Post #27435
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2006-06-23 08:08
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Seven "Deadly" Sins, my ass.
Currently 1.00/4
Post Rating: 1.0/4 (5 votes cast)
view doubleplusungood memoryhole crimethink
As most people know from very vocal evangelical monotheists, there are seven "deadly" sins: pride, envy, sloth, wrath, greed, lust, and gluttony. The three largest monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all condemn sin as being transgressions against their respective god's will. A fourth, less popular monotheistic religion, and is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion still around, Zoroastrianism, has no concept of repentence from sin. "Mazda has already set up the Principle of Consequences, which establishes that you will receive the consequences of your choices in kind and automatically". Additionally, Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin itself, sin being a purely later monotheistic invention.
The basis behind sin is that the behaviors marked off as "sinful" are contrary to the will of god, and thus, antithetical and negative towards god. Such behaviors are considered "evil", or, at the very least, "wicked" and "unspiritual".
Envy is the desire for another's traits, status, abilities, station, or worldly goods. It need not be associated with an object; its salient characteristic is the unfavorable comparison of one's own status with that of another.
Envy is one of the seven deadly sins in the Catholic tradition. It is considered sinful because envious people ignore their own blessings, and focus on others' status rather than their own spiritual growth.
Envy is often confused with the Deadly Sin of covetousness, or greed, a desire for material wealth (which may or may not belong to others). Envy in its covetous form is forbidden by the Ten Commandments in the Bible.
In some cultures, envy is often associated with the colour green, as in "green with envy". The phrase "green-eyed monster" refers to an individual whose current actions appear motivated by envy. This is based on a line from Shakespeare's Othello.
So, in simplistic terminology, envy is the desire to possess traits belonging to someone else. Furthermore, how is desire deadly? What were these Jews smoking when they wrote this up as an evil sin? I'm envious of plenty of people. I desire to possess their physical strength, I desire to possess large sums of money with which to spend on elaborate sex toys, exquisite food, and to finance a jobless life in luxury. There are plenty of other things I desire, and am subsequently envious about since I probably won't be able to have it, but nonetheless, I'm still envious.
Applying envy to economics, an incentive is a play on envy. If you desire something bad enough, you have an incentive to work harder to achieve it. Obviously, envy is a constructive feeling and behavior as long as you're willing to be productive, but why should be be "sinful" at all, even if you are lazy and refuse to work? It's your life, and you're an individual with the right to be as lazy as you want. It doesn't mean I think you should receive charity or welfare if you refuse to work, but it's everyone's right to choose their own life.
Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs. Greed is listed as one of the Catholic seven deadly sins, usually by the synonym of avarice.
Greedy individuals are often portrayed as harmful to society as their motives often appear to disregard the welfare of others: within a closed context of limited resources, one person's improved economic condition must come at the expense of others. However, even in a non-zero sum context, an extreme state of affluence can result only from a diversion of resources from others to the affluent.
When greed entails the covetousness of another person's attributes, the term envy is used. When greed is applied to the subject of the excessive consumption of food or drink the term gluttony is often used, another of the Catholic seven deadly sins. Greed is sometimes represented by the color yellow and the frog.
Buddhists believe greed is based on incorrectly connecting material wealth with happiness. This is caused by a deluded view that exaggerates the positive aspects of an object.
In simple terms, greed is the desire for material possessions. Again, as with the sin of envy, I hardly see how greed is possibly deadly. Greed is what motivates the economic system of every society since the dawn of time. Person A wants something that Person B owns, so they make a trade. Eventually, barter gave way to medium-based economics where a non-perishable medium was used to store value and replace bartering with buying. A common statement is that money doesn't buy happiness. People who say that are just poor. Money buys everything, and having a large house, a decent car, a lovely woman on your lap, the entire collection of the Star Trek series whose Amazon.com prices are outrageous, and plenty of food and comforts, does make you happy. I like having stuff, it makes me feel good. Having my laptop makes me feel great because most people in this world don't have their own computer, and the various other luxury items I possess also make me feel good because they're so useful, comfortable, and indicative of status. Hooray for material possessions, because materialism rocks!
There does come a point when greed can't be used to justify the dimunition of happiness or well-being of others. Logging companies would cut down every damn tree they could get their hands on if environmental organizations and governmental regulations hadn't been passed to limit their consumption of biological resources. Halliburton is another example of non-constructive greed: overcharging soldiers in Iraq for basic food supplies and things like toilet paper and towels. There's always examples of greed being used non-constructively. As long as greed is an individual thing and doesn't harm other people in the process, it's completely alright to me. But, when someone else's greed causes me harm, I would have to take an issue.
I'm also not surprised that Buddhists don't see the connection between materialism and happiness. They're so busy trying to find Nirvana that they don't realize they live in a material universe where material possessions means wealth, which means happiness, because happiness "ain't" cheap.
Gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or intoxicants to the point of waste. In the Christian religions, it is considered one of the seven deadly sins -- a misplaced desire of food or its withholding from the needy.
Gluttony is a pretty straightforward sin: eat too much, and you go to hell. I don't know about anyone else, and I don't claim to speak for anyone, but I enjoy my meat and potatoes, and I love overeating when it's damned good food on my plate. Take me to a sushi bar and I'll eat an incredulous amount of food relative to my actual body size. It's amazing that I'm not overweight.
And, what do you know! It's an actually deadly behavior, if you eat and eat and don't stop eating, or if you eat fatty foods constantly. You'll end up with overload or heart and arterial diseases. But, that's only if you eat foods regardless of their content, constantly. Most people in this world don't, because they either have cultures which don't have fatty cuisine, or because they don't eat enough food to begin with. Now, although I admit to being gluttonous whenever I can, I wouldn't withhold food from a starving person, and if someone was starving, and was near me, I'd share or give my food away without a second thought. I have no intention or reason to deliberately cause harm, or to not help someone. It's an interesting fact that the world currently produces enough food to feed every single human being on Earth, with plenty of food to spare, and yet people starve to death by the millions.
But in any case, it's an individual choice to overeat, and if you want to overeat, more power to you.
Lust is any intense desire or craving, usually sexual, although it is also common to speak of a "lust for life" or a "lust for power" or other goals.
As a sexual term, lust implies a sexual desire in and of itself, an erotic arousal and wish, or intense physical or sexual attraction or craving. In this sense, it is considered a vice by Christianity, and is listed as one of the seven deadly sins of Catholicism and its related denominations. The Greek word which translates as lust is επιθυμια (epithumia), which also is translated as covet.
This is definitely my favorite sin, however, if I was really hungry, I couldn't pass out on sushi or steak. Pussy can wait.
Sexual desire is an animalistic instinct all monosexual organisms possess. It gives us an incentive and will to mate, thus, to pass on our genetic legacy, and to continue the propagation of our species. To vilify such a natural impulse is absolutely ridiculous. We all have sexual desire (besides very few individuals who claimt to be asexual) and we all have sexual thoughts. It cannot be helped; we are programmed to be sexual creatures. Sex is an intensely intimate act, and is completely natural.
Pride refers to a strong sense of self-respect, a refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in the accomplishments of oneself or a person, group, or object that one identifies with.
It can also refer to Hubris, or excessive pride, which was usually the defining trait that lead to the tragic hero's tragic downfall according to Aristotle. It is in this negative connotation that pride is usually referred to with respect to religion.
In Christianity, pride (or vanity or arrogance) is the essentially competitive and excessive belief in one's own abilities that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God, or the worth which God sees in others. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is listed as one of the seven deadly sins, as superbia.
Pride is also condemned in Hinduism. Ravana, an evil king who was killed by Rama, avatar of Vishnu, exhibited deadly sins of pride and lust. In spirituality pride is linked to the local "I" and ego, as distinct from the nonlocal "us".
In Islam, pride is also forbidden. According to a narration from Muhammad, he said: "He in whose heart there is as much as a grain of pride will not enter paradise," and a man remarked: "A man likes his garment to be beautiful and his sandals to be beautiful." Then Muhammad replied: "God, Most High, is beautiful and likes beauty; pride is disdaining what is true and despising people" (Sahih Muslim).
Likewise, in Judaism, pride is to be avoided. "Blessed is that man that makes the LORD his trust, and looks not to the proud, nor to those that turn aside to lies." (Psalm 40:5)
I'm a pretty prideful person; I'm incredibly stubborn when I feel like being stubborn, and I'm very proud of my achievements and my works. Why shouldn't I be proud of what I do? It's a celebration of my ego, and is purely constructive. Constructive pride is essentially the same as constructive egotism. To encourage the ego and to encourage oneself to perform and achieve great things develops the individual to be independent and productive, as well as motivated, and gives a sense of self-worth and self-esteem through pride in one's doings.
And then there is hubris. Pride which is used to attack others, to impose one's ego on another person, and to downplay or destroy the works or achievements of others in order to further an excessive ego trip is never a good thing, since it alienates and polarizes opinion against such an egotistic individual.
Laziness is the lack of desire to act or work in general or to do an act or work that is expected of the person. In extreme cases, a generalized tendency to do nothing may verge on apathy and be a symptom of depression. What is considered laziness in any given instance, however, varies depending on cultural/societal context and magnitude, but it is generally considered a negative quality, as in sloth (see Seven deadly sins). Laziness can be considered an exaggeration of the natural instinct to do nothing that makes people get healthy rest. Laziness is usually associated with procrastination.
It has been argued that laziness is the source of many innovations that would have stemmed from the will to spare oneself a tiring job.
Yeah, lying around is really deadly. I'm a very lazy person. I like to lie around, I hate exercizing and doing stuff, and I like to sit in bed all day. And who's business is it to tell me I can't be lazy? I think Christians have a nanny-complex.
The last part is a great concept, and makes complete sense. We have developed technology to free us from labor, or to make labor less strenuous. If we didn't feel like being lazy, we would still be out hunting deer and wearing loincloths.
Anger is an emotional response to a grievance; real or imagined; past, present or future. Rage refers to an extreme degree of anger associated with a loss of calmness or discipline (in the case of human conduct).
Often based in a sensation or perception of threat, anger can be considered an emotional component in the increased threat response (part of the broader "stress response") whereby the charged emotional state produces physiological effects (increased adrenaline, cortisol), thereby producing behavioural effect of heightened stress and aggression.
Anger may be "provoked" (or triggered) by perceived threats, like conflict, or by abstract concepts such as injustice.
There are many physical conditions that increase the potential for one to become angry. Common contributors to irritability include fatigue, hunger, being in pain, sexual frustration, recovery from an illness, or the use of certain drugs. Other causes are hormonal changes, such as those associated with PMS, giving birth, and menopause, physical withdrawal, and bipolar disorder. Research also shows that some individuals can be genetically predisposed to higher levels of anger.
Wrath, when used to right a wrong, such as reciprocating an act by an individual who has unjustly harmed, is not inherently "wrong". Animals recriprocate; humans do as well. Law is state-sanctioned revenge. While if we were to take out revenge whenever someone wronged us and result in a state of anarchy, the law is used methodically to mete out punishment to those who have committed crimes. Without wrath, crime cannot be punished, and without wrath, revenge by vigilantism becomes a norm.
After having analyzed and commented on the so-called deadly sins, I've come to two inescapable conclusions:
1. They aren't deadly. Gluttony can result in death, but the chances are slim compared to the rate of starvation world-wide. None of these acts which have been vilified will inherently cause death or individual destruction, unless you sit down, never move, and eat Twinkies non-stop for the rest of your life, and then atrophy and die of heart failure brought on by arteriosclerosis.
2. It's an example of religious totalitarianism. All of these sins are synonymous, in concept, with the Newspeak word of "ownlife". These behaviors are individualistic; they all boost the ego, indulge us in pleasure, or provide us with comfort of mind or body. To be enslaved to a religion, you need to think that individualism is bad, that pleasure is bad, that comfort is bad, and that ownlife is a bad thing.
These sins are nothing more than vilification of individuality. Individuality, as well as knowledge, are the two mortal enemies of monotheistic religion, because they both pose a threat; glorification of the individual ego and encouragement to enjoy life, and without ignorance, monotheism cannot maintain its hold on a person's mind; respectively.
If someone truly enjoys life, they won't inherently have a desire to turn to superstition and to the worship of imaginary friends. People who do not enjoy life, and are ill-educated, will undoubtedly turn to superstition for answers they can't seek themselves.
In conclusion, I maintain that materialism, individualism, ego-gratification, and pleasures of life are not harmful, as long as they don't involve harm to others. In this way, they're constructive, and useful, to the individual, and there's nothing deadly about that. _________________
Post #27446
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2006-06-23 10:44
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Epithumia is a classic example of Christian ignorance. In its original context of the Seven Deadly Sins (an idea conceived by clergy men who could actually speak Latin and Greek) it was referring to "lust without consideration for the object of lust". As far as sexual desire, many clergy in the past- once they got settled into the idea that the apocalypse probably wasn't coming tomorrow- were relatively ok with it.
Take a genuine case from a 14th century parish in England: a man promised a woman that he would marry her, if only she would have sex with him. She did so (clearly, that old trick was fresher in those days), but then he went back on his promise. Her friend, who had overheard the conversation, brought the case to the local parish court. They decided that he had entered into a verbal contract, and had an obligation to marry her. They weren't bothered with the idea of premarital sex (let's not forget that, in the past, the engagement took place after conception, not before- one wants to know that everything is functional) but with the idea of a child born out of wedlock and thus unsupported.
The modern Church is obsessed with sex because it can be, and because a sexualised culture is a natural consequence of a sexual animal (humans) being gradually freed of an unnatural hedophobic bondage (Messianic religion).
All of those "sins", as you point out, ultimately depend on context and extremity. _________________ If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable
Post #27448
Joined: 26 Feb 2006
Posts: 430
Total Words: 38,497
Average words per post: 89.53
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2006-06-23 11:33
Politics: Whatever Hollywood tells me to believe
Country: United States
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
those sins more easily result in malice and self-destruction than constructive action. but considering how many Christians are hypocrites everything they preach should be ignored. when you stop thinking about them, they cease to exist like the hallucinations they profess to believe in. _________________ satan reads the bible that god is the object of sacrifice. - Parrotse
Post #27466
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2006-06-23 21:17
Politics: Zionist
Country: American Empire
Re: Seven "Deadly" Sins, my ass.
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
As most people know from very vocal evangelical monotheists,
Read: Christians.
Mephisto wrote:
there are seven "deadly" sins: pride, envy, sloth, wrath, greed, lust, and gluttony. The three largest monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all condemn sin as being transgressions against their respective god's will.
Actually, in Judasim sins that affect other people are viewed as transgressions against other people, not against god. These sins are even regarded as even more serious than sins against god.
Meph wrote:
A fourth, less popular monotheistic religion, and is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion still around, Zoroastrianism, has no concept of repentence from sin. "Mazda has already set up the Principle of Consequences, which establishes that you will receive the consequences of your choices in kind and automatically". Additionally, Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin itself, sin being a purely later monotheistic invention.
I'm not sure if that's better or worse, since the concept of repentance at least encourages one to feel sorry for what they did. In Zoroastrianism it doesn't matter if you're sorry. You're still gonna get it in the end.
