Deadly Duties

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Deadly Duties

OK, Ed, I'm with ya.

The "seven deadly sins" (even, to a lesser extent, Ghandi's version, which is far better than the classic christian ones) are IMHO little more than an example of another deadly sin: the love of power and domination: a mechanism to control others.

So what do we all think that the list should (and should not) include?

From you we have Arrogance: "Just shoot the mutherfucker right on the spot."

I've already added Love of Power (over others): Anyone prepared to stand for political office should be disqualified on those grounds!

And I'll also propose Hypocrisy: Hypocrits should be forced to behave as they say, while speaking as they do!

Anyone else propose any of the other four (or argue that 7 is the wrong number)?

Or debunk any of the classic ones? I'll start that off with Lust - which is merely the instinct for preservation of the species: a virtue!

Irony is a good way to avoid anaemic tracts!

Eff

You always get it, Eff. I'm with you on Hypocrisy. That definitely needs to be on the short list of Deadly Duties.

I didn't think of eliminating some of the Deadly Sins, but it’s a good idea and Lust needs to go.

Now when we get the whole list together, maybe we can present it to Congress and get a constitutional amendment making Deadly Duty legal.


Ed

 

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Deadly Duties

Snot? Snot? Me?

Well you are a lil booger.

Nah, nah!!!!!!!!

Booger???

Your grandma wear combat boots

 

[Edward Teach]

I will argue on hypocrisy - or rather, I will argue on what is at times called hypocrisy. I don't think it altogether a terrible thing for someone to decry an action s/he has taken. Agreed, it would be nice if all people lived up to their own moral standards. That said, I think it still preferable that a person recognize moral standards even if human behavior doesn't always match them. To me, what would be more objectionable would be for a person who has "fallen" once to decide that the action must therefore be moral simply because s/he has now performed it. I would rather hear, for example, an adulterer continue to think that adultery is wrong, and struggle not to do it, than hear someone who had always believed it wrong suddenly decide it was fine because s/he had sampled the forbidden fruits and found them sweet.

Along those lines, I can't agree that the seven originals are simply a control mechanism to dominate others. Indeed, the new sins you propose actually are already covered under the old seven. We should not confuse the normal human desire to be free to pursue all of our whims with a moral stance. There is a place for restraint and socially validated mores. That they should be examined, I don't deny; that they should be discarded wholesale, I object to.

(I've also had a pint or two, so please forgive me if I am talking bollocks.)

Shanglan

We forgive bollocks when you are in the sauce, Shang. Me, I've got no excuse. Yet.


Ed

 

[Lisa Denton]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deadly Duties

Booger???

Your grandma wear combat boots

Well o'course, she's a vet (duh) but your granny eats snot covered boogers Uuuuuuuuuuccccccckkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!! (Lisa runs away really fast)

 

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deadly Duties

Well o'course, she's a vet (duh) but your granny eats snot covered boogers Uuuuuuuuuuccccccckkkkkkkkk!!!!!!!! (Lisa runs away really fast)

I see Lisa's panties. I see Lisa's panties.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deadly Duties

I see Lisa's panties. I see Lisa's panties.

Your a freakin pirate, you prolly just wanna run em up the flag pole.

 

[fifty5]

I will argue on hypocrisy - or rather, I will argue on what is at times called hypocrisy. I don't think it altogether a terrible thing for someone to decry an action s/he has taken. Agreed, it would be nice if all people lived up to their own moral standards. That said, I think it still preferable that a person recognize moral standards even if human behavior doesn't always match them. To me, what would be more objectionable would be for a person who has "fallen" once to decide that the action must therefore be moral simply because s/he has now performed it. I would rather hear, for example, an adulterer continue to think that adultery is wrong, and struggle not to do it, than hear someone who had always believed it wrong suddenly decide it was fine because s/he had sampled the forbidden fruits and found them sweet.

Along those lines, I can't agree that the seven originals are simply a control mechanism to dominate others. Indeed, the new sins you propose actually are already covered under the old seven. We should not confuse the normal human desire to be free to pursue all of our whims with a moral stance. There is a place for restraint and socially validated mores. That they should be examined, I don't deny; that they should be discarded wholesale, I object to.

(I've also had a pint or two, so please forgive me if I am talking bollocks.)

Shanglan

Hypocrisy. I'm with you on human frailty. Someone who says "love thy neighbour", but occasionally loses their temper isn't, in my book, a hypocrit. That word I reserve for those who keep on saying one thing, while keeping on doing something contrary themselves.

As far as the classics as a control mechanism go:

1. "Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity."

That phrasing is only saved at all by the single word "excessive". Delete that and description of pride as 'sin' is utter bull! If one achieves against the odds, is it really wrong to be proud of one's achievement?

