrain from touching kids unless we say don't do it.Is that our responsibility?Depends on how you see it.
|
|
|
Post by sin on Feb 24, 2009 8:34:23 GMT -6
Granted,I can understand what you mean.In a good situation,it'd make sense to believe than an adult browsing this site would already know by common sense not to do that nonsense so it should not have to be spoken.Left to their own discretion.I see perfectly where you are going now and do agree to some extent.Most of us are adults of sound judgment,its already understood if you mess up like that consequences will be bad. I can understand your disgust to societal norms as well,I have my own bone to pick with them.However,do you not see how some rules need to be established.Obviously free for all societies did not work and obviously most adults are not nearly as intelligent or capable of sound judgment not to do some fucked up shit unless someone says "law says don't do it" Much as I loath these norms,without some laws imposed by society,children and women (you included) would be nothing more than sex toys for a bunch of haggard ravenous fools who will fuck you and then use a tree branch or whatever is lying around when they can't any longer.At least,thats how it would be in absolute anarchy.In my opinion there are some norms that are necessary to protect the quality of life for all citizens...I don't like the system any more than you but I can see value in some things that are established.Such things may I call universal laws? I think they should be upheld anywhere and everywhere because there are more idiots than adults of sound judgment out there.But I digress heavily from the topic into the issue of societal rules. I get what you mean about cultists decided for themselves.Its just you cant think all of em are gonna be of sound mind.Some people won't walk unless it says don't run.Some idiot cultist wont refrain from touching kids unless we say don't do it.Is that our responsibility?Depends on how you see it. In essence, we are pinned because we suffer defunct humans - who are not willing to self examine. We 'need' these laws to keep us in line, because it's an admission that we are incapable of policing our own behavior. I am beyond disgust in that regard.
|
|
|
Post by amble on Mar 11, 2009 10:07:21 GMT -6
I may be way out of line by even suggesting this, buut i'm fairly sure cthulhu wouldn't give a second thought to someone raping a child. Surely the idea that there are no rules whatsoever is the point. Everything is fine as long as you are willing to take the concequences. I'm not saying i would rape a child, kill a dog, hold up a bank, shoot a person in the face or cave in someones skull with a blunt object, but surely it is up to the individual to decide for themselves. Saying "we do not accept this" is ok, but think about it. If someone chooses to do something, and you tell them that is not acceptable, you are taking away their freedom to do as they wish. I myself would use the rule that you are free do do what you wish, as long as your actions don't infringe on the freedoms of another. Which rules out murder too. But we have all here, at one time or another, fantasised about killing someone. Either everything is acceptable, or nothing is acceptable.
In many ways i think that this whole issue is the last taboo. I agree that it shouldn't even be considered by a right thinking mind. But we are only debating, so it's fine.
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Mar 11, 2009 11:13:33 GMT -6
isn't that the kind of dualist thinking we're trying to avoid?
i understand where you're coming from, but i'm trying to see things from a larger perspective. say that our current government has been replaced by a Lovecraftian theocracy of our design. we need laws to keep some kind of order, right?
even on a smaller scale, say we are getting a lot of media attention... do you think advocating the decriminalization of child pornography (let alone child rape), will...
a. be OK with the majority of people.
b. not be OK with the majority of people.
c. doesn't matter what people think because this is something the CoC just shouldn't be a part of. [/b]
|
|
|
Post by sin on Mar 11, 2009 11:32:25 GMT -6
isn't that the kind of dualist thinking we're trying to avoid?
i understand where you're coming from, but i'm trying to see things from a larger perspective. say that our current government has been replaced by a Lovecraftian theocracy of our design. we need laws to keep some kind of order, right?
even on a smaller scale, say we are getting a lot of media attention... do you think advocating the decriminalization of child pornography (let alone child rape), will... a. be OK with the majority of people.
b. not be OK with the majority of people.