Mef wrote:
The basis behind sin is that the behaviors marked off as "sinful" are contrary to the will of god, and thus, antithetical and negative towards god. Such behaviors are considered "evil", or, at the very least, "wicked" and "unspiritual".
What about behaviors that are harmful against other people? Taken, I don't think god would give a shit if you were lazy one day. BUT, what if you were an air traffic controller and you decided you needed an unscheduled break? Isn't Sloth kind of sinful, then, as in sin through inaction?
Envy is the desire for another's traits, status, abilities, station, or worldly goods. It need not be associated with an object; its salient characteristic is the unfavorable comparison of one's own status with that of another.
Envy is one of the seven deadly sins in the Catholic tradition. It is considered sinful because envious people ignore their own blessings, and focus on others' status rather than their own spiritual growth.
Envy is often confused with the Deadly Sin of covetousness, or greed, a desire for material wealth (which may or may not belong to others). Envy in its covetous form is forbidden by the Ten Commandments in the Bible.
So, in simplistic terminology, envy is the desire to possess traits belonging to someone else. Furthermore, how is desire deadly? What were these Jews smoking when they wrote this up as an evil sin?
It wasn't written up as an evil sin...
M wrote:
I'm envious of plenty of people. I desire to possess their physical strength, I desire to possess large sums of money with which to spend on elaborate sex toys, exquisite food, and to finance a jobless life in luxury. There are plenty of other things I desire, and am subsequently envious about since I probably won't be able to have it, but nonetheless, I'm still envious.
And as a result, you are not content. One of the virtues of Judaism is to not overvalue material posessions, and live humbly as a Tzadik, a righteous person.
From an existentialist point of view, how can one find peace with themselves and God if they are constantly desiring more material distractions?
Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs. Greed is listed as one of the Catholic seven deadly sins, usually by the synonym of avarice.
Greedy individuals are often portrayed as harmful to society as their motives often appear to disregard the welfare of others: within a closed context of limited resources, one person's improved economic condition must come at the expense of others. However, even in a non-zero sum context, an extreme state of affluence can result only from a diversion of resources from others to the affluent.
In simple terms, greed is the desire for material possessions.
That's oversimplification, right there.
[quote="Mememememem]I'm also not surprised that Buddhists don't see the connection between materialism and happiness. They're so busy trying to find Nirvana that they don't realize they live in a material universe where material possessions means wealth, which means happiness, because happiness "ain't" cheap.[/quote]
I recommend you read "Siddartha" by Hermann Hesse. It is a fictional novel that details the quest of one man to reach Nirvana.
Gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or intoxicants to the point of waste. In the Christian religions, it is considered one of the seven deadly sins -- a misplaced desire of food or its withholding from the needy.
Gluttony is a pretty straightforward sin: eat too much, and you go to hell.
Lust is any intense desire or craving, usually sexual, although it is also common to speak of a "lust for life" or a "lust for power" or other goals.
As a sexual term, lust implies a sexual desire in and of itself, an erotic arousal and wish, or intense physical or sexual attraction or craving. In this sense, it is considered a vice by Christianity, and is listed as one of the seven deadly sins of Catholicism and its related denominations. The Greek word which translates as lust is επιθυμια (epithumia), which also is translated as covet.
This is definitely my favorite sin, however, if I was really hungry, I couldn't pass out on sushi or steak. Pussy can wait.
Sexual desire is an animalistic instinct all monosexual organisms possess. It gives us an incentive and will to mate, thus, to pass on our genetic legacy, and to continue the propagation of our species. To vilify such a natural impulse is absolutely ridiculous. We all have sexual desire (besides very few individuals who claimt to be asexual) and we all have sexual thoughts. It cannot be helped; we are programmed to be sexual creatures. Sex is an intensely intimate act, and is completely natural.
Pride refers to a strong sense of self-respect, a refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in the accomplishments of oneself or a person, group, or object that one identifies with.
[...]
I'm a pretty prideful person; I'm incredibly stubborn when I feel like being stubborn, and I'm very proud of my achievements and my works. Why shouldn't I be proud of what I do? It's a celebration of my ego, and is purely constructive. Constructive pride is essentially the same as constructive egotism. To encourage the ego and to encourage oneself to perform and achieve great things develops the individual to be independent and productive, as well as motivated, and gives a sense of self-worth and self-esteem through pride in one's doings.
And then there is hubris. Pride which is used to attack others, to impose one's ego on another person, and to downplay or destroy the works or achievements of others in order to further an excessive ego trip is never a good thing, since it alienates and polarizes opinion against such an egotistic individual.
There is no real way to argue against this in a secular manner. The reason religion attacks pride is because it in theory blinds one from viewing how insignificant they are compared to God.
MephiMephiMephi wrote:
If someone truly enjoys life, they won't inherently have a desire to turn to superstition and to the worship of imaginary friends. People who do not enjoy life, and are ill-educated, will undoubtedly turn to superstition for answers they can't seek themselves.
Some people do not have the means to enjoy life in the manner which you described above. For instance, they may be too poor to afford an education or material objects.[/quote] _________________ ಠ_ಠ
Post #27471
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2006-06-24 02:04
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Re: Seven "Deadly" Sins, my ass.
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Read: Christians.
You really believe that only Christian monotheists preach and make their religious feelings known?
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Actually, in Judasim sins that affect other people are viewed as transgressions against other people, not against god. These sins are even regarded as even more serious than sins against god.
That doesn't change the fact that some "sins" are against your god. And since most of the sins on the list are claimed to be against the will of your god, that's hardly not a transgression against your god.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
What about behaviors that are harmful against other people? Taken, I don't think god would give a shit if you were lazy one day. BUT, what if you were an air traffic controller and you decided you needed an unscheduled break? Isn't Sloth kind of sinful, then, as in sin through inaction?
Being lazy itself isn't a crime and it's not deadly and it's not "bad". Being lazy only becomes harmful when you, as per that example, shirk your job, but it would take quite an extraordinarily stupid individual to take a break as an air traffic controller. If an airport doesn't actually keep an eye on the people who make sure the planes land without crashing into each other, then they have some bigger problems than just some dumbass individual.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
It wasn't written up as an evil sin...
The Bible claims that "sin" is a transgression against god. The Bible also says that trangressions against god are inherently "evil".
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
And as a result, you are not content. One of the virtues of Judaism is to not overvalue material posessions, and live humbly as a Tzadik, a righteous person.
From an existentialist point of view, how can one find peace with themselves and God if they are constantly desiring more material distractions?
You presume to tell me whether or not I'm content? People who live humbly are slaves. Why would anyone in their right mind live an austere life in the service of their imaginary friends?
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
I recommend you read "Siddartha" by Hermann Hesse. It is a fictional novel that details the quest of one man to reach Nirvana.
I recommend you read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche. It is a fictional novel that details the quest of one man to spread the word that god is dead.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
There is no real way to argue against this in a secular manner. The reason religion attacks pride is because it in theory blinds one from viewing how insignificant they are compared to God.
The reason that monotheistic religion attacks pride is because people who possess constructive pride are almost impossible to convert to superstitious drivelled ideas. People who, often, are content with themselves, don't need to turn to superstitious nonsense.
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Some people do not have the means to enjoy life in the manner which you described above. For instance, they may be too poor to afford an education or material objects.
Do you honestly think I don't know that people in this world are poor? Who the fuck on this forum wouldn't know that? _________________
Post #27482
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2006-06-24 05:39
Politics: Zionist
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
mephisto wrote:
You really believe that only Christian monotheists preach and make their religious feelings known?
Well...basically. Why do you think it is the most widespread religion to date? As far as I know, no other religious institution sent missionaries across the world to spread the word of its god.
meph wrote:
Do you honestly think I don't know that people in this world are poor? Who the fuck on this forum wouldn't know that?
Hey, there, calm down. I'm not preaching to you. I'm just telling you why some of these are viewed as sins through the religious perspective. Keep in mind that in the time that the laws were concieved the notion of individual rights had not yet been established. Actually, these types of rules were viewed as quite progressive back then.
Also remember that back then people did not have science in the conventional sense, and the notion of a god seemed quite realistic and comprehensible to them, given the large amount of unexplained phenomena. _________________ ಠ_ಠ
Post #27520
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 1304
Total Words: 126,566
Average words per post: 97.06
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2006-06-24 21:15
Politics: Soviet
Country: United States of Oppression
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Well, I gotta give my two kopeikas' worth here.
First of all, the entire notion of sin, its venial and mortal applications thereof are actually inconsistent with what the entire Church structure has had to offer for the last .... well, the time span isn't important.
What really is a kicker - is that although this meaningless sin crap is in the Bible a lot, how often has it been followed?
We can trace the abuses back near the beginnings of this rather incomprehensible teaching, along with all of its inconsistencies.
Let's see. First, the 'spreading of Christianity to the savages' - was merely an imperialistic excuse to destroy native people for material wealth, all the while sowing seeds of hostility that exist to this day.
This was done by diseased sailors, slave traders (Columbus <---) and Catholic missionaries forcing their 'religion' on the native masses.
How generous of them to bring their 'wealth of knowledge' . And their wealth of diseases. -Moving on....
Second - the Crusades and Inquisitions of old. Yes, let's fight the barbaric Muslims for Jerusalem. Yay.
Three times. Three times they sent a crusade, and three times were repulsed.
The Inquisitions were simply like the Great Purges of '37 and '38, only on a more prolonged scale. 'Anybody suspected of being a witch or adulterer who doesn't reacant - death by burning at the stake!'
If this is what Christianity has to offer to people, then I'm just going to carry guns when I turn 21.
See, the entire structure of the Church is to control and to subjugate. Mercilessly, irrevocably.
Post #27571
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2006-06-25 19:07
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
As most people know from very vocal evangelical monotheists, there are seven "deadly" sins: pride, envy, sloth, wrath, greed, lust, and gluttony. The three largest monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all condemn sin as being transgressions against their respective god's will. A fourth, less popular monotheistic religion, and is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion still around, Zoroastrianism, has no concept of repentence from sin. "Mazda has already set up the Principle of Consequences, which establishes that you will receive the consequences of your choices in kind and automatically". Additionally, Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin itself, sin being a purely later monotheistic invention.
The basis behind sin is that the behaviors marked off as "sinful" are contrary to the will of god, and thus, antithetical and negative towards god. Such behaviors are considered "evil", or, at the very least, "wicked" and "unspiritual".
I am going to argue from a rational perspective that all of these sins are bad, because they make you less happy and abstaining from them makes one more happy. Furthermore, I will argue that pqartaking in each sin inhibits freedom, while abstaining from each one increases it. Because throw the R or G bomb is frowned upon here, they will not enter this argument for the sake of mutual understanding.
Quote:
So, in simplistic terminology, envy is the desire to possess traits belonging to someone else. Furthermore, how is desire deadly? What were these Jews smoking when they wrote this up as an evil sin? I'm envious of plenty of people. I desire to possess their physical strength, I desire to possess large sums of money with which to spend on elaborate sex toys, exquisite food, and to finance a jobless life in luxury. There are plenty of other things I desire, and am subsequently envious about since I probably won't be able to have it, but nonetheless, I'm still envious.
Applying envy to economics, an incentive is a play on envy. If you desire something bad enough, you have an incentive to work harder to achieve it. Obviously, envy is a constructive feeling and behavior as long as you're willing to be productive, but why should be be "sinful" at all, even if you are lazy and refuse to work? It's your life, and you're an individual with the right to be as lazy as you want. It doesn't mean I think you should receive charity or welfare if you refuse to work, but it's everyone's right to choose their own life.
Envy is great if the goal of life was maximum material outcome. Envy is what creates competition, being a necessar evil for capitalism. However, it would be faulty to assume that all status, all income, and all creation of anything has its basis in envy. People give away fotunes out of the goodness of their hearts. People run charities. Rich people become the Ches and Buddhas of the world. Furthermore, some people want socialism, not because they envy wealth, but because of humanitarian reasons. Envy is not needed as an essential motivation for action.
However, that's not the crux of my argument. There are things that we can envy and have no chance of attaining. Ten inch cocks. Stephen Hawking's brain. Monstrous Roger Clemens' pythons. No food allergies. Now, we coulde our whole lives wishing to be someone else and feel anger and resentment over our lack of capacity being so, or we can instead think lightly at the uselessness of envy. Why do I need pythons like Roger Clemens? I can be happy with the way I am. I would much rather have that then being unhappy the way I am. So, I can pay no mind to envy and be free to be consumed with other endevors (sp) or I can be a perpetual slave to envy, because I can never satisf my appetite for envy.
I choose the freedom of abstaining from envy over the slavery of partaking in it.
Quote:
In simple terms, greed is the desire for material possessions. Again, as with the sin of envy, I hardly see how greed is possibly deadly. Greed is what motivates the economic system of every society since the dawn of time. Person A wants something that Person B owns, so they make a trade. Eventually, barter gave way to medium-based economics where a non-perishable medium was used to store value and replace bartering with buying.
I cover this point in envy.
Quote:
A common statement is that money doesn't buy happiness. People who say that are just poor.
Yeah, all of those rich rock and rollers who have anything at their fingertips who kill themselves are happy. Better yet, was a pharoh in ancient egypt happier than an average poor westernized person today? Poor people today have more material posessions (other than those made of rock, wood, or bullion.) Medicine, AC, mind altering drugs, food, air conditioning...you name it, the pharoh couldn't buy it. So, the question is whether the poor person now is exponentially happier now than the pharoh, and if Bill Gates is the happiest man who ever walked the Earth. These ideas are obviously false. If we can feel secure in what ever economic state we are in, we can more easily find happiness. I have lived as both "poor" and modestly wealthy, so I can speak from experience.
Quote:
Money buys everything, and having a large house, a decent car, a lovely woman on your lap, the entire collection of the Star Trek series whose Amazon.com prices are outrageous, and plenty of food and comforts, does make you happy. I like having stuff, it makes me feel good. Having my laptop makes me feel great because most people in this world don't have their own computer, and the various other luxury items I possess also make me feel good because they're so useful, comfortable, and indicative of status. Hooray for material possessions, because materialism rocks!
It did not seem to work out for the fictional character Scarface... I think a good Ben Affleck quote that surmises you point is "For those who say money can't buy you happiness, just look at the fucking smile on my face." Again, because I disproved that an increase in material possessions is equivalent to an increase in happiness, one cannot say that material things make us happy. Furthermore, to be enslaved by the desire for more material things we have no hope of having will only make us miserable with what we have at the moment, even if it trumps the ancient Pharoh's treasures. If we are content with what we ave and desire no more of it, we are free from an unsatisfied appetite, thus one is freer and happier wthout greed.
Quote:
Gluttony is a pretty straightforward sin: eat too much, and you go to hell. I don't know about anyone else, and I don't claim to speak for anyone, but I enjoy my meat and potatoes, and I love overeating when it's damned good food on my plate. Take me to a sushi bar and I'll eat an incredulous amount of food relative to my actual body size. It's amazing that I'm not overweight.