Of course not! Why else strive to achieve?

Except that such achievements allow 'the plebs' to elivate themselves to the status of 'worthy' without the aprobation of the powers-that-be. See Galileo.

2. "Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation."

That transcribes pretty literally into "You plebs shouldn't aspire to the status that we 'in-crowd' have. Keep to your lowly state unless we admit you to our number!"

Why on earth should it be wrong to aspire to improvement?

3. "Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires."

Another example of double-speak. Translated literally, it becomes: "if you've got enough to keep you alive, then don't try to improve yourself!"

Of course, everyone should aspire to be able to earn more than the absolute minimum requirements. Every 'third-world' farmer ought to aspire to the luxury that we in the 'West' enjoy: education, self determination, sufficient purchasing power to buy things like TV, computers, cars (OK maybe they're problematic given exhaust emmissions, but give me a little benefit of the doubt here) and so on.

4. "Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body."

Note the manipulative insertion of the word "inordinate" - and the use of the value-laden term "craving".

As I said before, wanting to cum is simply the virtuous manifestation of the instinct to perpetuate one's species.

But, if the-powers-that-be want to control the plebs, what better than to label this natural instinct (especially dangerous because it doesn't cost anything, so can't be controlled by forces of supply and demand) as "sin"?

5. "Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath."

AKA "You are evil if you get cross about the way I treat you!"

Apply this definition of sin to the way Hitler treated the Jews - or to any number of other cases of "riteous anger".

cf "Make love, not war"

Anger/wrath is self evidently not inherently wrong: right and wrong depends on the reason for anger, not on anger itself.

Unless you're trying to opress an underclass...

6. "Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness."

See 3 above (covetousness).

The give-away here is "ignoring the realm of the spiritual" - which to The Church means not doing what we say you should do.

Of course, I will very readily accept that greed, at the expense of others is evil - but that caveat is notably missing from the traditional definition.

7. "Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work."

Taking that literally, every labour-saving device is sinful. Using an electric carving knife, a bus or train, a computer... is sinful!

Surely, "Sloth is the aspiration by which the general populace gains the time to, in potential, become civilised: to have the time to think, instead of being ground down by physical (or brain-washingly "spiritual" work)."

If they have time to think, the plebs might see through the hypocrisy of the-powers-that-be...


Arrogance; the lust for power over others; and hypocrisy seem to me to be far more genuinely evil than any of the above.

Eff

(Sorry, but irony and humour have pretty well gone by the board here. I'm afraid I'm not clever enough to have used them. I only wish I was.)

 

[fifty5]

Can I see Lisa's panties too?

Or even better, Lisa without panties?

Drool...

Eff

 

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Deadly Duties

Your a freakin pirate, you prolly just wanna run em up the flag pole.

I saw your description of cutting up weenies on another thread, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop.....

I want to make sure you don't have a knife and that my cutlass is locked safely away before you get near my flag pole.

After that, I might rise to the occasion.


Stup Dity

 

[Edward Teach]

Hypocrisy. I'm with you on human frailty. Someone who says "love thy neighbour", but occasionally loses their temper isn't, in my book, a hypocrit. That word I reserve for those who keep on saying one thing, while keeping on doing something contrary themselves.

As far as the classics as a control mechanism go:

1. "Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity."

That phrasing is only saved at all by the single word "excessive". Delete that and description of pride as 'sin' is utter bull! If one achieves against the odds, is it really wrong to be proud of one's achievement?

Of course not! Why else strive to achieve?

Except that such achievements allow 'the plebs' to elivate themselves to the status of 'worthy' without the aprobation of the powers-that-be. See Galileo.

2. "Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation."

That transcribes pretty literally into "You plebs shouldn't aspire to the status that we 'in-crowd' have. Keep to your lowly state unless we admit you to our number!"

Why on earth should it be wrong to aspire to improvement?

3. "Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires."

Another example of double-speak. Translated literally, it becomes: "if you've got enough to keep you alive, then don't try to improve yourself!"

Of course, everyone should aspire to be able to earn more than the absolute minimum requirements. Every 'third-world' farmer ought to aspire to the luxury that we in the 'West' enjoy: education, self determination, sufficient purchasing power to buy things like TV, computers, cars (OK maybe they're problematic given exhaust emmissions, but give me a little benefit of the doubt here) and so on.

4. "Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body."

Note the manipulative insertion of the word "inordinate" - and the use of the value-laden term "craving".

As I said before, wanting to cum is simply the virtuous manifestation of the instinct to perpetuate one's species.

But, if the-powers-that-be want to control the plebs, what better than to label this natural instinct (especially dangerous because it doesn't cost anything, so can't be controlled by forces of supply and demand) as "sin"?

5. "Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath."

