Let's talk about Satan

[sprinkles]

She is right for the most part but seems to be ignoring that if too many walls are are damaged or the foundation is cracked the integrity of the building becomes suspect. Eventually a strong wind may just knock it down.

I disagree.

A system consists of many individual points to be weighed on independent merit. Some parts can be true, some false.

The idea that you have to assume that the entire system is good to find a contradiction in it is patently false and I reject it.

Just like with any theory, story, or hypothesis, you do not accept that any of it is good out of hand without examining all its points. You also do not throw out the rest because of one point being wrong. It is possible for it to be ok save for that one point. It's possible that it only gets one point right and is wrong on the rest.

This should be blindingly apparent and self evident in my opinion.

Edit:
Moreover, two things that are entirely false can still contradict each other by inference, and in fact contradiction has nothing to do with truth - it has to do with two points conflicting with each other. You only need to infer the conflict. You do not need to see which one is true, or even that either are true.

 

[CogentPursuit]

I disagree.

A system consists of many individual points to be weighed on independent merit. Some parts can be true, some false.

The idea that you have to assume that the entire system is good to find a contradiction in it is patently false and I reject it.

Just like with any theory, story, or hypothesis, you do not accept that any of it is good out of hand without examining all its points. You also do not throw out the rest because of one point being wrong. It is possible for it to be ok save for that one point. It's possible that it only gets one point right and is wrong on the rest.

This should be blindingly apparent and self evident in my opinion.

I don't see anything different between my analogy and your explanation. Are you saying you disagree with me or her?

 

[sprinkles]

I don't see anything different between my analogy and your explanation. Are you saying you disagree with me or her?

I disagree with the "She is right for the most part"

Your analogy is valid though. It's just not what I'm talking about.

Yes the more problems you find, the more suspect the rest of it becomes. But even if you find no problems that doesn't mean you are safe. This is evidenced by hoax scientific papers which have passed review, made solely for the purpose of seeing that they would.

 

[CogentPursuit]

Yes the more problems you find, the more suspect the rest of it becomes. But even if you find no problems that doesn't mean you are safe. This is evidenced by hoax scientific papers which have passed review, made solely for the purpose of seeing that they would.

Since it is admittedly based on faith, and no proof one way or the other can be found, this argument in this direction would lead nowhere. So what is the point?

 

[sprinkles]

Since it is admittedly based on faith, and no proof one way or the other can be found, this argument in this direction would lead nowhere. So what is the point?

The point is that I made a statement some pages ago that was not necessarily an invitation for further discussion. It was my opinion which I dropped, to leave it there.

It was challenged. I backed it up, because if I challenge others it is only fair that I accept a challenge in return, even if I wasn't ready for it and didn't want to do it. If it had not been challenged, I would not be talking right now.

Additionally this shows me things that I still need to work on within myself which may have slipped my mind. It also gives others an opportunity to check me. I of course can't just accept what is said on a whim, but I can't hide from it or try to make myself immune to criticism either. In a sense I'm going out on a limb to see what happens, because for all I know I might just be crazy and looking for reality checks.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
I still think you are logically inconsistent, so I’ll make a final attempt to show you why, as I think I came at a better way to resolve this.

You stated this:
God is immoral because He uses force/extrotion to make us serve Him/worship Him. – this would be a internal contradiction in Christianity system of belief because God is good and yet is doing something immoral.
And I replied to you that this is not true because:
1.serving God is moraly perfect and is intrinsically good
2.not serving God is morally evil and intrinsically wrong
Moreover, I highlighted the nature of God with regard to morality.
1.God is The Good by his very nature: he does not wills something because is good, and neither something is good because God wills it. The good is not arbitrary in Christianity because God says so,
nor the good is independ of good, but the very nature of God is the standard for good. God wills something because He is good, God does good because He is good. God’s own character define the good.
Given the objective moral nature of God, these two are moraly valid:
1.serving God is moraly perfect and is intrinsically good
2.not serving God is morally evil and intrinsically wrong
Quick distinction with regard to morality: there are moral values and there are moral duties.
Moral values-have to do with whether something is good or bad; just because something is good for you to do doesn’t mean that you have a moral obligation or duty to do that thing.
Moral duties-have to do with whether something is right or wrong; Duty has to do with moral obligation – with what you ought to do or ought not to do. There is an “ought-ness” or “should-ness” involved with moral duties.
The Ten Commandmends given in the Bible are moral values, but more important, they are moral duties, especially the first and the second one. So that resolve the „problem” of punishments. To serve God is the moral duty of every man before God, is the first and the greatest of all the Commandements. To not serve God, is morally evil –with regard to values- and it’s also wrong- with regard to duties.To not serve God is in itself an evil and wrong act.
Now, when I said this
-serving God is morally perfect and is intrinsically good, you came up with this