And, what do you know! It's an actually deadly behavior, if you eat and eat and don't stop eating, or if you eat fatty foods constantly. You'll end up with overload or heart and arterial diseases. But, that's only if you eat foods regardless of their content, constantly. Most people in this world don't, because they either have cultures which don't have fatty cuisine, or because they don't eat enough food to begin with. Now, although I admit to being gluttonous whenever I can, I wouldn't withhold food from a starving person, and if someone was starving, and was near me, I'd share or give my food away without a second thought. I have no intention or reason to deliberately cause harm, or to not help someone. It's an interesting fact that the world currently produces enough food to feed every single human being on Earth, with plenty of food to spare, and yet people starve to death by the millions.
But in any case, it's an individual choice to overeat, and if you want to overeat, more power to you.
Yes, but over eating expansds your stomach, making it harder to be satisfied with the amount of food you would be satisfied with before. So you eat and intoxicate youyrself more and more, while the one who abstains from this is free from health problems AND the domination of her/his life from constant ingestion. After all, by your logic, gluttony costs money, and if gluttony fails to satisfy, this will decrease the amount of material posessions you can by, thus the amount of happiness you can assume.
Quote:
This is definitely my favorite sin, however, if I was really hungry, I couldn't pass out on sushi or steak. Pussy can wait.
Sexual desire is an animalistic instinct all monosexual organisms possess. It gives us an incentive and will to mate, thus, to pass on our genetic legacy, and to continue the propagation of our species. To vilify such a natural impulse is absolutely ridiculous. We all have sexual desire (besides very few individuals who claimt to be asexual) and we all have sexual thoughts. It cannot be helped; we are programmed to be sexual creatures. Sex is an intensely intimate act, and is completely natural.
Doggies have sex in the park, yet we have the good sense to abstain from it. To paraphrase from the humanist Pico della Mirandola, men can be vegetative, brutes, or angels. We choose what we are through our own good (or lack of) sense. We can degrade ourselves like animals and have voyeuristic sex, and make people uncomfortable by always staring at them, and why not when we are at it, jack off in public. Again, to lust for something you cannot have (sex with every single person you would like to have sex with) while fucking up your whole life in divorces and such trying to buy sex, will make you mentally, and economically, less free and less happy. If we look at our brothers and sisters in humanity as people and not brutish sex objects, we can have more meaningful friendships and not dominate our minds with insatiable appetites.
Quote:
I'm a pretty prideful person; I'm incredibly stubborn when I feel like being stubborn, and I'm very proud of my achievements and my works. Why shouldn't I be proud of what I do? It's a celebration of my ego, and is purely constructive. Constructive pride is essentially the same as constructive egotism. To encourage the ego and to encourage oneself to perform and achieve great things develops the individual to be independent and productive, as well as motivated, and gives a sense of self-worth and self-esteem through pride in one's doings.
And then there is hubris. Pride which is used to attack others, to impose one's ego on another person, and to downplay or destroy the works or achievements of others in order to further an excessive ego trip is never a good thing, since it alienates and polarizes opinion against such an egotistic individual.
However, any sort of pride develops precisely into hubris. It gets us hot headed and angry in trivial arguments. It leads people to kill for the sake of honor. Pride is not necessary for constructive reasons and is inherently destructive to the individual's character and all that are in contact wit that person.
Pride weighs you down, because you have to carry the ewxcessive ego which you cannot ever live up to. We should never be proud of our accomplishments or our abilities. We should expect to do well, be good, and be constructive. For example, I never went to my high school or college graduation for two reasons: 1. Graduation is a trivial celebration and 2. my parents hate each other. This discussion has more to do with number 1, so I will concern myself with that. I do not need o celebrate the fact that I need an education and I succeeded in that fact. I have been asked, "Aren't you proud of your accomplishments?" My good sense tells me that I should not be and that's what I tell them. Furthermore, why should we be proud of events and celebrate our own greatness? Every single day is a gift, to celebrate something trivial one day is to dtract from the gift that wer have any days to enjoy.
So, when free of pride, we can be motivated by sources that can be satisfied. The desire to do good fopr example. However, if we are motivated to do anything in order to enhance ego, we will find ourselves unable to hol up the ego we place on top of our shoulders. It will only weigh you down, because it cannot be satisfied and it could never be great enough.
Quote:
Yeah, lying around is really deadly. I'm a very lazy person. I like to lie around, I hate exercizing and doing stuff, and I like to sit in bed all day. And who's business is it to tell me I can't be lazy? I think Christians have a nanny-complex.
The last part is a great concept, and makes complete sense. We have developed technology to free us from labor, or to make labor less strenuous. If we didn't feel like being lazy, we would still be out hunting deer and wearing loincloths.
I have problems, though in your mind they are not, with pride or laziness. Perhaps, my laziness will hurt my ability to argue against it. However, I will try.
We are lazy because we are afraid of doing anything tiring. So, we put off what we need to do and learn, and in result, less amounts of essential work makes the lazy one feel overwhelmed. At this point, one's reaction is to correct oneself and feel like he/she is doing more wok than they should be, or be lazy again and run into this problem two fold. The hard worker finds additional work to be less tiring, thus feels more secure when their is necessary labor. It is better to be active for health reasons and for moral reasons (you need to work in order to work in a sop kitchen). To be honest, I am very good at doing the types of work I do, and I can work for man hours doing it. However, I wish I was more physically active, but my health toooften gets in the way. Perhaps I am too lazy. Now you guilted me into running tomorrow!
Quote:
Wrath, when used to right a wrong, such as reciprocating an act by an individual who has unjustly harmed, is not inherently "wrong". Animals recriprocate; humans do as well. Law is state-sanctioned revenge. While if we were to take out revenge whenever someone wronged us and result in a state of anarchy, the law is used methodically to mete out punishment to those who have committed crimes. Without wrath, crime cannot be punished, and without wrath, revenge by vigilantism becomes a norm.
Wrath is unjust punishment. In England, they were quite qrathful with their robbers. Those wh robbed were hanged. The response? The robbers would kill those who they robbed, to lssen the chances they would be caught, so they would be hanged anyway. Thus, wrath creates worse results for everyone, while just and "unwrathful" punishment leads to the best result. Thus, to act without revenge in mind is much better than wrath. To be dominated by wrath will consume your whole life--like hating that punk that taunted you in middle school. To be free from that hatred makes you happier and freer.
Quote:
1. They aren't deadly. Gluttony can result in death, but the chances are slim compared to the rate of starvation world-wide. None of these acts which have been vilified will inherently cause death or individual destruction, unless you sit down, never move, and eat Twinkies non-stop for the rest of your life, and then atrophy and die of heart failure brought on by arteriosclerosis.
How are the sins deadly? If you waste the only life you have in being in inconsumable sin, you can never be satisfied, thus you waste your whole life and you are dead in sin. Thus, the sins are indeed deadly in the secular sense.
Quote:
2. It's an example of religious totalitarianism. All of these sins are synonymous, in concept, with the Newspeak word of "ownlife". These behaviors are individualistic; they all boost the ego, indulge us in pleasure, or provide us with comfort of mind or body. To be enslaved to a religion, you need to think that individualism is bad, that pleasure is bad, that comfort is bad, and that ownlife is a bad thing.
So, is it better to be free to punch your brother, while he punches you back for an hopur, or have your mom make a rule, "no punching your brother." Does the rule inhibit our freedom? Far from it! It frees us from an hour of needless punching. Religions have attempted to make rules for the opposite of enslaving people. People can better be individuals when they are free from earthly flaws than enslaved to animalistic insticts that could be moderated. Sure, you can conform to a society of couch potatos and suc, but you can be better than that. You can choose to rise aove it. You can be freer and happier.
Post #27588
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2006-06-25 20:33
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
I am going to argue from a rational perspective that all of these sins are bad, because they make you less happy and abstaining from them makes one more happy. Furthermore, I will argue that pqartaking in each sin inhibits freedom, while abstaining from each one increases it. Because throw the R or G bomb is frowned upon here, they will not enter this argument for the sake of mutual understanding.
A person who seriously believes in the magical Jew can hardly be called a rationalist, sorian. Each of the below-mentioned "sins" produces contentment, pleasure, or comfort, so how can they possibly be inherently unhappy? Furthermore, the below-mentioned desires and actions are a product of individual choice, so how can they be possibly unindividualistic?
sorianofan wrote:
Envy is great if the goal of life was maximum material outcome. Envy is what creates competition, being a necessar evil for capitalism. However, it would be faulty to assume that all status, all income, and all creation of anything has its basis in envy. People give away fotunes out of the goodness of their hearts. People run charities. Rich people become the Ches and Buddhas of the world. Furthermore, some people want socialism, not because they envy wealth, but because of humanitarian reasons. Envy is not needed as an essential motivation for action.
Charities don't eliminate poverty. Charity doesn't employ people. If you care about anonymous people, organize efforts to implement a welfare system here in America.
I never said envy was the root cause of action, and I don't know where the hell you got off on that. I said that envy is similar to economic incentive.
sorianofan wrote:
However, that's not the crux of my argument. There are things that we can envy and have no chance of attaining. Ten inch cocks. Stephen Hawking's brain. Monstrous Roger Clemens' pythons. No food allergies. Now, we coulde our whole lives wishing to be someone else and feel anger and resentment over our lack of capacity being so, or we can instead think lightly at the uselessness of envy. Why do I need pythons like Roger Clemens? I can be happy with the way I am. I would much rather have that then being unhappy the way I am. So, I can pay no mind to envy and be free to be consumed with other endevors (sp) or I can be a perpetual slave to envy, because I can never satisf my appetite for envy.
I choose the freedom of abstaining from envy over the slavery of partaking in it.
You must live a perfect life free from pain, suffering, heartache, and misery to say you are happy with the way things are. A lot of people would envy such a perfect life you lead.
sorianofan wrote:
Yeah, all of those rich rock and rollers who have anything at their fingertips who kill themselves are happy.
As everyone knows, only rock and rollers commit suicide, and only rock and rollers have money.
sorianofan wrote:
Better yet, was a pharoh in ancient egypt happier than an average poor westernized person today? Poor people today have more material posessions (other than those made of rock, wood, or bullion.) Medicine, AC, mind altering drugs, food, air conditioning...you name it, the pharoh couldn't buy it. So, the question is whether the poor person now is exponentially happier now than the pharoh, and if Bill Gates is the happiest man who ever walked the Earth. These ideas are obviously false. If we can feel secure in what ever economic state we are in, we can more easily find happiness. I have lived as both "poor" and modestly wealthy, so I can speak from experience.
Also, we all know, we should gauge happiness from the perspective of a single man, Bill Gates. For one, you don't know if he feels unhappy or not, so you can't possibly say what he feels. He can buy whatever he wants; any item of comfort, luxury, and contentment.
I'd say that a pharaoh was content with his life. He'd never experience hunger or poverty. In his world, advanced modern medicine and air conditioning didn't exist, so you can't possibly say he was unhappy about things which didn't exist and things which he couldn't possibly conceive of.
Also, note you said the pharaoh "couldn't buy [food]".
sorianofan wrote:
It did not seem to work out for the fictional character Scarface...
Hm sorian... maybe it had something to do with him being a member of the mafia? Perhaps? Maybe?
sorianofan wrote:
I think a good Ben Affleck quote that surmises you point is "For those who say money can't buy you happiness, just look at the fucking smile on my face." Again, because I disproved that an increase in material possessions is equivalent to an increase in happiness, one cannot say that material things make us happy.
You didn't disprove anything. In your first paragraph you came across with an automatic assertion that materialism doesn't bring about happiness, without bothering to explain why you think that, and now you assert it as being truth without any explanation.
I'll make a play on your "logic". The decrease in pirates globally has led to the increase in global temperatures.
sorianofan wrote:
Furthermore, to be enslaved by the desire for more material things we have no hope of having will only make us miserable with what we have at the moment, even if it trumps the ancient Pharoh's treasures. If we are content with what we ave and desire no more of it, we are free from an unsatisfied appetite, thus one is freer and happier wthout greed.
To reject our own human feelings would be accepting mediocrity. To desire things is to give incentive to work to acquire and attain. Not everyone desires unattainable things, and even if they did, what business is it of yours to tell them what to think?
So, I'm miserable, despite being happy with what I have? I desire more things, but you seem to think that people who want more things have the inability to be happy.
sorianofan wrote:
Yes, but over eating expansds your stomach, making it harder to be satisfied with the amount of food you would be satisfied with before. So you eat and intoxicate youyrself more and more, while the one who abstains from this is free from health problems AND the domination of her/his life from constant ingestion. After all, by your logic, gluttony costs money, and if gluttony fails to satisfy, this will decrease the amount of material posessions you can by, thus the amount of happiness you can assume.
Overeating itself isn't inherently harmful, it's simply harmful when you incredulously overabuse it. Anything is harmful in the right dosage; i.e. enough water can kill you. It's apparent in the end of your paragraph that you believe people who like to eat will never remain a normal size and will always end up obese.
sorianofan wrote:
Doggies have sex in the park, yet we have the good sense to abstain from it. To paraphrase from the humanist Pico della Mirandola, men can be vegetative, brutes, or angels. We choose what we are through our own good (or lack of) sense. We can degrade ourselves like animals and have voyeuristic sex, and make people uncomfortable by always staring at them, and why not when we are at it, jack off in public.
I don't believe I ever said I encourage public sex. There are laws against indecency, and such acts in public would land you in jail.
sorianofan wrote:
Again, to lust for something you cannot have (sex with every single person you would like to have sex with) while fucking up your whole life in divorces and such trying to buy sex, will make you mentally, and economically, less free and less happy.
Divorces? You seem to think everyone wants to perform the religious ceremony of marriage.
Prostitution is unhappiness? Not according to the billions of people who have tried it.
sorianofan wrote:
If we look at our brothers and sisters in humanity as people and not brutish sex objects, we can have more meaningful friendships and not dominate our minds with insatiable appetites.
Lol. Brutish sex objects... as we all know, only sadists have sex.
We're animals, we desire sex, and sex is good. Most of us control our sexual urges, especially in public, so would you care to explain how sex is completely "insatiable"?
sorianofan wrote:
However, any sort of pride develops precisely into hubris.
Also, as everyone knows, it's impossible to possess pride without hubris.
sorianofan wrote:
It gets us hot headed and angry in trivial arguments. It leads people to kill for the sake of honor. Pride is not necessary for constructive reasons and is inherently destructive to the individual's character and all that are in contact wit that person.
Pride weighs you down, because you have to carry the ewxcessive ego which you cannot ever live up to. We should never be proud of our accomplishments or our abilities. We should expect to do well, be good, and be constructive. For example, I never went to my high school or college graduation for two reasons: 1. Graduation is a trivial celebration and 2. my parents hate each other. This discussion has more to do with number 1, so I will concern myself with that. I do not need o celebrate the fact that I need an education and I succeeded in that fact. I have been asked, "Aren't you proud of your accomplishments?" My good sense tells me that I should not be and that's what I tell them. Furthermore, why should we be proud of events and celebrate our own greatness? Every single day is a gift, to celebrate something trivial one day is to dtract from the gift that wer have any days to enjoy.
So, when free of pride, we can be motivated by sources that can be satisfied. The desire to do good fopr example. However, if we are motivated to do anything in order to enhance ego, we will find ourselves unable to hol up the ego we place on top of our shoulders. It will only weigh you down, because it cannot be satisfied and it could never be great enough.