c. doesn't matter what people think because this is something the CoC just shouldn't be a part of.[/b] [/quote] So again, it's about societal norms and being 'accepted' by societies standards, as well as cover the proverbial COC ass. While I understand it, it doesn't sit well with me. Cultists are free to interpret and practice as they please but as members are required to conform to this way of thinking? If we reject it, we are somehow holding a narrow perspective? See, to me - your perspective is not wide enough. If you want to provoke people to awaken from false realities - the falsehood is that we, are designing our own prisons. We can never fully awaken, or evolve for that matter - in this mindset. Why address it at all? Seems to me, that you are implanting your own personal morality into the theology. I could be wrong in this regard, by all means - elaborate. If I'm asking challenging questions VS, it's because of my blatant disgust of 'control' hidden in metaphor.
|
|
|
Post by I AM the Way on Mar 11, 2009 13:01:05 GMT -6
yeah, i can sort of agree with you on the whole "covering the CoC's ass" idea, but it definitely goes deeper than that. i don't think it's unreasonable to have a code of conduct; we have official Oaths after all. nor should the Cult be so open to interpretation that members can freely promote the genocide of a particular ethnicity.
perhaps in the mind, one can survive without rules... but in the everyday material world? arbitrary or anti-individualist control systems are bad and i agree that the CoC must stay away from such. however, there are many different kinds of prison. believing that lawless flesh is the equivalent of a higher state of consciousness might also be considered a prison of sorts.
Venger As'Nas Satanis Cult of Cthulhu High Priest
|
|
|
Post by jmsn72 on Mar 11, 2009 13:06:17 GMT -6
Why address it at all? Seems to me, that you are implanting your own personal morality into the theology. I could be wrong in this regard, by all means - elaborate. Technically the theology was created and founded by him.By all means he should have every right to do so.Many of us will undoubtedly dispute the acceptable/non-acceptable thing but no philosophy or theological creation can be completely divorced from the human morality of it's founder. It isn't a matter in this case of what Cthulhu want or whether Cthulhu gives a hoot about what humans do,a cult to some degree needs to strive for members of a higher quality and caliber. No Satanic group is gonna just let a pill popping alcoholic pedophile who is a gang banger in.So why not weed out such people as rapists and pedophiles?Sure people need be free but as a cult we need to establish our selves as elite in some manner or a cut above the others right?Since we can not know who does what on their free time or weed them out like that,at least we know due to that moral compass it will keep the lower and more degenerate tier of humanity out. Once again,I have no objection to him having addressed that.It's something he founded,why should he not express these ideas if it is his?His blood sweat and time went into creating this cult,establishing it as a religion and writing the texts.
|
|
|
Post by sin on Mar 12, 2009 7:31:30 GMT -6
yeah, i can sort of agree with you on the whole "covering the CoC's ass" idea, but it definitely goes deeper than that. Ok then, and I see that it does. Is the reasoning behind it a form of control? I mean, coding conduct suggests that you have expectations of cult members in terms of how they behave. In philosophical terms, support of chaos magic would seem to contradict the social behavior you have codified. Out of chaos, comes organization - and I believe that the quality of human being that would be attracted to the COC wouldn't need to make an 'oath' to swear his/her loyalty because by being loyal to the COC you are being loyal to yourself - provided your intentions are pure and in line with the COC mission statement. and if they do? They would be ejected from the COC? While you and I may believe that racism, and genocide are logical fallacies - are all cult members expected to conform to our thought processes? Would genocide in literature and artistic expression be outlawed as well? Do you see where I'm going with this? We all take steps towards our own evolution, awakening - and while you may be the mad conductor - it may not work out as you planned. Your expectations may not be met - and at the very least you should prepare yourself. I ask these questions, in lieu of that preparedness. Surviving without 'rules' and expecting everyone to obey the 'rules' are two different concepts all together. You are specifically addressing a social taboo with regards to child pornography. You are taking a political and social stance on this issue - and if one is going to take a serious look at your theology, this screams contradiction to me. Simply stating that you do not advocate illegal activity, but understand why cult members may have a need to indulge in it - is one thing. Inserting your moral principles into a 'design for all' is another. We are all rule-breakers in one form or another - does that mean because we bend or break these rules, we are breaking an oath to ourselves, to you? There are, I do agree with that - but the prisons we spend the most time in, are those we build for ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by sin on Mar 12, 2009 7:43:15 GMT -6
Not necessarily, it's a fusion of knowledge acquired from other theologies, as well as his own.