Intrinsic? I don't believe so.

From this very moment, you sidetracked the whole problem. Why? Because it is not about what you believe at all. We weren’t discussing if Christianity worldview conflicts your view at all, or even if Christianity is true, we were discussing if the God of the Bible is immoral, because you accused Him of beeing immoral.
In fact, you did something very funny. You put your view of God – one who is not worthy of total worhip – into the framework of Christianity. Your view of God, not the God of the Bible. But iniatilly you attacked the God of the Bible for beeing morally inconsistent, but when I pointed to you that it is morally perfect to serve God with all you heart, you changed the nature of God, or you stated it how you think God actually is, one who doesn’t deserve to be served.
Remember? You said that The Christian God, not other God, would have forced us to worship Him. Him, which we christians say is perfectly good. On this was based your supposed contradiction.
But then when I proceed in showing you that you have a very poor understanding of tha nature of God from the Bible which you so badly find guilty, you did something totaly absurd:
you came up with your own idea of God, one who is not the standard of Good, one who is not worthy of worship, and one who can’t command something and demands it because it is arbitrary, your view of God. You put this God into the Christian framework to show that your contradiction is still unrefuted or...you questioned the nature of the God of the Bible, asking me to prove why is intrinsically good to worship God, as if it this was the purpose of the whole discussion. – this is exactly what you did, and if you can’t see it yet, I will show you in another way, from another angle !
Never the christians worshiped a God like your God. The God of Christianity has a totaly diferent nature than your view on God. You should read the Bible and christian theology to have a clear impression to what kind of God we serve. If we had in mind the nature of your God, our reaction as christians would have been exactly like yours probably.
And I will show you inconsistency in a third way, with an example. You gave me this analogy, so I have to do something with her:

No. Not necessarily. If I say I ate cheese, then I say I ate bacon, then I say I did not eat bacon I will have contradicted myself about bacon. You do not have to assume it is true that I ate cheese in order to see the contradiction with bacon.

Yes, I do not have to assume anything. Hoewer, I don’t see it as a contradiction, because I know something about you which you don’t know about yourself ( this is to say you just know something about God which christians don’t know of their own God, like for example, the fact that He is not the standard of good, or the fact that serving Him is not intrinsically good)
It’s the fact that you can’t stand bacon, you hate it, you are alergic to bacon. It’s an external contradiction ( this is you stating the nature of God, in your own way). So no, I don’t have to assume that is true to eat cheese, because you don’t like bacon actually. And also you don’t eat.
In this analogy, I don’t have to assume that you eat cheese, because I already assume something else, about your nature: that you don’t eat.
This is kind of what you did, with slighty diferences. You point to a supposed contradiction to God of the Bible – and this is implying that God of the Bible has the attributes of the Bible-and then when things don’t work out and your contradiction is no more of a contradiction, you changed the topic of discussion: „What if this God of the Bible has actually no moral standard, and what he demands is just arbitrary? Can you prove that?” But this was not the purpose of the debate, the purpose was this: is it not God of the Bible immoral? And you say that this non-sense suports the contradiction you have started with?
The short answer: you stated that God of the Bible is immoral, because He is forcing us to worship Him. I presented some of the attributes of God of the Bible, to show you that it is not a contradiction. Then you questioned this nature of God, asking me to prove them, when in fact you supposed that contradiction on the expense of this very nature of the God of the Bible and his actions. This is called not beeing consistent logically, and also sidetraking. Sorry for the gigantic post.