It's almost as if I didn't say there's a difference between "constructive pride" and "hubris"!
sorianofan wrote:
I have problems, though in your mind they are not, with pride or laziness. Perhaps, my laziness will hurt my ability to argue against it. However, I will try.
We are lazy because we are afraid of doing anything tiring.
As everyone knows, it's impossible to enjoy being lazy. It's only possible to be afraid of moving around because invisible pink dragons may eat us if we move around.
sorianofan wrote:
So, we put off what we need to do and learn, and in result, less amounts of essential work makes the lazy one feel overwhelmed. At this point, one's reaction is to correct oneself and feel like he/she is doing more wok than they should be, or be lazy again and run into this problem two fold. The hard worker finds additional work to be less tiring, thus feels more secure when their is necessary labor. It is better to be active for health reasons and for moral reasons (you need to work in order to work in a sop kitchen). To be honest, I am very good at doing the types of work I do, and I can work for man hours doing it. However, I wish I was more physically active, but my health toooften gets in the way. Perhaps I am too lazy. Now you guilted me into running tomorrow!
How's that not obvious? You can't be lazy forever if you plan on getting employed.
sorianofan wrote:
Wrath is unjust punishment. In England, they were quite qrathful with their robbers. Those wh robbed were hanged. The response? The robbers would kill those who they robbed, to lssen the chances they would be caught, so they would be hanged anyway. Thus, wrath creates worse results for everyone, while just and "unwrathful" punishment leads to the best result. Thus, to act without revenge in mind is much better than wrath. To be dominated by wrath will consume your whole life--like hating that punk that taunted you in middle school. To be free from that hatred makes you happier and freer.
Wrath doesn't naturally apply to those who cause wrongdoing. A robber doesn't have the right of lex talonus because he is not a victim.
sorianofan wrote:
How are the sins deadly?
Good question; your religion claims they are.
sorianofan wrote:
If you waste the only life you have in being in inconsumable sin, you can never be satisfied, thus you waste your whole life and you are dead in sin. Thus, the sins are indeed deadly in the secular sense.
All of the acts produce contentment and pleasure.
sorianofan wrote:
So, is it better to be free to punch your brother, while he punches you back for an hopur, or have your mom make a rule, "no punching your brother." Does the rule inhibit our freedom? Far from it! It frees us from an hour of needless punching. Religions have attempted to make rules for the opposite of enslaving people. People can better be individuals when they are free from earthly flaws than enslaved to animalistic insticts that could be moderated. Sure, you can conform to a society of couch potatos and suc, but you can be better than that. You can choose to rise aove it. You can be freer and happier.
A parent who lets their children punch each other ought to be forced by the state to give the children up to a foster family. Those types of parents don't deserve to be parents to begin with.
I find it hard to believe you believe that religion's purpose is to free people. Freedom is slavery? The only freedom religion offers is ignorance and stupidity. _________________
Post #27640
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sun 2006-06-25 23:47
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
A person who seriously believes in the magical Jew can hardly be called a rationalist, sorian.
I don't think you ever seriously read into, or understand my beliefs from my own perspective, thus you have no right to judge it, no less throw an ad hominem. One finds a lot more dogma (like money=happiness) in your arguments than in mine, so then let an outsider decide who is the rationalist. I purposely made no religious arguments, and if you cannot debunk what I say without insulting my beliefs that are outside of the argument presented, it only reflects upon the weaknesses of your premises. Thus, focus only on the argument and no other preconceived notions.
Quote:
Each of the below-mentioned "sins" produces contentment, pleasure, or comfort, so how can they possibly be inherently unhappy?
Now you are being dogmatic. My argument is that they cannot but help make one unhappy. So, answer to the argument.
Quote:
Furthermore, the below-mentioned desires and actions are a product of individual choice, so how can they be possibly unindividualistic?
Read the above, but replace "unhappy" with "unfree." I must be in the business of making up words, but you get the point.
Quote:
Charities don't eliminate poverty. Charity doesn't employ people. If you care about anonymous people, organize efforts to implement a welfare system here in America.
I never said envy was the root cause of action, and I don't know where the hell you got off on that. I said that envy is similar to economic incentive.
My point was that because we cannot fathom human nature without envy or charity, we cannot credit either as good for the sake of action. Of course, we can judge by the fact that "charity is a better force behind action" or "envy is a better force behind action" when judging their relative moral goodness, practicality, or innate goodness.
Quote:
You must live a perfect life free from pain, suffering, heartache, and misery to say you are happy with the way things are. A lot of people would envy such a perfect life you lead.
I wish my life was perfect. I have a left wrist that never healed, a right arm that huts every second of the day, I get sick all the time, I have ridiculous food allergies, I come from a broken home, I have parents that have some problems...we all have problems, but we should not envy those of ous that don't have what we have. I cannot control what I am, and I am all what I'll ever be. The best I can do is work hard, do right, and be thankful and happy with what I have and what I earn. Whatever I do not posess is none of my business.
Quote:
As everyone knows, only rock and rollers commit suicide, and only rock and rollers have money.
It was an example. I can name personal examples. Hell, I can probably find statistics somewhere. Poorer and more likely incarcerated black youth have less suicides than more well to do white youth (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00051591.htm, the trend is beginning to reverse but not yet.) Blacks also have higher self esteem: (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan00/graylit012400.htm). Now, we can conclude that being poorer makes us more happy, or we can realize that wealth does not play a significant factor.
Quote:
Also, we all know, we should gauge happiness from the perspective of a single man, Bill Gates. For one, you don't know if he feels unhappy or not, so you can't possibly say what he feels. He can buy whatever he wants; any item of comfort, luxury, and contentment.
We cannot make that assumption. That's the point. Unless you can prove to me he's the happiest man ever, or very high up there,. your argument holds no water. He might be happy, he might not be. I don't know. However, his absurd amount of wealth should make him notably happy if it was wealth that truly plays a significant role in happiness. The statistical; anomalies I cite above do support my argument.
Quote:
I'd say that a pharaoh was content with his life. He'd never experience hunger or poverty. In his world, advanced modern medicine and air conditioning didn't exist, so you can't possibly say he was unhappy about things which didn't exist and things which he couldn't possibly conceive of.
Yes, but you can be less happy if you have not experienced it by your logic. We can take advil to get rid of our headaches. The pharoh was screwed in that department. He was hot and sweaty all day, and because he had it "so easy," he was never distracted so that these things wouldn't bother him.
So, does "stuff" make you happy or doesn't it? If it did, we should be the happiest planet of people ever.
Quote:
Also, note you said the pharaoh "couldn't buy [food]".
He couldn't get raw cookie dough, italian ice, champaign, drakes cakes, kobe steak...
Quote:
Hm sorian... maybe it had something to do with him being a member of the mafia? Perhaps? Maybe?
Well, Oliver Stone was probably taking a stab at 80s excess, but I'm no movie critic.
Quote:
You didn't disprove anything. In your first paragraph you came across with an automatic assertion that materialism doesn't bring about happiness, without bothering to explain why you think that, and now you assert it as being truth without any explanation.
Perhaps you skipped a paragraph you just read...its there, don't pretend it is not. By all means say that you disagree with my logic, but do not assert that I make "automatic assumptions." The fact I take the time to write such long responses to everything shows that I do put effort into explaining my positions and I would respect the fact that if you do not assert otherwise for no reason.
Quote:
The decrease in pirates globally has led to the increase in global temperatures.
The increase of material possessions makes us happy...oh wait, that is not a positive correlation either.
Quote:
To reject our own human feelings would be accepting mediocrity.
We have conflicting feelings...thankfulness and envy. I assert it is better to choose the former to emphasize. I am sure there are moments you are not envious Thus, there is a duality in human character. We have to make our choice between which we choose, counciously or not.
Quote:
To desire things is to give incentive to work to acquire and attain. Not everyone desires unattainable things, and even if they did, what business is it of yours to tell them what to think?
It isn't my business. It is their own business not to be made miserable with the feeling that whatever status they have is not good enough.
Quote:
So, I'm miserable, despite being happy with what I have? I desire more things, but you seem to think that people who want more things have the inability to be happy.
Not everything is black and white. The feeling of envy might detract from your overall hapiness, and by the degree of your envy the same applies. If we are unhappy with our current status because we want a higher one, aren't we unhappy? If we are happy with our current status, aren't we happy? It is rather straight forward.
Quote:
Overeating itself isn't inherently harmful, it's simply harmful when you incredulously overabuse it. Anything is harmful in the right dosage; i.e. enough water can kill you. It's apparent in the end of your paragraph that you believe people who like to eat will never remain a normal size and will always end up obese.
That's not my point at all. My point is that overeating, weight gain or not, really doesn't do anything for you in the end. If you have less of an appetite, you are more easily satisfied. The larger your appetite, the opposite is true.
Quote:
I don't believe I ever said I encourage public sex. There are laws against indecency, and such acts in public would land you in jail.
Yes, but you miss the point. We can be totally moderate with our sexual habits and totally immoderate...or somewhere in the middle. If lust was something tto be strived for, we would jack off to the hot lady in the subway while riding next to her. Your own good sense knows this is ridiculous, so you don't. So, how can lust in its most extreme form be good? Sure, it is great for the race, but we are talking about personal jhappiness, and immoderate sex, as I shown in its most extreme forms, does not make one happy.
Quote:
Divorces? You seem to think everyone wants to perform the religious ceremony of marriage.
No, but people marry people they don't really love for a combination of lust and status. Lust in the real world is very expensive and not conducive to happiness. Are you actually unhappy because you didn't get laid in a month, or are you horny? There's a difference. Horniess can be ignored to a great degree like all things, the results of lust cannot be.
Quote:
Prostitution is unhappiness? Not according to the billions of people who have tried it.
Billions of people get into fist fights, drink until they barf, fight in wars, etc. We do plenty of things to make us in the end happy while accomplishing the opposite.
Quote:
We're animals, we desire sex, and sex is good.
For the race, but my argument revolves around personal happiness and personal freedom.
Quote:
Most of us control our sexual urges, especially in public, so would you care to explain how sex is completely "insatiable"?
Simply because if we were perfectly lustful and feared no consequences, we would fuck in public. Thus, if lust is good, people are not being "good enough." Obviously, lust is bad, and that's the very reason why we do very publicly control it and only let it dominate our private lives. Those who realize that it is self defeating let it dominate their lives less.
Quote:
It's almost as if I didn't say there's a difference between "constructive pride" and "hubris"!
I did speak of strictly pride and it appears you have failed to answer to it.
Quote:
As everyone knows, it's impossible to enjoy being lazy. It's only possible to be afraid of moving around because invisible pink dragons may eat us if we move around.
So convincing...
Quote:
How's that not obvious? You can't be lazy forever if you plan on getting employed.
Yeah, but if I was a Lokist, I would believe that laziness is good.
Quote:
Wrath doesn't naturally apply to those who cause wrongdoing. A robber doesn't have the right of lex talonus because he is not a victim.
But wrathe hurts us all as I have (well, Sir Thomas More actually) has shown.
Quote:
Good question; your religion claims they are.
Again, I am making a rational argument. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your argument is also rational and not some sort of sophistry devised because you want to feel comfortable with your own personal weaknesses.
Quote:
All of the acts produce contentment and pleasure.
Big Brother loves you...just believe it, I have no need to back that up!
Quote:
A parent who lets their children punch each other ought to be forced by the state to give the children up to a foster family. Those types of parents don't deserve to be parents to begin with.
You purpoosely avoided answering the question posed. The very fact you pretend that siblings don't hit each other (not hard of course) over stupid crap seems like you have been locked in a room your whole life without a family.
Quote:
I find it hard to believe you believe that religion's purpose is to free people. Freedom is slavery? The only freedom religion offers is ignorance and stupidity.
Ad hominem arguments don't prove much and for the "umpteenth" time, let me restate I am presenting a rational argument. No where did I talk about the sins casting anyone into hell or anything like that. Man, you don't have to be so bitter. You dogmatiucally assume I am doing some sort of doublethink, yet it is you who dogmatically and irrationally answer to my arguments with oneliners and sometimes no arguments at all.
We are free to make choices. Which choice makes us happier? Which choice inhibits our ability to make different and better choices? Is it "sin" or is it abstaining from "sin." My argument was one from abstinence and I went about arguing in favor of that. Your argument against seems more like religion if you ask me-- you offer no reasons, and when posed with logical counter arguments, you just restate your opinion instead of answering to anything.
Hopefully, if you do plan on responding, you give me the respect of explaining yourself instead of avoiding the tough questions, and not using personal insults. If you do, not only do I have nothing more to say to you, but you will only prove that you were so irrational that you could not handle aomeone questioning your dogmas, in the fear you would be made uncomfortable.
I wish you and everyone here the best. I have no hard feelings. Have a good one Loki, I have enjoyed reading your thread and writing my posts.
Post #27661
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-06-26 04:12
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
A person who seriously believes in the magical Jew can hardly be called a rationalist, sorian.
I don't think you ever seriously read into, or understand my beliefs from my own perspective, thus you have no right to judge it, no less throw an ad hominem. One finds a lot more dogma (like money=happiness) in your arguments than in mine, so then let an outsider decide who is the rationalist. I purposely made no religious arguments, and if you cannot debunk what I say without insulting my beliefs that are outside of the argument presented, it only reflects upon the weaknesses of your premises. Thus, focus only on the argument and no other preconceived notions.
I should focus on the argument? I believe it was you who threw out the claim you're a rationalist. You're not free from criticism, sorian. I've debated with you about the theology of a first cause, and as I noted there, your assertions didn't follow universal logic... which is why I don't consider you rational, based on my experience with you.
You saying things like "religion=happiness/freedom" isn't dogmatic? Of course I have a set of principles. I believe I've made it perfectly clear, in this conversation, and in others, that I am a materialist. I have the right to say what I think, just as you do. The thing is that neither of us is free from criticism, which is why we're debating.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Each of the below-mentioned "sins" produces contentment, pleasure, or comfort, so how can they possibly be inherently unhappy?
Now you are being dogmatic. My argument is that they cannot but help make one unhappy. So, answer to the argument.
The statement "cannot but help make one unhappy" is an assertion, just like mine. Saying I'm dogmatic, and ignoring your own dogmatic statements, is poor debating tactics on your part. If you can't even realize you've made assertions without foundation, that's not my problem. I made the assertion that human desires and impulses makes us happy, throughout my original post. You haven't clearly explained why those human desires makes us inherently unhappy.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Furthermore, the below-mentioned desires and actions are a product of individual choice, so how can they be possibly unindividualistic?
Read the above, but replace "unhappy" with "unfree." I must be in the business of making up words, but you get the point.
Making up words in a conversation to express a concept isn't a bad thing.
Quoting you: "I am going to argue from a rational perspective that all of these sins are bad, because they make you less happy and abstaining from them makes one more happy. Furthermore, I will argue that pqartaking in each sin inhibits freedom, while abstaining from each one increases it. Because throw the R or G bomb is frowned upon here, they will not enter this argument for the sake of mutual understanding."
How is saying, to the effect of "acting upon human desires makes you less free", when human desires are clearly a product of the individual mind?
