in reply to Re: Re: (OT) The Honest Cherry Bomb
in thread (OT) The Honest Cherry Bomb

jdporter wrote:

The problem is the premise: it works if we all want the same thing. But we don't. We all want different things. So if you want to be nice to someone, don't treat them the way you would want to be treated; treat them the way they want to be treated.

Don't say it Ovid ... don't say it ... don't say it!

Crap, I'm gonna say it. :)

I like this attitude, but I have to confess that I was startled because of the person who first explained this to me: he was a Satanist. He explained that from his religion's viewpoint, "treat others as you want to be treated" was pretty damned (ha!) selfish. The Satanic version of the rule "treat others as they want to be treated" was a matter of being respectful of others. (note that I don't know anything about this religion and am just repeating what he explained to me).

Regardless of the source, I found I was forced to agree. It just goes to show that truth can be found anywhere, if we drop our preconceptions.

Cheers,
Ovid

New address of my CGI Course.
Silence is Evil (feel free to copy and distribute widely - note copyright text)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: (OT) The Honest Cherry Bomb
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on May 28, 2003 at 22:28 UTC

    Funnily enough, that's the quakers' motto: "accept truth, regardless of where it comes from". (Which is something I have always lived after, long before I'd heard of it being the quakers' motto.)

    The essence of corruption is rejecting truth for ulterior motives - and so rejecting it due to it coming from an otherwise corrupt source is no less corrupt than that very source.

    Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]
WAY OT: Satanists
by logan (Curate) on May 29, 2003 at 00:51 UTC
    Over the years, I've been exposed to many people who espoused Satanism. Christians everywhere can rejoice in the knowledge that 98% of those who claim to be Satanists are only trying to freak out the squares (read: their parents). They've never read the works of Anton LaVey or Alistair Crowley, never been to an actual Temple, and picked up all their "knowledge" from the back of a Slayer album. Once the novelty wears off, they tend to abandon their "faith", buy tan Dockers, and join the Kiwanas.

    Of the remaining 2%, 95% are just nuts. They aren't Satanists, they're schizophrenics in need of treatment. These are the dangerous ones. They'd be dangerous no matter what religion they chose.

    The final 0.1% are actual scholars who have done the reading, weighed the arguments, and made a choice. The Church of Satan places a high value on thinking for yourself and takes great pains to reject stupidity and herd behavior in all its forms. To this end, and armed with the knowledge that their faith is deeply misunderstood and often attracts those who are easily led, they publish a Bunco Sheet. Oh yeah, and they favor the Macintosh.

    And just so no one freaks out or starts sending me stuff, I'm not a member. I think the whole thing is a gigantic pile. I had a roommate who was a member for a while, and I found him to be articulate, well-informed, polite, and he always paid his rent on time. I did, however, inform him that if a pit of hellfire appeared in the garage, he'd be responsible for any damage to my car.

    -Logan
    "What do I want? I'm an American. I want more."

[reply]


      How easily can this model be adapted to essentially any ideology?
      98% of those who claim to be whatever are only trying to achieve some sort of social goal. They don't have a deep knowledge of the important works within whatever, never had direct contact with others within whatever, and picked up all their "knowledge" from pop culture sources. Once the novelty wears off, they tend to abandon their "faith" and become relatively harmless. Of the remaining 2%, 95% are just nuts. They aren't whatevers, they're schizophrenics in need of treatment. These are the dangerous ones. They'd be dangerous no matter whatever they chose. The final 0.1% are actual scholars who have done the reading, weighed the arguments, and made a choice.
      I mean, roughly the same schema could apply to lots of things (although perhaps the schizophrenia is pushing it a bit in some cases, such as P(erl|ython|arrot) Advocacy... ;) )

      Oh yeah, and they favor the Macintosh.
      I KNEW IT!
      -----------------------
      You are what you think.
[reply]

        I mean, roughly the same schema could apply to lots of things

        indeed. There is such a scheme already in place called Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crap"
        Coletti's Corollary: Sturgeon's law is recursive.

        nuf evah,
        jynx

[reply]

In Section Meditations