 

[LucyJr]

Assuming the propositions are true and valid leads to assuming that the conclusion is true. This is a fundamental rule of logic.
If you're looking for the actual truth of the conclusion then you cannot assume that any propositions are true or false, you must test them to find their validity

I agree with you. I was in a hurry and I only saw first part. Still, your choice of words is ambiguous. I think is better to say that the conclusion follows from the propositions. Using the word true made me think at something else. There is a very big diference in saying that a conclusion is true or that a conclusion is a logically valid one. The second imply a valid inference, but this doesn’t mean that a conclusion is true by necesity of it’s logical validity. And I know you stated that, but very confusing though.

 

[sprinkles]

I agree with you. I was in a hurry and I only saw first part. Still, your choice of words is ambiguous. I think is better to say that the conclusion follows from the propositions. Using the word true made me think at something else. There is a very big diference in saying that a conclusion is true or that a conclusion is a logically valid one. The second imply a valid inference, but this doesn’t mean that a conclusion is true by necesity of it’s logical validity. And I know you stated that, but very confusing though.

Yes it is confusing and I didn't help. I was just saying the way it is traditionally explained, which admittedly is not very clear in itself.

As for the other stuff you're talking about, I believe you're confusing my intention. I WAS in fact discussing how the Christian God portrayed in this way conflicts with my worldview. I must do that because that is where my morality comes from. I cannot say that my morality comes from the Bible or God because it doesn't - that would be a lie.

This is why I do not acknowledge what you say and I fully admit it. I do not care that Christianity says that God is perfect good because I'm not basing my assertion on internal consistency nor the fact that Christianity teaches that God is ultimately good as that can only result in defending God, and of course God or a believer of God will want to defend itself so I do not consider such to be a reliable judge on things that would conflict with this God's interests.

 

[LucyJr]

As for the other stuff you're talking about, I believe you're confusing my intention. I WAS in fact discussing how the Christian God portrayed in this way conflicts with my worldview.

Well, then it's pretty much nailed down then. I thought you were talking just about an internal contradiction. Then I have missunderstood you and I'm sorry, but you should've stated it more clearly.

I must do that because that is where my morality comes from. I cannot say that my morality comes from the Bible or God because it doesn't - that would be a lie.

It seems logical to me. You are consistent with your own standard of morals.

This is why I do not acknowledge what you say and I fully admit it. I do not care that Christianity says that God is perfect good because I'm not basing my assertion on internal consistency nor the fact that Christianity teaches that God is ultimately good

If I were you, I would do exactly the same think, so I fully agree with you.

as that can only result in defending God, and of course God or a believer of God will want to defend itself so I do not consider such to be a reliable judge on things that would conflict with this God's interests.

Fair enough.
To rephrase what I was saying: I only responded to what was supposed to be an internal contradiction. By this I do not assume that Christianity is a correct worldview just because it's interanally consistent. To prove Christianity in a objective way, I have to give argument from the outside, from a common ground sort of. I don't think Christianity lacks this kind of arguments at all, but that was not what I was defending.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

Ok.

I'm sorry the debate got slightly heated and confused. I got caught up a bit due to hurtful past experiences as well, and some things I said probably didn't even make any sense.

A lot of it is also just a bit of frustration and even a little anger - not at you, just at things. I'm normally not this spiteful to anyone and I'm actually a bit ashamed of myself and embarrassed as well.

 

[just me]

As Flip Wilson used to say, "The Devil made him do it."

 

[muir]

What self declared 'satanists' seem to be saying is that they do not see satan as a physical being but rather a symbol of various things

For them it symbolises breaking free from any mental constructs they see as constrictive. They perceive christianity as a restrictive mental construct and as a result they are against it.

They raise man up and they argue man should live out his/her prideful desires

They believe we should all question everything and resist controls over us, which i guess might be epitomised by satans 'non servium' (i will not serve) statement to god.