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Charities don't eliminate poverty. Charity doesn't employ people. If you care about anonymous people, organize efforts to implement a welfare system here in America.
I never said envy was the root cause of action, and I don't know where the hell you got off on that. I said that envy is similar to economic incentive.
My point was that because we cannot fathom human nature without envy or charity, we cannot credit either as good for the sake of action. Of course, we can judge by the fact that "charity is a better force behind action" or "envy is a better force behind action" when judging their relative moral goodness, practicality, or innate goodness.
I'm not quite clear on what you mean when you say "x is a better force behind action". Do you mean that if envy produces constructive action, then it's good?
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
You must live a perfect life free from pain, suffering, heartache, and misery to say you are happy with the way things are. A lot of people would envy such a perfect life you lead.
I wish my life was perfect. I have a left wrist that never healed, a right arm that huts every second of the day, I get sick all the time, I have ridiculous food allergies, I come from a broken home, I have parents that have some problems...we all have problems, but we should not envy those of ous that don't have what we have. I cannot control what I am, and I am all what I'll ever be. The best I can do is work hard, do right, and be thankful and happy with what I have and what I earn. Whatever I do not posess is none of my business.
Sorian, you still have not said why envy is inherently bad. How does wanting things harm you? You've said "we should not envy" and you've also said "envy is not necessary", and you've said "envy [enslaves]", but you haven't explained any further beyond these assertions. There's no foundation to them. How does envy enslave me? I'm perfectly capable of functioning as a human being. Envy isn't a physical entity. How can I be enslaved to my desires? I desire sex, food, comfort, but does that mean I'm incapable of not eating when I wish to, or not having sex when I wish to?
Any of the so-called "sins" can cause problems if a person disregards the safety of others. Some jealous wives will kill their husbands if they suspect them of cheating around, and some children have killed their friends to possess a mere toy. It's rare, considering the actual number of cases versus the people in this world. I'll agree with you that if human desires are taken beyond the realm of social order and respect for other life it can be bad, but what does that tell you about the person anyways? They're sociopathic to begin with.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
As everyone knows, only rock and rollers commit suicide, and only rock and rollers have money.
It was an example. I can name personal examples. Hell, I can probably find statistics somewhere. Poorer and more likely incarcerated black youth have less suicides than more well to do white youth (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00051591.htm, the trend is beginning to reverse but not yet.) Blacks also have higher self esteem: (http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jan00/graylit012400.htm). Now, we can conclude that being poorer makes us more happy, or we can realize that wealth does not play a significant factor.
Well, if we're going to start attributing solid characteristics to members of a race, then, in addition to Blacks possessing higher self-esteem, Aryans seem to be a master race.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Also, we all know, we should gauge happiness from the perspective of a single man, Bill Gates. For one, you don't know if he feels unhappy or not, so you can't possibly say what he feels. He can buy whatever he wants; any item of comfort, luxury, and contentment.
We cannot make that assumption. That's the point. Unless you can prove to me he's the happiest man ever, or very high up there,. your argument holds no water. He might be happy, he might not be. I don't know. However, his absurd amount of wealth should make him notably happy if it was wealth that truly plays a significant role in happiness. The statistical; anomalies I cite above do support my argument.
I can't prove what Bill Gates thinks since Bill Gates hasn't said if he's happy or not. Now, can you prove to me that poor, starving people; the opposite of him, are happy? Are people happy to be poor? I'd be interested to see the results.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
I'd say that a pharaoh was content with his life. He'd never experience hunger or poverty. In his world, advanced modern medicine and air conditioning didn't exist, so you can't possibly say he was unhappy about things which didn't exist and things which he couldn't possibly conceive of.
Yes, but you can be less happy if you have not experienced it by your logic. We can take advil to get rid of our headaches. The pharoh was screwed in that department. He was hot and sweaty all day, and because he had it "so easy," he was never distracted so that these things wouldn't bother him.
My logic? I never said that not experiencing something you have absolutely no concept or knowledge of makes you less happy.
sorianofan wrote:
So, does "stuff" make you happy or doesn't it? If it did, we should be the happiest planet of people ever.
Seems to me that the current statistics are that most of this world aren't wealthy.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Also, note you said the pharaoh "couldn't buy [food]".
He couldn't get raw cookie dough, italian ice, champaign, drakes cakes, kobe steak...
Those things didn't exist, and champaigne is not a food. Do you even know what you're talking about? You're trying to defend your statement that food didn't exist during the time of the pharaohs.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Hm sorian... maybe it had something to do with him being a member of the mafia? Perhaps? Maybe?
Well, Oliver Stone was probably taking a stab at 80s excess, but I'm no movie critic.
I don't like Stone. He's a conspiracy theorist nutcase. Have you seen the criticism on his movie, "JFK"?
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
You didn't disprove anything. In your first paragraph you came across with an automatic assertion that materialism doesn't bring about happiness, without bothering to explain why you think that, and now you assert it as being truth without any explanation.
Perhaps you skipped a paragraph you just read...its there, don't pretend it is not. By all means say that you disagree with my logic, but do not assert that I make "automatic assumptions." The fact I take the time to write such long responses to everything shows that I do put effort into explaining my positions and I would respect the fact that if you do not assert otherwise for no reason.
I didn't skip anything. Your argument up to that point was this:
1. These sins are bad
2. [Materialism] make[s] you less happy
3. Envy [is] slavery
4. Food didn't exist in Egypt
5. You're unhappy if you're incapable of conceiving future innovations (despite the fact you don't know about them anyways, so you can't possibly be unhappy about something you haven't even thought about)
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
The decrease in pirates globally has led to the increase in global temperatures.
The increase of material possessions makes us happy...oh wait, that is not a positive correlation either.
Yeah, let's just ignore the fact we live in a material universe, and that, in general, possessing more things leads to greater security, comfort, and prosperity.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
To reject our own human feelings would be accepting mediocrity.
We have conflicting feelings...thankfulness and envy. I assert it is better to choose the former to emphasize. I am sure there are moments you are not envious Thus, there is a duality in human character. We have to make our choice between which we choose, counciously or not.
Thankfulness to who? I don't thank an imaginary friend for things I own or things I receive. I thank people for giving me things, when they do.
I think you're under the impression envy is inherently malicious. I can want things, and desire things, without resorting to criminal acts to acquire them. I work for the things I own. Personally, I don't want to live in a mansion, I don't want a Mercedes-Benz, and I don't want a bank account as big as Bill Gate's. That's my own personal feeling though, and I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who wish more than I want myself. But, that's up to the individual. You've made it clear (by implying) that you'd be happy just living a decent life. That's fine; to each his own. However, most people in this world would like more than less. Whether it's more food, more money, more possessions, more sex, etc, people like having more than having less.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
To desire things is to give incentive to work to acquire and attain. Not everyone desires unattainable things, and even if they did, what business is it of yours to tell them what to think?
It isn't my business. It is their own business not to be made miserable with the feeling that whatever status they have is not good enough.
I think the line between constructive envy and non-constructive envy is pretty thin. I agree that it's painful, to the ego, to constantly feel less of a person because of their status, whatever that status might be. However, without the desire to have more of something (whatever that might be), there wouldn't be much of an incentive to get off your ass and work. Some people don't work at all, and that's their choice.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
So, I'm miserable, despite being happy with what I have? I desire more things, but you seem to think that people who want more things have the inability to be happy.
Not everything is black and white. The feeling of envy might detract from your overall hapiness, and by the degree of your envy the same applies. If we are unhappy with our current status because we want a higher one, aren't we unhappy? If we are happy with our current status, aren't we happy? It is rather straight forward.
I agree that the degree of human desire can harm or help the ego. I used the word "constructive" when applied to helpful pride, and the same can be applied to everything else. However, ultimately, it's in the hands of the individual, and if that individual wants to remain envious of everything, and feel inferior as a result, or eat himself to death, that's his business.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Overeating itself isn't inherently harmful, it's simply harmful when you incredulously overabuse it. Anything is harmful in the right dosage; i.e. enough water can kill you. It's apparent in the end of your paragraph that you believe people who like to eat will never remain a normal size and will always end up obese.
That's not my point at all. My point is that overeating, weight gain or not, really doesn't do anything for you in the end. If you have less of an appetite, you are more easily satisfied. The larger your appetite, the opposite is true.
It's probably no surprise that I don't agree. If eating causes some form of pleasure, then more power to that person.
Materialism itself doesn't do anything for you in the end, either. We all die, and nothing can avoid that. But, in the meantime, I'd rather enjoy life than reject its pleasures; carnal and material they may be.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
I don't believe I ever said I encourage public sex. There are laws against indecency, and such acts in public would land you in jail.
Yes, but you miss the point. We can be totally moderate with our sexual habits and totally immoderate...or somewhere in the middle. If lust was something tto be strived for, we would jack off to the hot lady in the subway while riding next to her. Your own good sense knows this is ridiculous, so you don't. So, how can lust in its most extreme form be good? Sure, it is great for the race, but we are talking about personal jhappiness, and immoderate sex, as I shown in its most extreme forms, does not make one happy.
Lust between consenting adults isn't bad. It only becomes intrusive with other people when you involve them in your sexual acts without their consent, i.e. your subway example.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Divorces? You seem to think everyone wants to perform the religious ceremony of marriage.
No, but people marry people they don't really love for a combination of lust and status. Lust in the real world is very expensive and not conducive to happiness. Are you actually unhappy because you didn't get laid in a month, or are you horny? There's a difference. Horniess can be ignored to a great degree like all things, the results of lust cannot be.
What is love but glorified lust? Love itself is a mental disease, and once the chemicals wear off, the latent attraction is gone.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Prostitution is unhappiness? Not according to the billions of people who have tried it.
Billions of people get into fist fights, drink until they barf, fight in wars, etc. We do plenty of things to make us in the end happy while accomplishing the opposite.
If it makes us happy it doesn't make us unhappy. I'm sure plenty of serial killers enjoy what they do, assuming they aren't all sociopaths who don't actually understand what they're doing.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
We're animals, we desire sex, and sex is good.
For the race, but my argument revolves around personal happiness and personal freedom.
And what you've been arguing is that we reject our own human feelings in order to become free.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Most of us control our sexual urges, especially in public, so would you care to explain how sex is completely "insatiable"?
Simply because if we were perfectly lustful and feared no consequences, we would fuck in public. Thus, if lust is good, people are not being "good enough." Obviously, lust is bad, and that's the very reason why we do very publicly control it and only let it dominate our private lives. Those who realize that it is self defeating let it dominate their lives less.
If public sex became acceptable, then it couldn't be called a negative thing.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
It's almost as if I didn't say there's a difference between "constructive pride" and "hubris"!
I did speak of strictly pride and it appears you have failed to answer to it.
You were speaking as if I never said there was a difference in the degree of pride. You never asked a specific question, but I'll answer to the final bit of rhetoric.
The ego is our individual self. Pleasure, comfort, security, enhance the well-being of our ego. Your individuality can't weigh you down.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
As everyone knows, it's impossible to enjoy being lazy. It's only possible to be afraid of moving around because invisible pink dragons may eat us if we move around.
So convincing...
As if the statement "we are lazy because we are afraid to do anything tiring" is very convincing.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
How's that not obvious? You can't be lazy forever if you plan on getting employed.
Yeah, but if I was a Lokist, I would believe that laziness is good.
If being lazy makes you feel good, then that's your prerogative. I enjoy being lazy. I can't be lazy forever, however. If I could, I would.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Wrath doesn't naturally apply to those who cause wrongdoing. A robber doesn't have the right of lex talonus because he is not a victim.
But wrathe hurts us all as I have (well, Sir Thomas More actually) has shown.
Wrath is reciprocation. If someone smites you on one cheek, smash him on the other. Submitting to unjust actions only makes you a coward and only invites further transgressions against your self.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Good question; your religion claims they are.
Again, I am making a rational argument. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that your argument is also rational and not some sort of sophistry devised because you want to feel comfortable with your own personal weaknesses.
So, you're pretending to be a rationalist to appease me? And yes, it's obvious from everything I write that I'm a sophist who is incapable of debating, and suffers from great personal weaknesses.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
All of the acts produce contentment and pleasure.
Big Brother loves you...just believe it, I have no need to back that up!
In the same way you said you have no need to back up your theological arguments either?
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
A parent who lets their children punch each other ought to be forced by the state to give the children up to a foster family. Those types of parents don't deserve to be parents to begin with.
You purpoosely avoided answering the question posed. The very fact you pretend that siblings don't hit each other (not hard of course) over stupid crap seems like you have been locked in a room your whole life without a family.
If you can't comprehend what I said, maybe you shouldn't be debating. I didn't say anything about "pretend[ing] that siblings don't hit each other". Are you sure you read my statement correctly?
If you don't like my responses, that's not my problem.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
I find it hard to believe you believe that religion's purpose is to free people. Freedom is slavery? The only freedom religion offers is ignorance and stupidity.
Ad hominem arguments don't prove much and for the "umpteenth" time, let me restate I am presenting a rational argument. No where did I talk about the sins casting anyone into hell or anything like that. Man, you don't have to be so bitter. You dogmatiucally assume I am doing some sort of doublethink, yet it is you who dogmatically and irrationally answer to my arguments with oneliners and sometimes no arguments at all.
You've been, to quote one of your seemingly favorite words, "dogmatically" assuming I've said things despite the fact I haven't said anything of kind. That is irrational. I don't purposefully use ad hominems. When I said religion offers ignorance and stupidity, that's based on the history of religion in the last two thousand years. Unless you're going to deny the Middle Ages and the totalitarianism of Christianity from the fall of Rome to the Age of Enlightenment, then I have nothing to apologize for.
You do realize you've made yourself a hypocrite, using purposeful ad hominems when you perceived I was using ad hominems? I'm sure we both used ad hominems without knowing it. However, again, I don't purposefully use them, or "oneliners" unless I'm pointing out a contradiction or an absurdity. I'm not any more perfect than you, so don't forget that. ^^
sorianofan wrote:
We are free to make choices. Which choice makes us happier? Which choice inhibits our ability to make different and better choices? Is it "sin" or is it abstaining from "sin." My argument was one from abstinence and I went about arguing in favor of that. Your argument against seems more like religion if you ask me-- you offer no reasons, and when posed with logical counter arguments, you just restate your opinion instead of answering to anything.
Sorian, I hope you realize I can, and feel, the same about you. You haven't explained anything further in depth. We might as well agree to disagree.
sorianofan wrote:
Hopefully, if you do plan on responding, you give me the respect of explaining yourself instead of avoiding the tough questions, and not using personal insults. If you do, not only do I have nothing more to say to you, but you will only prove that you were so irrational that you could not handle aomeone questioning your dogmas, in the fear you would be made uncomfortable.
I don't avoid "tough questions". Things which come across as utterly absurd don't seem to deserve an answer. For instance... your claim that food didn't exist in Egypt. Now, do you see a reason for why I might come across to you as ignoring? Things which seem ridiculous and irrational are best left ignored.
The only "personal insult" I can think of was when I said "Magical Jew", but does that refer to you? Unless you're Jesus, it's not quite personal. But, perhaps I swore at you and called you names without knowing it.
sorianofan wrote:
I wish you and everyone here the best. I have no hard feelings. Have a good one Loki, I have enjoyed reading your thread and writing my posts.
