It's adversarial and stands it's ground, yeah, but when it is done to escape the discomfort of your batshit ideas being wrong (Sorry, Anna :/), it's a defense mechanism. The determination of a combative core really hinges on what's being fought for.
If it's protection of your ego alone, you're doing it just like an Evangelical Christian would, running from reality to escape the discomfort of losing a tenuous belief they have to convince themselves is true.
No need to apologize. I'm aware of the fact you can't combat faith, especially fanatical faith, with logic. I wouldn't even try to reason with a hardcore believer, be it a Christian, Muslim, Mormon or whoever. The case of this guy only shows the label is irrelevant. You can call yourself a Satanist and still behave like a Christian. This guy is religious. It's obvious considering not only his fanaticism but also his obsession with the theatrics (rituals, invocations, magical props etc) and, above all, his obsessive need to convince others he's right.
I don't support backing down under the emotional pressure though. Don't get me wrong. If you realize through self-introspection you've been wrong and that your ways need to change or you change your opinion due to the rational arguments, that's fine. But if you back down due to shaming, public humiliation or intimidation, this is nothing else than spinelessness. It's simply the acknowledgement of your defeat. The question remains whether one should defend an indefensible argument. It's better to find the graceful way to quit. However, if you think you're right and you can defend your position, I see no reason for the shameful resignation.
Shaming only works if your opponent agrees he's wrong and that he deserves the disgrace. If he's convinced he's right and that the punishment is unjust, you can beat your head against the wall.
Question: Are you not still drawn to engage this like it's the most salacious of flame threads?
Why is it that having the knowledge this person is immovable by logic (of any sort) still not enough to dissuade one to engage? You can read his above comment and see it's futile. It's nothing but mental cartwheels to affirm a comfortable position and escape the pain of concession.
Begs the question what the spineless move really Is. Still, game on.
But you were completely right from the outset, Anna. This is like a the ONLY identity sought. If our subject loses the designation (in his own mind) all self-confidence goes with it. I have never encountered someone using the label "Satanist" as a psychological crutch to this extent before. The spine on this one is intimately tied to the ability to call himself a Satanist. And it's so outwardly transparent there's no recanting to save face at this point.
What I really want to know is how one can derive any degree of fulfillment from constant self-driven delusion that gets called out at every turn. It reminds me of a really closeted homosexual. They just stay there in the acceptance stages bargaining their mind into oblivion. Meanwhile everyone in their life absolutely knows they are completely gay.
Like Michael Jackson kissing Elvis' daughter or Tom Cruise on Ellen... Its almost painful to watch.
And as soon as they walk away someone says, "that flamer have never seen a pussy in his life".