Sure they can. We examine these things, and we either reject or adhere to it - it's just that simple. Just because we identify with 'some' portions of it, that's pretty much what we do - we identify. To change your whole life around, to follow it blindly is absurd. I can be 'inspired' by his own personal theologies, but that does not mean I intend to mimic it - but put another brick in the wall of my own design.
Certainly, and a better quality would 'know' and not need to be told how to behave or make some pact - which can be broken at any time.
Right, because that's what the COC is, just another 'Satanic Organization' that follows the same age-old sociology and dogmatic nonsense of other Satanic Organizations - right? Surely not! The COC can be widely different, unique, alien, strange - and survive. Where other 'Satanic Organizations' crash and burn after a few years - because of this very premise.
That's a key phrase there 'establish ourselves' - think about that a little deeper.
Really? It will. Because people are honest and forth-coming? I disagree. A person can look you dead in the eyes, make a 'pact' and appear to be the most exemplary of members - and be raping and eating children in their basement. These things are meaningless, because we want what we want. If such a member had a 'desire' a deep want or need to be part of the COC - they will, whether we approve of their weekend activities or not. Do we intend to create a team of brown-coats to peep in their basement windows?
That's fine, this is your personal opinion and I do not object to you holding it - but I am a critical thinker - and I have to hold to my own.
|
|
|
Post by amble on Mar 12, 2009 11:37:08 GMT -6
We all understand that drawing a line somewhere sets out the boundaries that you are willing to tolerate. The reasoning for this is quite obvious. You have a certain stance on an issue and you wish to make it clear that you disagree with it. But, as has already been said, your lines are not our lines. It didn't even occur to me on reading that you had specifically spoken against this issue. It's not even something we need to discuss. I'm fairly sure that we would all agree that it is not only "wrong", but that it is objectionable even to think about.
In both books there are a lot of things you haven't spoken against. You haven't specifically stated that we should not inject heroin into into small children. This is because you didn't have to. We without even considering it would either not even think of it as an available option, or we would find it just as objectionable as having sex with a child were we to think of it. We have our own moral boundaries, and most of them happen to correlate with each other. I understand that you are merely setting certain things out as allowable and forbidden. But it just seems odd that you have to mention it at all. But because you have mentioned it you have put in a control. We do not need a control. There are those that will need to be told what is acceptable and what is not.
I don't think that people would suddenly en masse degenerate into screaming hollering apes eager to smash and rape everyone and everything in a society where we were free to do as we please. I think that there would be a few, like there always are in any society. But they would tire themselves out and die off fairly quickly when they realise that ultimate freedom comes with ultimate responsibility. Being told we can't do something takes away the freedom. It doesn't mean we're going to do it, but it means that we have the choice, and we choose not to use that choice. It puts the power in our hands, instead of the hands of someone else, an outside force that is not us. If you believe in people taking charge of their lives and living independently and intelligently, creating our own path and forging our own futures then surely it makes more sense to give that person as much freedom as possible so that they are complete and whole in themselves. If they fuck it up then, there is no one else to blame.