AKA "You are evil if you get cross about the way I treat you!"

Apply this definition of sin to the way Hitler treated the Jews - or to any number of other cases of "riteous anger".

cf "Make love, not war"

Anger/wrath is self evidently not inherently wrong: right and wrong depends on the reason for anger, not on anger itself.

Unless you're trying to opress an underclass...

6. "Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness."

See 3 above (covetousness).

The give-away here is "ignoring the realm of the spiritual" - which to The Church means not doing what we say you should do.

Of course, I will very readily accept that greed, at the expense of others is evil - but that caveat is notably missing from the traditional definition.

7. "Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work."

Taking that literally, every labour-saving device is sinful. Using an electric carving knife, a bus or train, a computer... is sinful!

Surely, "Sloth is the aspiration by which the general populace gains the time to, in potential, become civilised: to have the time to think, instead of being ground down by physical (or brain-washingly "spiritual" work)."

If they have time to think, the plebs might see through the hypocrisy of the-powers-that-be...


Arrogance; the lust for power over others; and hypocrisy seem to me to be far more genuinely evil than any of the above.

Eff

(Sorry, but irony and humour have pretty well gone by the board here. I'm afraid I'm not clever enough to have used them. I only wish I was.)

Thanks for the effort, Eff, but yeah, this thread got killed long ago.


Ed

 

[BlackShanglan]

That phrasing is only saved at all by the single word "excessive". Delete that and description of pride as 'sin' is utter bull!

Yes, but I think that rather the point in describing nearly all undesirable behaviors. What was that old mantra they taught us in development classes ... frequency, severity, and duration? It was essentially a guide to how you know when a behavior passes "normal" boundaries. It was, essentially, a recognition that most undesirable behaviors are magnifications of normal behaviors. As you point out, some pride in one's work or accomplishments is a good thing; it's only when it's inflated or misapplied that it becomes a problem. I don't think that this ideas has generally been denied by most churches, although I know that there are some odd sects out there. I think most of the more "mainstream" ones recognize that some physical passion, for example, is necessary and good; they only suggest that the behavior be bounded from excess.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

One of the things I remember best from The Screwtape Letters is that all the deadly sins work both ways.

Lust is not necessarily a bad thing. Lust can be a great source of pleasure. If you have none, you're unlikely to have pleasure. It becomes evil if it completely rules your life and you are willing to do anything to satisfy it.

Avarice can be a motivator. If you have none, you won't likely work for the things needed for your life. It passes into evil when you start acquiring more than you can possibly need or use, and your getting things takes things needed for life and satisfaction from others.

Pride in necessary for you to do things because if you don't believe in yourself, you won't attempt any actions at all. But if your sense of self worth overwhelms your sense of other's worth the actions you perform are unlikely to be good things.

Perhaps one of Heinlein's aphorisms is correct, "The only sin is hurting other people unnecessarily. Hurting yourself unnecessarily isn't sinful, just stupid."

Unfortunately, 'necessary' opens a big can of worms.

 

[BlackShanglan]

RG, I like Lewis' point of view as well. His comments about animal and mental sins really strike home with me - that idea that someone who yields to drink and women now and then is still probably not in the dire danger that someone who lives his life sneering down at others will face. But then, we all like to have our own sins excused, don't we?

Nice call on the word "necessary," indeed. Necessary for what, precisely, to happen? On these little blocks of semantics we build the suffering of the world.

I enjoy your perceptive eye.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

To me Shanglan it's always a matter of balance.

A human being, and a society need all the human traits.

Reason can and should support emotion. Or restrain it if necessary.

Emotion can drive reason. Or hold it back if required.

"It is a mistake to assume only emotions can panic the mind." - Northrop Frye.

We need them all, maintaining a fine balance, or we and our societies become unbalanced. Then we're in trouble.

 

[fifty5]

I think most of the more "mainstream" ones recognize that some physical passion, for example, is necessary and good; they only suggest that the behavior be bounded from excess.

Shanglan

In sober reflection, I'd agree entirely with that, but, except almost subliminally (the odd word here or there) excess isn't of the essence of the 'deadly sins'.

The sins are named as pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed and sloth, whereas it seems we both agree the evil is in excess of those: in moderation, they are not merely acceptable, but virtuous.

Eff

PS I'll readily admit to putting this point of view 'to excess' - to wind folk up a bit - but am quite genuine in rejecting The Seven Deadly Sins as dogma that was designed to oppress.

Of recent times, many churches are finding that the old techniques no longer work - people simply abstain when they are free to do so. These days a 'soft sell' is essential.