They see god as an illusion and they see the embracing of satanism as a lifting of a blindfold into a freer life. They see satan as a source of power within each of us which is ours as individuals to access if we can free ourselves from the shackles of conformity

Although i agree with the spirit of questioning things that they seem to revere and i also don't believe in blindly following i do detect in their philosophy a selfishness which i think is destructive

Yes we should have intellectual freedom, but i think that should be for the common good not for self agrandisement.

You get a sense from their philosophy that if you are smart enough to see through certain things that you can then use that understanding to get what you want in the world even if it hurts others

You can see this mentality play out in occult groups which are heiracrchical and exploitative. Project Monarch mind control which creates beta sex slaves could be said to be a product of the satanic mindset

So where i differ from these people is that i think when a person has an insight or sees through an illusion they shouldn't then use their insight to exploit others and get whatever they want like some sort of conman trickster but that they should rather share their insight with the wider community so that the community as a whole can grow and gain deeper understanding (evolve their perceptions of reality)

I guess you could say their philosophy is extremely ego-centric

I am open to the possiblity of there being discarnate entities operating outside the band of visible light which seek to manipulate the affairs of people. It certainly seems that some people actively court these entities

 

[LucyJr]

Both logically...(as logical as an illogical, idealogical, and mythological thought can be argued) and easily improbable....not “highly improbable” but easily improbable.
According to some, God's infinite dignity requires that any transgression against him warrants an infinite punishment... An omnipotent being, by definition, cannot be harmed. Therefore, by condemning souls to an eternal damnation, God would be punishing souls for actions that had no effect on him.

Another issue is the problem of harmonizing the existence of Hell with God's infinite mercy or omnibenevolence.
There are two problems - the first which grants that God could indeed convert the heart of every sinner and yet leave the freedom of the will in its integrity. In the Thomistic tradition, God grants sufficient grace for salvation to all people, yet it only effects salvations for some. Secondly as I wrote above, if God is Omniscient, then the fact that he created us, knowing we would sin, knowing Hitler would be Hitler, etc...and then knowing that said person would be condemned to Hell, would be incompatible with the attributes given to God, i.e. - mercy or omnibenevolence. Why then wouldn’t God simply not create that person?
Even if Hell is seen as a choice rather than as punishment, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as ourselves the responsibility of our eternal destinies.
Then you have to take into account that a person is not always correct in their thinking, such as when someone is depressed....certainly God would know that you were depressed when you shot yourself in the head, so then why further punish someone in Hell for such a thing done under flawed circumstances? Once again it make’s Hell unreasonable.
Even if someone denies God under favorable circumstances, given the choice to be tortured in Hell or not, and suppose that God respected your decision enough to allow you to burn for eternity. This is still no choice....this is an ultimatum, a scare tactic to force someone to do what you want them to....to force someone into believing in God. That would corrupt God. Since humans would have no other choice but to believe in him in order to enter Heaven, then God would be corrupt for demanding worship.
I guess if I am anything, I would be considered a Universalist when it comes to the Christian beliefs that I have.(I have many other beliefs as well I might add)
Universal Reconciliation is the belief that NO ONE will be “left behind”, that all will receive salvation. To me, this makes the most logical sense, as does it make sense in my heart. I don’t believe God to be a vengeful God...I don’t even think people who did horrible wicked things in this life will be punished. I think we will all go to “heaven” because I believe that I am to learn something here...as is everyone else...I think it is different for each person...but I think that one day it will all enter into a sort of “collective consciousness” separate, yet one. Those things that were committed in hatred, or evil...were committed by all of us in a way, no one is truly separate although I do think we have individual “souls”. I think those acts will mean nothing as we move on into the next realm....this was pre-school, before our next step.

Sorry for not responding. I was a little bit busy and these kind of questions require serious thinking and pondering.
But anyway, if you still are willing to talk a bit, I ll try to answer a bit.
Firstly, I have to make sure that you agree with the nature of the christian God and His attributes...