|
|
|
Post by sin on Mar 12, 2009 12:16:23 GMT -6
We all understand that drawing a line somewhere sets out the boundaries that you are willing to tolerate. The reasoning for this is quite obvious. You have a certain stance on an issue and you wish to make it clear that you disagree with it. And the issue is that it seems to me like a contradiction in terms to codify behavior. And vice versa - your lines are not mine. That's individualism, the rule that attempts to cover all - can not. How could it not occur to you? It's been the basis of this entire discussion? Yet, here we are discussing it. It's quite human to rationalize ideas and those that don't stop to examine these ideas - are asleep. They have no need, no desire to perform mental masturbation - because it's an automation. "Venger says it's so - so it is so.". Like I said, I myself am not stimulated by looking at naked children - in fact, I can't even understand it. When I look at my own son, I see a child, not a sex object but that's me. Obviously, people have their fetishes. Even if just looking at the pictures is the only way to be aroused - it's the only way. This is how fetishes become fetishes and not fads or preferences. Taking pictures of nude children is illegal, and by stating that the COC does not advocate illegal activity it pretty much covers it. However; VS was compelled in AO to take it a step further - to make it known, that he does not condone it, therefore the COC does not condone it. So, any cultist jacking off to young pre-adult Britney Spears pictures - you are detestable creatures and should be expelled! I have spoken out against what I find disagreeable. It's not the specific issue of child pornography but rather the point that it was touched on specifically in this work. I'm sorry, can you please quote and cite the chapter where VS makes this explicit statement or are you generalizing. If you are, I think you have missed my point. I believe you have misunderstood my intent. It's clearly not about what is allowable and forbidden - it is codifying specific behavior. We will all have our own internal moral compass to follow, and that is the ONLY compass that should be followed. Really? Is it odd to question control hidden in metaphor? Is it odd to question behavioral conditioning? Is it odd to take a serious examination of the COC theology, and what that means to each of us? Is it odd to examine and decide for ourselves? In all honesty, seeing that you have said it's not worth discussing - I don't see why you felt compelled to discuss it? My inquiry was for VS, because he wrote it. My questions are posed to him, to understand his reasoning behind it rather than jumping to my own conclusions. How odd indeed. Because I've mentioned it, it's brought to light which is not the same thing as inserting control. I agree, I don't need to be told what is acceptable and what is not. I follow my own moral compass. If I saw a picture of Britney Spears at age 14, nude - I'd say 'That's hot' not, Oh my look away! It's child pornography! ' This is a theoretical example, but I believe it makes my point. Agreed. You and I are on the same page here. I was speaking to an associate of mine about Anarchy. People assume that Anarchy=violence. Which is not always the case. A select few will loot and cause chaos but how is that any different than the 'select few' who murder and rape with laws in place? Out of chaos, comes order. With no 'authority' in place, people manage themselves. They take it one issue at a time. If there is no police force to manage traffic control - naturally the pile up would be a problem. How do we manage with no one to tell us what to do? Leaders lead, and those who aspire to be as great will follow. Yes, it limits our choices. Who the hell enjoys living under an authoritarian? Again, it's an admission that we are not capable of managing ourselves, therefore we need to be managed. Precisely. If there is no 'law' in place to tell them it is wrong, it doesn't matter much - they will follow their own moral compass. When laws are in place to limit freedom- there is rebellion against it. Some people break the law, simply to break the law. A proverbial shaking of the fist that says 'Oh no you don't!'. Don't we all do that when we speed? We break these laws in place to control us every day - and anyone who says they obey every law, at all times - must be content being a slave. Nietzsche spoke in-depth about slave-morality, it serves it's purpose - and eventually it sparks rebellion. If there is no need to rebel, and we have all of the freedom we are entitled to, we make better decisions for our own lives. The mentally defunct? Will be defunct whether there is law or no law.
|
|
|
Post by Xor'Nefthrahm on Mar 12, 2009 12:40:46 GMT -6
I think just saying the COC doesnt support illegal activity aught to cover it all. That way it's not saying it will condem you if you operate outside the law, it just wont support your activities or recognize it as official cult activity. We can keep it simple, a sort of catch-all to cover our organization's ass. Someone says "did you know that so and so did this or that? How do you feel?" Simply reply "The Cult doesnt support such activity." So we're not telling the person that they are wrong, That way you are not comming out and shooting down someone's choice, or limiting it, just saying they acted on their own. The laws change and varry from place to place anyway. And IF the government ever does collapes as we know it, im sure NEW laws will come about anyway. We should just leave it at that instead of arguing what we do or do not condone. Sorry if I'm not very articulate and i'm not getting my point acrost very clearly.