I have no hard feelings either. I simply think we vastly disagree, and that's why it became so heated. And, perhaps we both may have miscommunicated or misinterpreted each other. _________________
Post #27702
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-06-26 11:21
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Unless you actually read what I wrote and respond to that instead of hinging your arguments on the spelling of "champaigne," whether Egypt had food, and other obviously unimportant things (you know that I am not arguing Egypt lacks food), then I have nothing more to say, because we are actually not arguing anything. I have explained the difference between freedom and slavery in regards to individual choice to sin and to purposely abstain from it. I never said here "religion=happiness." You either have some reading comprehension issues or you are really angry with me or something I represent. Forthat reason, unless cooler heads prevail, I have nothing more to say.
Start over, seriously consider the logical arguments I put forward and those alone. If something is dogmatic, underline it and call it out. I believe if you actually tried to show real examples of my supposed dogma, you would come up empty handed. I make this assumption because you fail to cite anything in a factual manner. For the sake of conciseness, if you respond in a philosophical and not sophistic manner, I will too underline statements of yours I consider "dogmatic" outside of "money equals happiness." This will only improve the debate we are having, because if otherwise, it is not worth having.
Post #27752
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-06-26 21:46
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
Unless you actually read what I wrote and respond to that instead of hinging your arguments on the spelling of "champaigne," whether Egypt had food, and other obviously unimportant things (you know that I am not arguing Egypt lacks food), then I have nothing more to say, because we are actually not arguing anything. I have explained the difference between freedom and slavery in regards to individual choice to sin and to purposely abstain from it. I never said here "religion=happiness." You either have some reading comprehension issues or you are really angry with me or something I represent. Forthat reason, unless cooler heads prevail, I have nothing more to say.
I mentioned the fact that you misspelled champaigne because champaigne was necessary to point out my disagreement with your statement. Correcting "champaigne" was simply a formality. Since I haven't purposefully corrected your grammar just for the sake of pointing out grammar errors, I think I had every right to correct it. But, that's beside the point.
Quoting You:
Religions have attempted to make rules for the opposite of enslaving people. People can better be individuals when they are free from earthly flaws than enslaved to animalistic insticts that could be moderated. Sure, you can conform to a society of couch potatos and suc, but you can be better than that. You can choose to rise aove it. You can be freer and happier.
Still sure you haven't said religion is happiness?
If you feel the need to leave this conversation, feel free to. I'm sure we can just pick up on the logical fallacies of a First Cause like we've done before. Or perhaps you'd prefer BB to, again?
sorianofan wrote:
Start over, seriously consider the logical arguments I put forward and those alone. If something is dogmatic, underline it and call it out. I believe if you actually tried to show real examples of my supposed dogma, you would come up empty handed. I make this assumption because you fail to cite anything in a factual manner. For the sake of conciseness, if you respond in a philosophical and not sophistic manner, I will too underline statements of yours I consider "dogmatic" outside of "money equals happiness." This will only improve the debate we are having, because if otherwise, it is not worth having.
My whole point is that I don't consider your arguments logical. You have these assertions that abstinence from materialism makes people happier than indulgence in materialism, but you haven't even bothered to really go in-depth. And when I've asked you to go in-depth, you don't display any wish to. So, why should I take you seriously?
Why would I want to label every dogmatic thing you've said? You've shot out at me that I've been dogmatic, so what makes you think I should play some kind of semantics game with you?
There's nothing philosophical about my statements on indulgence. I feel that indulgence brings about contentment, security, and happiness through the abundance of material possessions and the fulfillment of human desires. Call that sophist if you want, it's my opinion. I can easily call your opinions sophist as well for my own reasons of opinion. _________________
Post #28116
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2006-06-28 16:01
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
I mentioned the fact that you misspelled champaigne because champaigne was necessary to point out my disagreement with your statement. Correcting "champaigne" was simply a formality.
I understand and I thank you for that. I was jesting, because of the seemingly irrelevant counter arguments being presented to me. True, I am not a genius and I frequently misspell things. By all means correct me.
Quote:
Religions have attempted to make rules for the opposite of enslaving people. People can better be individuals when they are free from earthly flaws than enslaved to animalistic insticts that could be moderated. Sure, you can conform to a society of couch potatos and suc, but you can be better than that. You can choose to rise aove it. You can be freer and happier.
Still sure you haven't said religion is happiness?
Far from it. First, this was my second response to you, elicited afteryou brought religion into the conversation. I was defending your dogmatic assertion that "religion=slavery" at this point. To explain my counterpoint, I wrote three logical sentences to support my conflicting assertion. Thus, I was being the opposite of dogmatic.
While you clearly dogmatically state that the antithesis of most organized religions is happiness:
Quote:
Each of the below-mentioned "sins" produces contentment, pleasure, or comfort, so how can they possibly be inherently unhappy? Furthermore, the below-mentioned desires and actions are a product of individual choice, so how can they be possibly unindividualistic?
You assert these with no justification. I never said "religion is happiness" though I am certainly arguing "moderation is happiness" and offer reasons why abstaining from the sins you support in your argument leads to happiness. I wrote quite a bit about it. I have considered pulling out every dogmatic assertion you have made, where you would probably respond by attempting to do the same. I would respond by showing you the logic that proceeds the assertion, while you will likely respond that the premises are not logical, or worse yet, I am offering no premises! This is a worthless exercise and I want no part of it.
Now, I am not accusing you of being entirely dogmatic, at least not in your initial argument. However, I do think there are certain dogmas to be found, all of which I gave you the benefit of the doubt in my initial counter argument and offered logical counter-arguments. If your your counter argument to my argument is that I did not even make an argument and just responded to you with convoluted dogma, then I leave the community here to learn from our arguments for what they are and no need to continue.
Quote:
If you feel the need to leave this conversation, feel free to. I'm sure we can just pick up on the logical fallacies of a First Cause like we've done before. Or perhaps you'd prefer BB to, again?
Again, after I have explained myself, I believe it is false to say you found any fallasies. The more you tell yourself a lie, the farther from the truth you are. I have given you just time to your assertions and fully considered your arguments. I truthfully believe that you have not throughly considered mine, because it makes you uncomfortable with your own personal beliefs. Thus, you have left this conversation and many of ours usually the post after my first.
Quote:
My whole point is that I don't consider your arguments logical.
Well, in any philosophical argument you have several premises that prove a given argument, or you present the assertion first and support it with premises. I have done these things, thus the above quote is wrong.
As an introduction to philosophy, I will present how the above is a valid argument. Perhaps, you will understand my seeminly confused writing style more accurately now.
The dogma used above is the following: "in any philosophical argument you have several premises that prove a given argument"
This is an argument in its own right, but I am sure we agree so there is no need to bicker about it.
The premise is as follows: "I have done these things"
Those things are what we agree upon is what one should do when proving a point. I claim that I make an assertion on the basis of explained premises.
Now, you can disagree with this, but I will have to say you are wrong. Find an example of it. I honestly believe I have supported assertions with premises, and if I have failed at this and you can show this, then it is you that is right and I who is wrong. However, I do not believe that is the case.
Now finally the argument: "the above quote is wrong"
That's my conclusion, which is based upon the preceding premise. It isn't dogmatic.
Quote:
You have these assertions that abstinence from materialism makes people happier than indulgence in materialism, but you haven't even bothered to really go in-depth. And when I've asked you to go in-depth, you don't display any wish to. So, why should I take you seriously?
I shouldn't take you seriously because I did goin depth. I am not tooting my own horn at all, when I say that my post count shows that I go in depth with everything. I don't write short posts, short arguments, and unless I am writing 550 words of dogmatic sentence after another whenever I write to you, then in all probability, I am explaining myself fully.
I do not assert that abstinence from materialism makes one happier without going greatly in depth. If your refuse to acknowledge what is blatantly apparent, why should I take you seriously? I only have grown apprehensive when your responses failed to reflect what I have actually argued. You probably still think I am making a religious argument. If you still believe this, then you are misunderstanding something and should restart from square one.
[quuote]Why would I want to label every dogmatic thing you've said?[/quote]
Because you seem to have problems understanding what is dogmatic and what is genuinely supported. By all means disagree with the premises, but to needlessly say something is dogmatic when that is obviously not true, is useless.
Quote:
You've shot out at me that I've been dogmatic, so what makes you think I should play some kind of semantics game with you?
Like I said, I can make a list, but will it mean anything to you. If it does, I will go right ahead. I have quoted and responded to you point by point, until your last post, which drifted so far away from the argument I was making that I went into all of this.
Quote:
There's nothing philosophical about my statements on indulgence. I feel that indulgence brings about contentment, security, and happiness through the abundance of material possessions and the fulfillment of human desires. Call that sophist if you want, it's my opinion. I can easily call your opinions sophist as well for my own reasons of opinion.
Now, my counter arguments were that indulgence did not bring about happiness, because they fail to satisfy the appetite. I have explained the previous sentence. To restate it shortly, my premise is that all appetites cannot be fulfilled ultimately, and it is by denying appetites that one no longer as unfulilled desires. This is a straight forward argument.
Post #28123
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1697
Total Words: 329,434
Average words per post: 194.13
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2006-06-28 16:51
Politics: Socialist
Country: Ireland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, note you said the pharaoh "couldn't buy [food]".
He couldn't get raw cookie dough, italian ice, champaign, drakes cakes, kobe steak...
Those things didn't exist, and champaigne is not a food. Do you even know what you're talking about? You're trying to defend your statement that food didn't exist during the time of the pharaohs.
I believe it's spelled "champagne". No "i". _________________ "Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
Post #28127
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 1347
Total Words: 165,882
Average words per post: 123.15
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2006-06-28 19:40
Politics: Green
Country: Germany
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
RAK wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, note you said the pharaoh "couldn't buy [food]".
He couldn't get raw cookie dough, italian ice, champaign, drakes cakes, kobe steak...
Those things didn't exist, and champaigne is not a food. Do you even know what you're talking about? You're trying to defend your statement that food didn't exist during the time of the pharaohs.
I believe it's spelled "champagne". No "i".
Actually yes, since it comes from a region in France called Champagne... but then theres a city in the states called Champaign.... maybe it just got mixed up
Post #28129
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2006-06-28 19:50
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
My brother told me that though I explained myself, I could have explained myself more. So, I will make this as concise as possible so my position can be more easily understood. I will start from square 1, with your argument and my initial counter-argument.
Quote:
So, in simplistic terminology, envy is the desire to possess traits belonging to someone else. Furthermore, how is desire deadly? What were these Jews smoking when they wrote this up as an evil sin? I'm envious of plenty of people. I desire to possess their physical strength, I desire to possess large sums of money with which to spend on elaborate sex toys, exquisite food, and to finance a jobless life in luxury. There are plenty of other things I desire, and am subsequently envious about since I probably won't be able to have it, but nonetheless, I'm still envious.
Applying envy to economics, an incentive is a play on envy. If you desire something bad enough, you have an incentive to work harder to achieve it. Obviously, envy is a constructive feeling and behavior as long as you're willing to be productive, but why should be be "sinful" at all, even if you are lazy and refuse to work? It's your life, and you're an individual with the right to be as lazy as you want. It doesn't mean I think you should receive charity or welfare if you refuse to work, but it's everyone's right to choose their own life.
Your arguments:
1. Sin isn't deadly
2. Envy is enjoyable/good
3. Envy is not bad
Your premises:
1. Doesn't literally kill people (implied)
1. Sins are enjoyable (proceeds to explain why envy as a sin is enjoyable)
2. I [Loki] envy people (implies that you know you are happy envying people, and you are living evidence)
2. Is an incentive for action
3. If someone is envious, its their decision and none of your business
My response:
1. I answer to these through the argument and go sin by sin "showing" that they are deadly in a figurative since and
2. Not enjoyable, thus not good.
The logical construction of your 1 makes sense due to the non-literal reality of "deadly sin," but weaker until proven that a sin is enjoyable/good as you number 2 states.
Your implied evidence is not much of an argument, because I can simply argue the antithesis of 2 using myself as evidence. So let's throw that out.
Concerning an incentive for action, my counter argument is that envy is not necessary incentive for action, so if better incentives exists, we can agree that envy would have no redeeming qualities based upon the evidence you present.
Your number 3 relies upon your number 2: that envy is Good.
Why?
If envy is good, and in other instances neutral it MUST be good
However, if I can show envy is bad thus disproving number 2, this disproves number 3. Both of us are discussing how envy affects the individual alone, and as long as any of these things don't affect other people (wrath is a different case), then we need to judge the warrants of each sin by how it affects each individual Agreed?
So the issue here is number 2, because number 1 is reliant upon every one of the sins being proven as good, so I will discuss that later.
Thus my counter argument must produce 2 things (My arguments):
1. There is the best force than envy behind action; this takes away envy's worthiness as some sort of worthy instinct out of utility
2. Envy does not make the individual happier
Your evidence fails to disprove my number 2, because you used yourself as evidence. However, I will disprove your number two with my number 2 by arguing that envy makes one less happy. So, let's see if I can prove my number 1 and 2, disproving your 2 and 3.
My original argument:
Quote:
Envy is great if the goal of life was maximum material outcome. Envy is what creates competition, being a necessar evil for capitalism. However, it would be faulty to assume that all status, all income, and all creation of anything has its basis in envy. People give away fotunes out of the goodness of their hearts. People run charities. Rich people become the Ches and Buddhas of the world. Furthermore, some people want socialism, not because they envy wealth, but because of humanitarian reasons. Envy is not needed as an essential motivation for action.
My premises:
1. Charity and principle are better forces for action than envy
1. Charity and principle have been used in the past
1. Charity and principle are better, because they are a more positive force in the individual. This is contingent behind number 2:
Quote:
However, that's not the crux of my argument. There are things that we can envy and have no chance of attaining. Ten inch cocks. Stephen Hawking's brain. Monstrous Roger Clemens' pythons. No food allergies. Now, we coulde our whole lives wishing to be someone else and feel anger and resentment over our lack of capacity being so, or we can instead think lightly at the uselessness of envy. Why do I need pythons like Roger Clemens? I can be happy with the way I am. I would much rather have that then being unhappy the way I am. So, I can pay no mind to envy and be free to be consumed with other endevors (sp) or I can be a perpetual slave to envy, because I can never satisf my appetite for envy.
I choose the freedom of abstaining from envy over the slavery of partaking in it.
My premises:
2. Wanting things you cannot possibly have is disappointing
2. Being satisfied with what one currently has is satifying
I make a third argument, as you can read above (My arguments:)
3. Being envious makes you less free
You implicitly state that abstaining from sin is less free than partaking in it. However, this implicitly assumes one is at a constant state of not sinning, and by staying there, you are not free to exercise your ability TO sin.
However, this is false. One is constantly at a middle ground of neither decision. You choose to sin or not to sin. Freedom is exercised in either decision. So to my premises:
3. Choosing sin is less free than choosing to abstain from sin, because sin puts you in a constant state of insatiable sinning
3. Envy, by its very definition, is the constant state of being disatisfied with what you currently had, so it if you are made unfree to think about anything else but increasing status, you are less free.