 

[sprinkles]

What self declared 'satanists' seem to be saying is that they do not see satan as a physical being but rather a symbol of various things

For them it symbolises breaking free from any mental constructs they see as constrictive. They perceive christianity as a restrictive mental construct and as a result they are against it.

They raise man up and they argue man should live out his/her prideful desires

They believe we should all question everything and resist controls over us, which i guess might be epitomised by satans 'non servium' (i will not serve) statement to god.

They see god as an illusion and they see the embracing of satanism as a lifting of a blindfold into a freer life. They see satan as a source of power within each of us which is ours as individuals to access if we can free ourselves from the shackles of conformity

Although i agree with the spirit of questioning things that they seem to revere and i also don't believe in blindly following i do detect in their philosophy a selfishness which i think is destructive

Yes we should have intellectual freedom, but i think that should be for the common good not for self agrandisement.

You get a sense from their philosophy that if you are smart enough to see through certain things that you can then use that understanding to get what you want in the world even if it hurts others

You can see this mentality play out in occult groups which are heiracrchical and exploitative. Project Monarch mind control which creates beta sex slaves could be said to be a product of the satanic mindset

So where i differ from these people is that i think when a person has an insight or sees through an illusion they shouldn't then use their insight to exploit others and get whatever they want like some sort of conman trickster but that they should rather share their insight with the wider community so that the community as a whole can grow and gain deeper understanding (evolve their perceptions of reality)

I guess you could say their philosophy is extremely ego-centric

I am open to the possiblity of there being discarnate entities operating outside the band of visible light which seek to manipulate the affairs of people. It certainly seems that some people actively court these entities

I agree some people are like that. This is part of the reason I'm not a satanist - I'm a chaote.

I want freedom, but not for freedoms sake. If you must be free then you aren't, in my opinion. I like to question but not for questionings sake. If you question everything you get nowhere, because if you question everything you must question yourself and your questioning. If you don't then you haven't actually become open, you've just moved your bias elsewhere.

 

[muir]

I agree some people are like that. This is part of the reason I'm not a satanist - I'm a chaote.

I want freedom, but not for freedoms sake. If you must be free then you aren't, in my opinion. I like to question but not for questionings sake. If you question everything you get nowhere, because if you question everything you must question yourself and your questioning. If you don't then you haven't actually become open, you've just moved your bias elsewhere.

I've heard it said that 'people believe what they want to believe'

I think there is a lot of truth in that. Its certainly possible to see a lot of people who are clinging to false perceptions of reality

That illusion though then becomes the filter through which they see everything in the world....it distorts everything

People often have to rationalise their behaviour away. Someone who wants to be a selfish person will adopt a philosophy that supports their desire. They will have a bunch of platitudes ready to explain why they have done something that has harmed others

Satanism and crowleyism offers people a self justifying philosophy of selfishness

Some crowleyites will say he's misunderstood, but you just have to look at the trail of destruction that he left through the lives of many people to see that he was highly toxic......judge a tree by its fruit and all that

Its the same with any of the big debates of our day...say for example 'global warming'. Fluctuations of the earths climate are currently being used by different sides in an ideological struggle to justify their own visions for the world. They will each bring forward their own 'experts' who will present the data they have cherrypicked because they think it best supports their argument

satanists might say that it is practical for the individual to act purely in their own self interests. But what if it actually isn't? What if there are externalities to selfish behaviour?

Lets say a satanist through being ruthlessly selfish manages to get a lot of wealth and power. Lets say that one of the ways they make money is through the unsustainable destruction of rainforest. They see the world through the filter of their most fundamental emotion, which they have overlaid with an intellectual philosophy to support it

Deep inside they are actually bitter and twisted but they hide that underneath a rationalisation (their philosophy). Perhaps they were brutalised as they grew up and it has made them angry and hateful. In their twisted, angry and hateful state they see the world through that filter. They believe that the world is a hateful place. they believe its dog eat dog. They believe that if they didn't exploit the rainforest and trample on the inhabitants and even their own employees to achieve that then someone else would just do it to them

They believe everyone is as cynical as them and so they begin to think that they are wealthy and powerful because they are more brilliant than everyone else. They just don't realise that most other people are not as ruthless as them

Through their satanic philosophy they argue that they only have one life and they are going to live it to the full and therefore they will get rich by chopping down the rainforest

The externality is that they then impoverish future generations who will then not have that resource. They also brutalise all the people who get trampled in the process. Those brutalised people are then more likely to develop a dim view of the world and become more hard hearted and cynical themselves and misstreat others in their turn

So you have hate and anger being passed on....thats a major externality of a selfish philosophy....but not one a selfish person can take into account whilst viewing the world through a filter of selfishness

So i would argue that the most practical apporach is in fact NOT one of narrowly pursued self interest, but rather one born through the realisation that if everyone is helped and everyones needs are met then people will be happy, contented and healthy and less likely to: steal, fight, rape or generally hate on each other

So really the best way to make a safe and gentler envioronment for ourselves is actually to make sure that everyone around us is ok as well.

If you look at the approach of the politicians who run countries they do not generally use this approach.

An example would be the drone attacks the US is carrying out in pakisthan. They say it is to fight terrorism.....but thats absurd, because what happens if you drop a bunch of missiles on a village killing children, women and men is that the surviving relatives of those victims then develop a searing hatred of the US in their hearts. They will be radicalised and many will then take up arms against the US....thats precisely how you lose a battle for hearts and minds. in effect the US is creating and expanding 'terror'

But the politicans and the corporations make a lot of money out of making the missiles and rones so they benefit financially

So yeah...there are externalities to selfish behaviour, which selfish people never take into account.

There is nothing practical about selfish behaviour...in fact it is hugely damaging to everyone and everything

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

I agree.

I also say that excessive, unbridled moralism and extreme ethicism is a form of selfishness in itself - some times the worst kind.

It comes to a point where what one thinks is best for all ends up being an entirely selfish ideal. It's really not about everyone else after all, it ends up being about their own grandiose ideal being met. If it is not met then it is an affront to the one individual which they cannot accept, they force the ideal because it is their ideal that they believe in, and end up creating the same kind of resentment that you just described.

That's probably the most dangerous kind of selfishness - what one thinks is well intentioned selfishness when they have no idea.

 

[muir]

@muir

I agree.

I also say that excessive, unbridled moralism and extreme ethicism is a form of selfishness in itself - some times the worst kind.

It comes to a point where what one thinks is best for all ends up being an entirely selfish ideal. It's really not about everyone else after all, it ends up being about their own grandiose ideal being met. If it is not met then it is an affront to the one individual which they cannot accept, they force the ideal because it is their ideal that they believe in, and end up creating the same kind of resentment that you just described.

That's probably the most dangerous kind of selfishness - what one thinks is well intentioned selfishness when they have no idea.

Can you give me an example of this?

 

[sprinkles]

Can you give me an example of this?

Wanting the world to be Democracy for the sake of it. Alternately, wanting the world to be Socialist for the sake of it as well.

You can not put a big load in a small bag,
Nor can you, with a short rope.
Draw water from a deep well.
You cannot talk to a power politician
As if he were a wise man.
If he seeks to understand you,
If he looks inside himself
To find the truth you have told him,
He cannot find it there.
Not finding, he doubts.
When a man doubts,
He will kill.

Have you not heard how a bird from the sea
was blown inshore and landed
Outside the capital of Lu?

The prince ordered a solemn reception,
offered the seabird wine in the sacred precinct,
Called for musicians
to play the compositions of shun,
Slaughtered cattle to nourish it:
Dazed with symphonies, the unhappy sea bird
Died of despair.

How should you treat a bird?
As yourself
Or as a bird?

Ought not a bird to nest in deep woodland
or fly over meadow and marsh?
Ought it not to swim over river and pond,
Feed on eels and fish,
Fly in formation with other waterfowl,
and rest in the reeds?

Bad enough for a sea bird
to be surrounded by men
and frightened by their voices!
That was not enough!
They killed it with music!

Play all the symphonies you like
On the marshlands of Thung-Ting.
the birds will fly away
in all directions
the animals will hide;
the fish will dive to the bottom;
but men
will gather around to listen.