|
|
|
Post by sin on Mar 12, 2009 12:43:19 GMT -6
I think just saying the COC doesnt support illegal activity aught to cover it all. That way it's not saying it will condem you if you operate outside the law, it just wont support your activities or recognize it as official cult activity. We can keep it simple, a sort of catch-all to cover our organization's ass. Someone says "did you know that so and so did this or that? How do you feel?" Simply reply "The Cult doesnt support such activity." So we're not telling the person that they are wrong, That way you are not comming out and shooting down someone's choice, or limiting it, just saying they acted on their own. The laws change and varry from place to place anyway. And IF the government ever does collapes as we know it, im sure NEW laws will come about anyway. We should just leave it at that instead of arguing what we do or do not condone. Sorry if I'm not very articulate and i'm not getting my point acrost very clearly. Nah, short and to the point. I agree with this stance, and I believe it supports my own ideologies on the subject. Brava.
|
|
|
Post by Xor'Nefthrahm on Mar 12, 2009 12:43:50 GMT -6
You haven't specifically stated that we should not inject heroin into into small children. This is because you didn't have to. Let me see if I understand.. you are basicly saying we dont have to say we are against something if common sense says not to do it?
|
|
|
Post by Xor'Nefthrahm on Mar 12, 2009 13:09:49 GMT -6
I don't think that people would suddenly en masse degenerate into screaming hollering apes eager to smash and rape everyone and everything in a society where we were free to do as we please. Some people tend to have a conscience that makes them treat others how they want to be treated, that would prevent alot of such activity. But there are always some out there that only behaves because fear of breaking the law, or should I saw the consequences of breaking the law. I will admit that I fall under a bit of both catagories. I AM curious about the taste of human flesh, and would resort to cannibalism instead of dying from starvation. Maybe I'm a degenerate psycho for thinking such things, but I'm being honest. The only this preventing me from acting out is A: The law, and B: I have a code of honor, eye for an eye. So I would devour any rival tribesman that were my enemy, just as some of my ancestors, the northern plains dwelling Native Americans known as the Blackfeet, did before laws came against it. If they thought someone was brave, they would definatly eat their heart, in their mind, EATING that person's spirit. In fact, did you know that there is a psych defense for people that contain an Algonquin-speaking tribe in their blood? Windigo Psychosis.. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendigo maybe it's just in my DNA to have such cravings? But as I was saying, with no laws, I wouldn't just go out and eat people, just those who wronged me. So I THINK I know what you mean, and think in most cases you would be right.
|
|
|
Post by sin on Mar 12, 2009 13:17:14 GMT -6
I AM curious about the taste of human flesh, and would resort to cannibalism instead of dying from starvation. Maybe I'm a degenerate psycho for thinking such things, but I'm being honest. Highly subjective. I myself, would join you at the dinner table. There are tribes alive today, that cannibalize their family members as a way to consume their knowledge and experience. Would you really want to absorb your enemies knowledge and experience? I mean, if he's dead - chances are he's weaker and lacks the ability to survive warfare, and it's not an art form for him. What if it makes you drop down an IQ or become weak? *lol* ( a little humor there) And by your own moral compass, that would be justified - despite what your neighbor's moral compass might read. What of the mythologies of the Wendigo? The ravenous behavior of those who consume flesh? I'd like to test that theory :-)
|
|
|
Post by Xor'Nefthrahm on Mar 12, 2009 13:34:27 GMT -6
I AM curious about the taste of human flesh, and would resort to cannibalism instead of dying from starvation. Maybe I'm a degenerate psycho for thinking such things, but I'm being honest. Highly subjective. I myself, would join you at the dinner table. There are tribes alive today, that cannibalize their family members as a way to consume their knowledge and experience. Would you really want to absorb your enemies knowledge and experience? I mean, if he's dead - chances are he's weaker and lacks the ability to survive warfare, and it's not an art form for him. What if it makes you drop down an IQ or become weak? *lol* ( a little humor there) And by your own moral compass, that would be justified - despite what your neighbor's moral compass might read. What of the mythologies of the Wendigo? The ravenous behavior of those who consume flesh? I'd like to test that theory :-) After, for example, tigers or bears eat a human, they are known to get a taste for it, and want it all the time. They become man eaters. We must taste pretty good if thats the case. I imagine it is the same thing with people who have eaten manflesh.
|
|