Now, a sin by definition is the inability to be satisfied without it. Unless the sin permanently satisfies the desire (which nothing is permanent), then it merely increases relative disatisfaction. This theme is in every counter argument of mine, complete with premises. I have shown I supported my argument and I am proceeding to the next:
You wrote:
Quote:
In simple terms, greed is the desire for material possessions. Again, as with the sin of envy, I hardly see how greed is possibly deadly. Greed is what motivates the economic system of every society since the dawn of time. Person A wants something that Person B owns, so they make a trade. Eventually, barter gave way to medium-based economics where a non-perishable medium was used to store value and replace bartering with buying.
My response: "I cover this point in envy."
In my mind, I disproved that envy is the best force behind action, and you offer no other proof behind what makes greed good. So, the same counter argument appllies, because greed is a material form of envy.
Now let me make clear, I do not think there is any human who lives without any of these sins. I don't think a better economy can be made without greed, because greed can always exst. However, that does not mean we cannot be critical of the negative parts of our nature and not try to master it.
You do offer an argument and a premise outside of the utilitarian argument for greed:
Quote:
A common statement is that money doesn't buy happiness. People who say that are just poor.
Your argument:
1. Money makes people happy
Your premise:
1. Poor people wouldn't know
Your argument cannot help but be dogmatic, and I will explain why. You assume things make people happy, but offer no premise or example that would show this. Instead, your evidence is that if you don't have things, you wouldn't know any better. That's a weak argument if we are going to seriously discuss any of these things. Why does money makes us happy? Because it gets us things. Why do things make us happy? You do not explain.
Thus, explicit in my counter-argument is that 1. things DO NOT make people any happier, thus 2. the use of greed to attain more things is bad, because 3. Greed is not the best force behind action (already covered) and makes the individual less happy (already covered in envy.) My premises and arguments are explained in the following:
Quote:
Yeah, all of those rich rock and rollers who have anything at their fingertips who kill themselves are happy. Better yet, was a pharoh in ancient egypt happier than an average poor westernized person today? Poor people today have more material posessions (other than those made of rock, wood, or bullion.) Medicine, AC, mind altering drugs, food, air conditioning...you name it, the pharoh couldn't buy it. So, the question is whether the poor person now is exponentially happier now than the pharoh, and if Bill Gates is the happiest man who ever walked the Earth. These ideas are obviously false. If we can feel secure in what ever economic state we are in, we can more easily find happiness. I have lived as both "poor" and modestly wealthy, so I can speak from experience.
My premises:
1. There are examples of rich people who are very unhappy, so richness cannot be the most important part of happiness
1. Richness is actually relative. People now are fantastically wealthy by past standards, but fail to be happy with their richness.
1. (Implicit in preceding) If people desire are disappointed regardless to their relative wealthiness when compared to the past, then no amount of wealth can satisfy, thus it can only make us less satisfied and less happy
1. I lived through both and I would know (bad premise)
My number 1 and arguments already covered in envy certainly answer to your charge that money makes people happy and greed has ultilty.
Quote:
Money buys everything, and having a large house, a decent car, a lovely woman on your lap, the entire collection of the Star Trek series whose Amazon.com prices are outrageous, and plenty of food and comforts, does make you happy. I like having stuff, it makes me feel good. Having my laptop makes me feel great because most people in this world don't have their own computer, and the various other luxury items I possess also make me feel good because they're so useful, comfortable, and indicative of status. Hooray for material possessions, because materialism rocks!
Your argument:
1. Materialism rocks
Your evidence
1. It makes you feel good
This hardly qualifies as an argument, an outside of using yourself as evidence, it is entirely dogmatic. By the way, my friend got every episode of star trek for 60 bucks.
I continue my charge that greed makes one less free:
[quote]Again, because I disproved that an increase in material possessions is equivalent to an increase in happiness, one cannot say that material things make us happy. Furthermore, to be enslaved by the desire for more material things we have no hope of having will only make us miserable with what we have at the moment, even if it trumps the ancient Pharoh's treasures. If we are content with what we ave and desire no more of it, we are free from an unsatisfied appetite, thus one is freer and happier wthout greed.
My arguments:
1. Greed makes one less happy
2. Greed makes one less free
My premises:
1. Refer to my above argument that material goods are not conducive to happiness
2. The desire to want more things than we cannot attain makes disappoints us
2. If we were always satified as opposed to disappointed, we are free from disppointment
As always, there are additional things covered in preceding arguments, but I always explicitly state the premie(s) of my arguments or the fact I answered to the needed premises elsewhere.
Your said:
Quote:
Gluttony is a pretty straightforward sin: eat too much, and you go to hell. I don't know about anyone else, and I don't claim to speak for anyone, but I enjoy my meat and potatoes, and I love overeating when it's damned good food on my plate. Take me to a sushi bar and I'll eat an incredulous amount of food relative to my actual body size. It's amazing that I'm not overweight.
...I have no intention or reason to deliberately cause harm, or to not help someone...But in any case, it's an individual choice to overeat, and if you want to overeat, more power to you.
Your argument:
1. Gluttony makes one happy
2. Gluttony is a sort of freedom
Your premises:
1. Gluttony makes me happy
1. (implied) Gluttony is enjoyable
2. Choosing to overeat is a choice, thus a freedom
My response:
Quote:
Yes, but over eating expansds your stomach, making it harder to be satisfied with the amount of food you would be satisfied with before. So you eat and intoxicate youyrself more and more, while the one who abstains from this is free from health problems AND the domination of her/his life from constant ingestion. After all, by your logic, gluttony costs money, and if gluttony fails to satisfy, this will decrease the amount of material posessions you can by, thus the amount of happiness you can assume.
My arguments:
1. Gluttony makes one less happy
2. Gluttony makes one less free
You only offer personal evidence for your premise number 1, which leads to a weak argument. I am stuffed right now and have to eat food before it spoils in a hotel, I am less happy because of it. Does this prove the negative? Instead, I gave you the credit that you were arguing that there is a pleasurable physical reaction to eating, though you never explicitly say so. My counter argument to this is that there is a marked amount of dissatisfaction involved in gluttony that outweighs its only pro.
Your number 2 fails to answer to the fact that you can choose to overeat and drink or not to. There are two choices, thus by your proof that choice=freedom, both are equally free. So, to figure out the "freer" choice, the quesion is which one allows you to live an overall freer lifestyle.
My premises:
1. Gluttony makes one harder to be satisfied, thus increasingly disatisfied
1. Gluttony is bad for one's health
2. Less gluttony equals more time for other things
2. Gluttony costs money, which the lack of it causes stress your your logic (I am disproving one of your arguments merely by pointing out that there is a contradiction in believing both. However, both of us can certainly agree that being a glutton is not good if one is so poor, they need every penny to survive--so gluttony is bad in a monetary sense that it lacks to give any health benefits or satisfication fot one's hard work)
You said:
Quote:
Sexual desire is an animalistic instinct all monosexual organisms possess. It gives us an incentive and will to mate, thus, to pass on our genetic legacy, and to continue the propagation of our species. To vilify such a natural impulse is absolutely ridiculous. We all have sexual desire (besides very few individuals who claimt to be asexual) and we all have sexual thoughts. It cannot be helped; we are programmed to be sexual creatures. Sex is an intensely intimate act, and is completely natural.
Your argument:
1. Lust is good
Your premise:
1. It is good for the race in a utilitarian way
1. It is natural
1. (Implied) It feels good
I said:
Quote:
Doggies have sex in the park, yet we have the good sense to abstain from it. To paraphrase from the humanist Pico della Mirandola, men can be vegetative, brutes, or angels. We choose what we are through our own good (or lack of) sense. We can degrade ourselves like animals and have voyeuristic sex, and make people uncomfortable by always staring at them, and why not when we are at it, jack off in public. Again, to lust for something you cannot have (sex with every single person you would like to have sex with) while fucking up your whole life in divorces and such trying to buy sex, will make you mentally, and economically, less free and less happy. If we look at our brothers and sisters in humanity as people and not brutish sex objects, we can have more meaningful friendships and not dominate our minds with insatiable appetites.
My arguments:
1. Sex is natural, but lust can be blatantly negative
2. Lust can increase stress in our lives
3. Lust distracts us from finding happiness in more friends
4. Lust is insatiable
I'll add now that while having sexual feelings is undeniably needed for the continuing of our race. Sexual feelins are natural, but it being excessive is not...it is a councious choice to abstain or partake like everything else on this list. However, is lust beyond procreation and marriage good or necessary? That's where the sin comes into play. Belief that lust is bad would make the answer to the question no.
Thus, my premises:
1. Excessive lust is bad, so it in any degree is bad, just less excessively
2. Lust often leads to bad decision making
2. Lust ruins relationships
3. We can be more truthful and straightforward with people if we are not immediately trying to get sex out of them
4. Totally not supported
I do not support 4. Perhaps I thought it was self-evident that there seems to be "never enough" sex, and based upon the arguments I already given about how the lack of satisfaction making us less happy and less free, I gave no further explanation. So now I make clear, 1. that lust is the desire for sex we are not currently having, and we hould be satisfied ONLY with what we have and desire nothing we cannot attain.
Why? 1. Because the disatisfaction of failing to get such things makes us notably less happy and 1. never wanting it is a zero sum game. If I did not want it, I am not disappointed in not having it, thuis thankful for what I do have and happy because of it.
You said:
Quote:
I'm a pretty prideful person; I'm incredibly stubborn when I feel like being stubborn, and I'm very proud of my achievements and my works. Why shouldn't I be proud of what I do? It's a celebration of my ego, and is purely constructive. Constructive pride is essentially the same as constructive egotism. To encourage the ego and to encourage oneself to perform and achieve great things develops the individual to be independent and productive, as well as motivated, and gives a sense of self-worth and self-esteem through pride in one's doings.
Your argument:
1. Pride is good
2. Pride is a constructive force behind action
Your premises:
1. (implied) Pride makes me feel good
2. Ego acts as motivation for great thngs to be accomplished
Your premise for number 1, like many others, is weak. However, let us doubt that you were arguing this. Then the only pro of pride is its use as a constructive force behind action. What if there are more constructive forces? Better yet, what if pride makes the individual unhappy?
I wrote back:
Quote:
However, any sort of pride develops precisely into hubris. It gets us hot headed and angry in trivial arguments. It leads people to kill for the sake of honor. Pride is not necessary for constructive reasons and is inherently destructive to the individual's character and all that are in contact wit that person.
Pride weighs you down, because you have to carry the ewxcessive ego which you cannot ever live up to. We should never be proud of our accomplishments or our abilities. We should expect to do well, be good, and be constructive. For example, I never went to my high school or college graduation for two reasons: 1. Graduation is a trivial celebration and 2. my parents hate each other. This discussion has more to do with number 1, so I will concern myself with that. I do not need o celebrate the fact that I need an education and I succeeded in that fact. I have been asked, "Aren't you proud of your accomplishments?" My good sense tells me that I should not be and that's what I tell them. Furthermore, why should we be proud of events and celebrate our own greatness? Every single day is a gift, to celebrate something trivial one day is to dtract from the gift that wer have any days to enjoy.
So, when free of pride, we can be motivated by sources that can be satisfied. The desire to do good fopr example. However, if we are motivated to do anything in order to enhance ego, we will find ourselves unable to hol up the ego we place on top of our shoulders. It will only weigh you down, because it cannot be satisfied and it could never be great enough.
My arguments:
1. Pride makes us unhappy
2. Pride is not the most constructive force
If these 2 things are proved, it nullifies your argument. Here are my premises:
1 and 2: Pride leads us to hurt people
1 and 2: Pride distracts us from being thankful, thus satisfied
1. Pride feels like weight on our shoulders (bad argument due to it not being very clear or provable. To make it clearer, if we build up an ego, we are forced to sustain it, which takes great work and disappoints us whenever we fail to hold up the fascade of it. In this light, the premise is stronger)
2. It is more constructive to act out of principle (not the best argument, but in the light that pride comes with great cost while principle has much less, then this premise is made stronger)
This is probably the worse of my arguments, to to it going back and forth so much. So I will make it much simpler:
My arguments:
1. Pride makes us unhappy
2. Pride is not the most constructive force
Mr Premises:
2. Pride is not a necessary force behind action
1. Pride makes us feel disatisfied when we cannot live up to our egos
1. Pride makes others think less of you, which hurts the prideful one
You wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, lying around is really deadly. I'm a very lazy person. I like to lie around, I hate exercizing and doing stuff, and I like to sit in bed all day. And who's business is it to tell me I can't be lazy? I think Christians have a nanny-complex.
The last part is a great concept, and makes complete sense. We have developed technology to free us from labor, or to make labor less strenuous. If we didn't feel like being lazy, we would still be out hunting deer and wearing loincloths.
Your arguments:
1. Laziness is good
2. Laziness is a force behind action
Your premises:
1.Laziness does not hurt anyone (implied) unless you starve yourself to death
2. If we weren't too lazy to do a sort of work, we never would have made a process to make it easier
Quote:
We are lazy because we are afraid of doing anything tiring. So, we put off what we need to do and learn, and in result, less amounts of essential work makes the lazy one feel overwhelmed. At this point, one's reaction is to correct oneself and feel like he/she is doing more wok than they should be, or be lazy again and run into this problem two fold. The hard worker finds additional work to be less tiring, thus feels more secure when their is necessary labor. It is better to be active for health reasons and for moral reasons (you need to work in order to work in a sop kitchen). To be honest, I am very good at doing the types of work I do, and I can work for man hours doing it. However, I wish I was more physically active, but my health toooften gets in the way. Perhaps I am too lazy. Now you guilted me into running tomorrow!
I didn't fully answer to your argument so I will make bold what I missed:
My arguments
1. Laziness makes us less happy
2. Laziness is not the true force behind action
My premises:
1. Hard work is healthier (qualification: unless you do something stressful so long, the opposite is true)
1. Hard work makes us more satisfied, because work is unavoidable making the lazy person increasing disatisfied as work compounds
1. Hard work makes security, which increases satisfaction
2. Ingenuity takes hard work and therefore is not the result of laziness[/i]
[b]2. Ingenuity is often the result to do more work in the same amount of time, not avoid work altogether
You said:
Quote:
Wrath, when used to right a wrong, such as reciprocating an act by an individual who has unjustly harmed, is not inherently "wrong". Animals recriprocate; humans do as well. Law is state-sanctioned revenge. While if we were to take out revenge whenever someone wronged us and result in a state of anarchy, the law is used methodically to mete out punishment to those who have committed crimes. Without wrath, crime cannot be punished, and without wrath, revenge by vigilantism becomes a norm.
Aside from the factthat vigilantes are wrathful, which I am sure you know, you seem to think it is cool to prove a sin is good. However, you seem to be justifying just punishment, not wrath. You are certainly not justifying someone killing you out of wrathe because you called him a name. Thus, my counter argument about this concerned these facts:
Quote:
Wrath is unjust punishment. In England, they were quite qrathful with their robbers. Those wh robbed were hanged. The response? The robbers would kill those who they robbed, to lssen the chances they would be caught, so they would be hanged anyway. Thus, wrath creates worse results for everyone, while just and "unwrathful" punishment leads to the best result. Thus, to act without revenge in mind is much better than wrath. To be dominated by wrath will consume your whole life--like hating that punk that taunted you in middle school. To be free from that hatred makes you happier and freer.