Water is for fish
And air for men.
Natures differ, and needs with them.

Hence the wise men of old,
did not lay down
one measure for all.

-The way of Chuang Tzu

 

[muir]

Wanting the world to be Democracy for the sake of it. Alternately, wanting the world to be Socialist for the sake of it as well.

You can not put a big load in a small bag,
Nor can you, with a short rope.
Draw water from a deep well.
You cannot talk to a power politician
As if he were a wise man.
If he seeks to understand you,
If he looks inside himself
To find the truth you have told him,
He cannot find it there.
Not finding, he doubts.
When a man doubts,
He will kill.

Have you not heard how a bird from the sea
was blown inshore and landed
Outside the capital of Lu?

The prince ordered a solemn reception,
offered the seabird wine in the sacred precinct,
Called for musicians
to play the compositions of shun,
Slaughtered cattle to nourish it:
Dazed with symphonies, the unhappy sea bird
Died of despair.

How should you treat a bird?
As yourself
Or as a bird?

Ought not a bird to nest in deep woodland
or fly over meadow and marsh?
Ought it not to swim over river and pond,
Feed on eels and fish,
Fly in formation with other waterfowl,
and rest in the reeds?

Bad enough for a sea bird
to be surrounded by men
and frightened by their voices!
That was not enough!
They killed it with music!

Play all the symphonies you like
On the marshlands of Thung-Ting.
the birds will fly away
in all directions
the animals will hide;
the fish will dive to the bottom;
but men
will gather around to listen.

Water is for fish
And air for men.
Natures differ, and needs with them.

Hence the wise men of old,
did not lay down
one measure for all.

-The way of Chuang Tzu

Who wants the world to be democratic or socialist for the sake of it? That sounds like some sort of non thinking recklessness.

I think when someone is heard arguing for something like democracy or socialism they are usually someone who has given it a lot of thought and is not doing it on a flippant whim (for the sake of it)

Also socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive

If you take socialism to mean when there is a strong central government that controls everything then i would agree that will kill democracy, but that is 'STATE SOCIALISM'

True socialism is when the workers take ownership and control of the means of production NOT a central government. Under true socialism it can only function with democracy ie workers coming together in councils and each having a say on the running of their enterprise

In fact libertarian socialists often advocate 'consensus democracy': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy

I have to go do something but when I come back i'll have a proper look at the poem you posted and ruminate on it a while

 

[sprinkles]

Who wants the world to be democratic or socialist for the sake of it? That sounds like some sort of non thinking recklessness.

I think when someone is heard arguing for something like democracy or socialism they are usually someone who has given it a lot of thought and is not doing it on a flippant whim (for the sake of it)

Also socialism and democracy are not mutually exclusive

If you take socialism to mean when there is a strong central government that controls everything then i would agree that will kill democracy, but that is 'STATE SOCIALISM'

True socialism is when the workers take ownership and control of the means of production NOT a central government. Under true socialism it can only function with democracy ie workers coming together in councils and each having a say on the running of their enterprise

In fact libertarian socialists often advocate 'consensus democracy': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_democracy

I have to go do something but when I come back i'll have a proper look at the poem you posted and ruminate on it a while

I understand all that.

However I'm not talking about making a well thought argument. I'm talking about stuff like forcibly kicking people off land which they depend on, and jailing political opponents, and disbarring lawyers that even dare to take civil rights cases.

I'm also talking about the Red Scare, and the Cold War and all of that. Not even all that long ago.

Who wants it? It is clear that plenty enough do to make it a problem. To assume that someone who argues for something has given this thing actual thought is a big mistake in my opinion. I also understand that neither ideal is inherently bad. Actually no ideal in itself can harm anyone. It's the people who hold them that do. Just look at McCarthyism and the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

Edit:
Also the Hollywood Blacklist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

Edit edit:
Also you will probably say that they aren't true Socialists or true Communists or truly Democratic, and I will agree with you on that. However, the issue is that many delusionally believe they are what they claim to be, and delusion is a large problem.