(But compare and contrast across different religions; and in different parts of the world.)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Fiftyfive, I think we're running aground on semantics. I agree that only in excess are these attributes sins; I merely think that the words chosen for the "seven deadlies" incorporate in themselves the concept "to excess." Thus we was lust, for example, when we might term the moderate form desire, or gluttony when we might term it, in moderation, eating. I suppose that that is where I split with you. While I agree that religion - like any other structured system - can be exploited, I don't think that that was its original goal or that it was ever its sole purpose.

Now, speaking of excess ... what is the word for sinful excess of cuteness? And here I thought that nothing could be more adorable than your last puppy picture. That new one is a threat to equine productivity. I just want to sit here and watch it being cute.

RG, I loved the quote from Frye. I've just been reading Nordau's "Degeneration" and it rings beautifully true. A truly reasoned panic and reaction is a terrible thing to watch.

Shanglan

 

[fifty5]

Fiftyfive, I think we're running aground on semantics. I agree that only in excess are these attributes sins; I merely think that the words chosen for the "seven deadlies" incorporate in themselves the concept "to excess." Thus we was lust, for example, when we might term the moderate form desire, or gluttony when we might term it, in moderation, eating. I suppose that that is where I split with you. While I agree that religion - like any other structured system - can be exploited, I don't think that that was its original goal or that it was ever its sole purpose.

I really don't know about Jesus Christ (or Mohamad, Buddha, etc.) - and that goes for the immediate followers as well - but while I may well be wrong, I am convinced about many of the popes, archbishops, mullahs and so on that came later in the story (same goes for non-spiritual belief systems). I am morally certain that the prime purpose, seen from the top, was to subjugate and exploit the population at large. That doesn't mean I think all priests (etc.) were so motivated, but that those who weren't were just as much victims as the lay congregations.

Now, speaking of excess ... what is the word for sinful excess of cuteness? And here I thought that nothing could be more adorable than your last puppy picture. That new one is a threat to equine productivity. I just want to sit here and watch it being cute.

I'm lucky enough to have been able to watch them both go through their infancy. They're now almost 5 months old and growing into 'proper dogs' - and their first puppy training class is tomorrow night...

However, back to the original point, I'm afraid I'm doing my best to be as manipulative as the churches I condemn. (!?!) There are some who just might come to the West Yorks Dales Day gathering (Jan 4) to welcome Perdita to the UK, who haven't yet committed. (See https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=293011) I'm trying to tempt them!

Eff

 

[BlackShanglan]

Fiftyfive -

I actually agree that some of the people at the top are corrupt, but I see this as being part of human nature rather than religion. Any structured system generates power; ruthless, ambitious people are drawn to power. Any system that gives power and has been in existance very long, whether a religion, a government, a social cause, a legal system, or what have you, will (in my humble opinion) gradually come to contain more and more people who are there for the power and not for the mission. This is not to say that the original mission was bad or even that the organization created to achieve the mission had bad goals; it merely means that power draws evil.

Shanglan

 

[fifty5]

Fiftyfive -

I actually agree <snip> This is not to say that the original mission was bad or even that the organization created to achieve the mission had bad goals; it merely means that power draws evil.

Shanglan

The problem I see is that all religions with a 'church' structure are sources of power - and as you say, "power draws evil"...

When I was young, I asked my Dad why he didn't come to church when my mum took me. His answer was that he had nothing against Christianity, but that 'Churchianity' was different.

I wish I'd been mature enough to discuss that properly with him before he died. I think we'd have agreed.

Eff

 

[BlackShanglan]

While I agree that power draws evil ... so do power vacuums. Such is the twisted nature of humans. A lack of anyone in power is, itself, a form of power. I don't think the problem is as simple as levelling organizing institutions. However one organizes or fails to, people who are ruthless and amoral will always have a certain physical or pragmatic advantage over those with scruples.

Perhaps it is as well. Virtue is in some ways virtue because it is less efficient than vice in the short run.

Shanglan

 

[fifty5]

While I agree that power draws evil ... so do power vacuums.

Shanglan, I think we agree on most premises, but that we'll have to agree to disagree on conclusions. My take is that organised religion is one of the single most pernicious sources of evil in this world, but I don't think I'll ever persuade you to agree.

That's OK. I've no personal ill-will towards you - and I don't want to give personal offense.

I have no opinion about the amount of good done by individual religious people, other than that I am sure it does exist. That ignorance means I cannot balance the good against the evil - other than a firm belief that good people will do good, no matter what their beliefs.

Going back to square 1, I don't believe that the arrogant, those with a lust for power, or the hypocritical will do good.

That's why I nominated/agreed to those 3 as belonging in a modern list of Deadly Sins.

Eff

 

[BlackShanglan]

Fair enough. I'm willing to admit that your puppy is extremely cute; let's take that for our basis for future accords.

(By the way, I would love the website, but your PM box was too full for me to tell you that privately.)

Shanglan