My argument:
1. Wrath is not just punishment
2. Wrath hurts everyone
3. Not being wrathful makes on freer
My premises:
1 and 2. Wrath can be an unjust punishment that fails in creating good results
1. Good punishments lack a degree of wrath
3. Having hatred dominates one's mind
3. (Implied )Wrath, because it is not the best at making desired outcomes, forces the wrathful into making decisions one would not want to make
3. One is freer without reservations for others
The implied premise relates to 1 and 2.
You wrote:
Quote:
1. They aren't deadly. Gluttony can result in death, but the chances are slim compared to the rate of starvation world-wide. None of these acts which have been vilified will inherently cause death or individual destruction, unless you sit down, never move, and eat Twinkies non-stop for the rest of your life, and then atrophy and die of heart failure brought on by arteriosclerosis.
Your argument:
1. Sins are good, because they are not literally deadly
Your premise:
1. They don't literally kill you
Well, duh! They are deadly in a figurative sense. My response:
Quote:
How are the sins deadly? If you waste the only life you have in being in inconsumable sin, you can never be satisfied, thus you waste your whole life and you are dead in sin. Thus, the sins are indeed deadly in the secular sense.
My argument:
1. Sins are bad, because you waste your life
My premises:
1. They take a lot of time out of your life
1. They make you disatisfied, because they are all insatiable
1. Thus they make one unhappy
You said:
Quote:
2. It's an example of religious totalitarianism. All of these sins are synonymous, in concept, with the Newspeak word of "ownlife". These behaviors are individualistic; they all boost the ego, indulge us in pleasure, or provide us with comfort of mind or body. To be enslaved to a religion, you need to think that individualism is bad, that pleasure is bad, that comfort is bad, and that ownlife is a bad thing.
Argument:
1. Religion is enslaving
2. Sin is liberating
Premises:
1. (implied) prevents you from sinning, while sinning is liberating
1. Religion destroys pleasure, comfort, and individualism
2. Sin is individualistic
Your number 1 is extremely dogmatic, because you never say what religion or how it prevents one from being happy. Polls actually have been done asking how happy one is, and religious people are happier. (http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=53) Just try finding a poll that says the opposite: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=poll+religion+happiness
Maybe, religion helps increase one's sense of community and that increases happiness. Perhaps the moral guidelines are a nice guidebook to life, which makes people happy. Maybe it is the belief in a lie as a perceived truth that makes one comfortable makes one happy. Maybe its a combination of all of these or some additional factor. Nonetheless, this certainly disproves the idea that religion limits happiness.
In my opinion, religion should not enter this conversation at all. You made a blanket statement that could not possibly be accurate. That's why it is better to argue whether the free choice not to sin is better than the free choice to sin or visa versa. Which makes us happier, which is more free?
If you dogmatically assume religion is inherently unfree, you expose a major flaw in your reasoning:
1. Sin is individualistic and not sinning is the oppoite
My argument:
1. They both are individualistic
Premises:
1. Both are the result of individual choices
1. Both are part of lifestyles that had existed for all time
1. Both do not exist in their most extreme degree
So the question is, in which direction should we go? Towards ridiculous hedonism or ridiculous moderation?
I proved through my arguments above that each sin makes the individual less happy and abstaining makes one more happy. Now unless, you disprove my premises, then this is true. I have laid it out, while you often made dogmatic assertions or used personal evidence only applying to you, I on the most part avoided that. So let us deal with what is written here.
Now, finally to answer the question, is the direction of hedonism or moderation makes us freer? Both are equally choices of lifestyle, which makes us more free: Here is what I wrote:
Quote:
So, is it better to be free to punch your brother, while he punches you back for an hopur, or have your mom make a rule, "no punching your brother." Does the rule inhibit our freedom? Far from it! It frees us from an hour of needless punching. Religions have attempted to make rules for the opposite of enslaving people. People can better be individuals when they are free from earthly flaws than enslaved to animalistic insticts that could be moderated. Sure, you can conform to a society of couch potatos and suc[h], but you can be better than that. You can choose to rise aove it. You can be freer and happier.
My argument:
1. Moderation makes one happier
My premises:
1. Pride will lead one to go tit for tat (not necessarily beat the shit out of someone else)
1. Going tit for tat makes one less free, because we are so consumed by it we cannot decide other things
1. Giving moral boundaries liberates the individual to avoid flaws
1. Insatiable flaws and instincts cannot be satisfied, thus one is disatisfied
1. Moderating these things increases the probability of not being disatisfied and allows one to pursue satisfying activities
I'll lay it down very simply in your language. Your wife says you are not the smartest man she knows. You out of pride can argue with her, prove your smartness, make her angry, but constructively become smarter by learning a few things in the intellectual exercise of arguing your smartness...
Or, you can lay down your pride, say, "Yeah, I am dumb. Dumb enough to marry you babe." Get her to laugh, have sex, and go to bed easy.
Which makes you happier? The freedom to sin or the freedom to abstain from it? After reading all of this, with every argument and premise discussed, with all the dogma disregarded, how can we doubt it? We are free either way. What decision makes us more free to be happy? Moderation-- abstaining from the seven deadly sins.
Post #28166
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2006-06-28 23:31
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
My brother told me that though I explained myself, I could have explained myself more. So, I will make this as concise as possible so my position can be more easily understood. I will start from square 1, with your argument and my initial counter-argument.
Quote:
So, in simplistic terminology, envy is the desire to possess traits belonging to someone else. Furthermore, how is desire deadly? What were these Jews smoking when they wrote this up as an evil sin? I'm envious of plenty of people. I desire to possess their physical strength, I desire to possess large sums of money with which to spend on elaborate sex toys, exquisite food, and to finance a jobless life in luxury. There are plenty of other things I desire, and am subsequently envious about since I probably won't be able to have it, but nonetheless, I'm still envious.
Applying envy to economics, an incentive is a play on envy. If you desire something bad enough, you have an incentive to work harder to achieve it. Obviously, envy is a constructive feeling and behavior as long as you're willing to be productive, but why should be be "sinful" at all, even if you are lazy and refuse to work? It's your life, and you're an individual with the right to be as lazy as you want. It doesn't mean I think you should receive charity or welfare if you refuse to work, but it's everyone's right to choose their own life.
Your arguments:
1. Sin isn't deadly
2. Envy is enjoyable/good
3. Envy is not bad
As I later state, any action done for the purpose of harming others, or any action done constantly and repeatedly can cause mental or physical harm to oneself. I imply this through stating that non-constructive pride isn't helpful to the ego. Therefore, if we further my statement, it may and can apply to any other action.
Being envious of what other people have, and thus, desiring to earn similar things, I do not believe is "bad". The only way envy or jealousy can lead to harm is when one decides to take property from another in order to achieve their desire. That is not constructive. I probably should have mentioned, in every single act/sin, that there is a difference between non-constructive action and constructive action, as well as non-harmful action and harmful action. But, since I've made it perfectly clear how I think:
Myself wrote:
In conclusion, I maintain that materialism, individualism, ego-gratification, and pleasures of life are not harmful, as long as they don't involve harm to others. In this way, they're constructive, and useful, to the individual, and there's nothing deadly about that.
Repeating myself again is redundant. From now on, I'll simply refer to that line instead of having to lecture about how I'm not suggesting violence or mental illness as a matter of cause.
sorianofan wrote:
Your premises:
1. Doesn't literally kill people (implied)
1. Sins are enjoyable (proceeds to explain why envy as a sin is enjoyable)
2. I [Loki] envy people (implies that you know you are happy envying people, and you are living evidence)
2. Is an incentive for action
3. If someone is envious, its their decision and none of your business
My response:
1. I answer to these through the argument and go sin by sin "showing" that they are deadly in a figurative since and
2. Not enjoyable, thus not good.
The logical construction of your 1 makes sense due to the non-literal reality of "deadly sin," but weaker until proven that a sin is enjoyable/good as you number 2 states.
You still have not explained why you think such human desires and actions are not enjoyable, even in constructive, or in non-harmful, or in small amounts. As for me having to "prove" a philosophical assertion, I cannot prove a philosophical assertion anymore than you can "prove" your point. It has been my opinion throughout my original post that since we live in a material universe, materialism is a course for gratification and contentment.
sorianofan wrote:
Your implied evidence is not much of an argument, because I can simply argue the antithesis of 2 using myself as evidence. So let's throw that out.
And I can simply argue that you don't enjoy life because you follow the word of religious totalitarianism. The thing I find to be a logical fallacy with what you said is that you think you can prove an assertion isn't true for the majority of a materialistic world just because of what you think. Psychology is the study of the human mind; and the human mind has wants and needs, desires and impulses. If you were to say you think you don't have a sex drive, does that mean that psychological theory has been debunked, based on a single individual?
sorianofan wrote:
Concerning an incentive for action, my counter argument is that envy is not necessary incentive for action, so if better incentives exists, we can agree that envy would have no redeeming qualities based upon the evidence you present.
Not all actions require jealousy. Being thirsty and thus, getting a drink, has nothing to with jealousy. However, as I've said before, economic incentives (almost every time) have everything to do with the desire to acquire more and or the desire to have similar things that other people have.
sorianofan wrote:
Your number 3 relies upon your number 2: that envy is Good.
Why?
If envy is good, and in other instances neutral it MUST be good
Myself wrote:
In conclusion, I maintain that materialism, individualism, ego-gratification, and pleasures of life are not harmful, as long as they don't involve harm to others. In this way, they're constructive, and useful, to the individual, and there's nothing deadly about that.
sorianofan wrote:
However, if I can show envy is bad thus disproving number 2, this disproves number 3. Both of us are discussing how envy affects the individual alone, and as long as any of these things don't affect other people (wrath is a different case), then we need to judge the warrants of each sin by how it affects each individual Agreed?
So the issue here is number 2, because number 1 is reliant upon every one of the sins being proven as good, so I will discuss that later.
Thus my counter argument must produce 2 things (My arguments):
1. There is the best force than envy behind action; this takes away envy's worthiness as some sort of worthy instinct out of utility
2. Envy does not make the individual happier
I'm not going to sit here and say that every single individual is made happier through the gratification of his or her desires. People who follow monotheistic beliefs reject the gratification of desires, so it's obviously not the case with them. People who do not follow monotheistic beliefs, and don't adhere to irrational superstition would assumedly not have a prejudice against the gratification of their desires because they would, assumedly, realize the universe is material and only materialism can gratify material desires.
sorianofan wrote:
Your evidence fails to disprove my number 2, because you used yourself as evidence. However, I will disprove your number two with my number 2 by arguing that envy makes one less happy. So, let's see if I can prove my number 1 and 2, disproving your 2 and 3.
My argument to this is the statement I made above. I've used myself as an example in the past (I'm an individual and this is my argument, so I have every right to say how I feel) in the exact same manner you have used yourself as an example.
sorianofan wrote:
My original argument:
Quote:
Envy is great if the goal of life was maximum material outcome. Envy is what creates competition, being a necessar evil for capitalism. However, it would be faulty to assume that all status, all income, and all creation of anything has its basis in envy. People give away fotunes out of the goodness of their hearts. People run charities. Rich people become the Ches and Buddhas of the world. Furthermore, some people want socialism, not because they envy wealth, but because of humanitarian reasons. Envy is not needed as an essential motivation for action.
Myself wrote:
Not all actions require jealousy. Being thirsty and thus, getting a drink, has nothing to with jealousy. However, as I've said before, economic incentives (almost every time) have everything to do with the desire to acquire more and or the desire to have similar things that other people have.
sorianofan wrote:
My premises:
1. Charity and principle are better forces for action than envy
1. Charity and principle have been used in the past
1. Charity and principle are better, because they are a more positive force in the individual. This is contingent behind number 2:
If charity makes you happy, then go ahead and do it. It does not gratify the ego, therefore, I don't agree that it is "better". Why is it a positive force? You continually make assertions in this matter:
A is good; B is bad
Since I've proved A is good by not explaining why A is good, A is obviously good since I haven't explained why A is inherently better than B
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
However, that's not the crux of my argument. There are things that we can envy and have no chance of attaining. Ten inch cocks. Stephen Hawking's brain. Monstrous Roger Clemens' pythons. No food allergies. Now, we coulde our whole lives wishing to be someone else and feel anger and resentment over our lack of capacity being so, or we can instead think lightly at the uselessness of envy. Why do I need pythons like Roger Clemens? I can be happy with the way I am. I would much rather have that then being unhappy the way I am. So, I can pay no mind to envy and be free to be consumed with other endevors (sp) or I can be a perpetual slave to envy, because I can never satisf my appetite for envy.
I choose the freedom of abstaining from envy over the slavery of partaking in it.
My premises:
2. Wanting things you cannot possibly have is disappointing
2. Being satisfied with what one currently has is satifying
It's not much of an argument to say that someone is happy with hamburger since they don't want steak. It's obvious they're "satisfied". Additionally, why would you think wanting things you cannot have is disappointing? Do you honestly think grown, mature adults don't have the capacity to realize they'll never have Bill Gate's bank account size, and then go into a melancholial stupor?
sorianofan wrote:
I make a third argument, as you can read above (My arguments:)
3. Being envious makes you less free
You implicitly state that abstaining from sin is less free than partaking in it. However, this implicitly assumes one is at a constant state of not sinning, and by staying there, you are not free to exercise your ability TO sin.
You've made an incorrect assumption. Saying something to the effect of "abstinence from gratification isn't freedom" doesn't necessarily entail the belief that people are at a constant state of not desiring or abstaining, in the same way that saying "abstinence from eating yoghurt isn't freedom" doesn't necessarily entail the belief that people don't eat yoghurt when they feel like eating yoghurt.
sorianofan wrote:
However, this is false. One is constantly at a middle ground of neither decision. You choose to sin or not to sin. Freedom is exercised in either decision. So to my premises:
3. Choosing sin is less free than choosing to abstain from sin, because sin puts you in a constant state of insatiable sinning
I can't believe you just said that, that people who act upon their desires can't control their desires. What an absurdity.
sorianofan wrote:
3. Envy, by its very definition, is the constant state of being disatisfied with what you currently had, so it if you are made unfree to think about anything else but increasing status, you are less free.
Envy is the desire for traits or attributes, it doesn't necessitate "dissatisfaction".
Myself wrote:
In conclusion, I maintain that materialism, individualism, ego-gratification, and pleasures of life are not harmful, as long as they don't involve harm to others. In this way, they're constructive, and useful, to the individual, and there's nothing deadly about that.
So, obviously, my response is that if someone feels unhappy with something they do, then they should cease it.
sorianofan wrote:
Now, a sin by definition is the inability to be satisfied without it. Unless the sin permanently satisfies the desire (which nothing is permanent), then it merely increases relative disatisfaction. This theme is in every counter argument of mine, complete with premises. I have shown I supported my argument and I am proceeding to the next:
A sin by definition is a "transgression against the respective god". If you want to start redefining words, that's your own business.
Human desires are able to be gratified by acting upon them. Since nothing materialistic is permanent, no human desire can be fulfilled and the human never feels the desire again. