When it's Satanist vs. Satanist, it begs to question why the ideas are not addressed vs. the person attacked.
What do you think? Are you your ideas?
Obviously the problem with this is the ego mania of people who couldn't give a shit about other people, even their own kind. Sometimes it's easier and more convenient to attack others who may even be half way on the same ideology, because you have no fear of any backlash opinion from mainstream society, once they get a grip on you in the social media circles. In other words, it looks better for some Satanists to attack other Satanists in public forums rather than attacking mainstream religions or the social, religious, and political parasites of society, who drain the system of resources by imagining the government as a charity institution, or badger people over ideological "nit picking". So, people who actually produce something are regarded as undesirable, or even stupid. When in actuality, it is the other way around.
They can't attack typically on the social level, people who practice the same sociological and political follies, even though they may be alienated to a Satanist. This is another thing I don't understand the why's of. But you know what, if you are right, and you KNOW you're right, fuck "understanding", period! So yes, you are your ideas, and your ideas are you. Even though it can be complex. convoluted, and sometimes contradictory.
I plan on exploring this on my radio show tomorrow evening. I'm not so sure that people are their ideas, and how they make the distinction between the sense of self, and the ideas they hold.
In the example I provided, I think it's rather lazy to attack a person vs. the ideas the person is purporting to be a 'good' idea. Take for instance the political arena. Obama put forth a shit ton of ideologies during his campaign, and even more so once he was elected. Now that Mit Romney is running amok on his own campaign, is he attacking Obama or his ideas, in your opinion?
I wanted to add, how this relates to Theory & Practice in Satanism. Wouldn't this be reliant on what a person's individual Satanism constitutes?
Well again, Sin,. I have trouble seperating any one from their ides, regardless of how ill thought out they may be, and most especially, a high profile ideologue such as obama, but certainly not limited to obama. Obama is certainly a living breathing product of his ideas.
First of all, I would not characterize Romney's campaign as "running amok". His campaign is running smoothly and effectively. That is indicated in the amount of money he has raised, as opposed to obama's fund raisng in 2008, which was a record at that time. It seems to me that you are indicating a prejudicial view of obama on the part of Romney. There is no room for prejudice in this debate. I do not believe that is where Romney is coming from. Any one who would vote for someone other than the ideological platform the individual stands for, has simply got rocks in their head, and should not be allowed to vote.
There are extremely clear and distinct differences between where obama and Romney want to take the country. That is all about ideas. That is the battle of ideas taking place. I believe that obama's world view is extremely skewed, case in point, the way he and Mrs. clinton are handling this assassination of the ambassador to Libya, and their consorts. It demonstrates their pathetic ability to deal with these situations, pre emptively, and after the fact.
What I mean by that, is attacking a person's character vs. the ideas they are presenting.
I kind of thought that's where you were going with it, because character is one good reason to attack someone, in a more complicated setting if character is a factor in evaluating the credibility of someone, where so much is at stake. In your example of obama vs. romney, we know that no one in politics, at least no one I know of, is flawless. Politics is not a game for the flawless. But in obama's case, aside from his whacky world view and religious mentoring, major character flaws are abundant, as well as serious potential psychological issues, that tend to be overlooked when someone becomes wealthy, powerful, famous, and messianic.
To me, there is something wrong with an unqualified mass manipulator who plays off the fears, emotions, and lack of knowledge and common sense of his followers. Pathological or chronic lying, by sickness or meticulous design, is a serious character issue, to say the very least. And what that does is it starts a contagion of more of the same, and frankly could be more dangerous in the long run, because of mass media corruption, social deterioration, and a sense of losing one's perspective of what it will take for collective survival, protection, and national soverignty
Now, of course you know as well as i do, that it's more complicated than that, but that's good for starters. Religion has nothing to do with it per se' in my opinion. That is not even an issue here. There is doing, and then there is talking, But there is no doubt in my mind that romney wins the character issue, hands down
That's the thing, its human nature to 'lie' when the lie will get you the results you seek. In the case of convincing the American people that one candidate is better than the other, omitting or stretching the truth is equally a lie. What does lying say about a person's moral character? See: Clinton.
Does it make a person lack credibility? Don't we all then lack credibility? Doesn't it boil down to capability for the job?
I can lie my ass off and be a prolific painter. It doesn't make me any less an artist if I lie. Equally, why not address the ideas rather than the person. So in the case of politicians, see it for what it is and address the issues when they are not followed through.
I can lie my ass off and be a prolific painter. It doesn't make me any less an artist if I lie.
I see where you are going, and in most cases you are actually right. However, in the case of this end of politics it does indeed make a major difference, as I said, with so much at stake. And i think many people grossly under estimate what exactly is at stake here. In the situation of obama, and romney as well, you cannot seperate the lie from the person, becasue the lie is part and parcel of the character issue that comes into play here. Therefore the person (obama) automatically becomes part of the lie, because of his major character flaws in general, and the two become inseperable. Then it becomes the lesser of the two evils. We are not voting for the Pope, here.
I don't see this as an issue of parity or equality of liars. I think obama, in this case, is a reckless liar that will do what he has to do to win, at all costs, and I think he himself does not understand the gravity of his short comings. You have to remember, this guy never had a job or ran anything in his entire life. He lived off his wife's income, while becoming a professional college student. And his education accomplishes nothing, in my opinion, to further his qualifications for the job. In fact, I see that as another obstacle to progress for him. He clearly has no idea of how to utilize government's role in managing a high powered economic system such as the United States. He might make a good prime minister of Nigeria, or something along those lines.
So the ideas are being addressed, as well as the person.
It's like banging your head against the wall. We address the ideas and the men holding them, but I wonder how much detail people really pay attention to.
You're right, we are not voting for Pope but you would think that the presidential election should be treated in the same manner. We are stuck with either candidate for a full term, regardless of the 'winner'... We all lose.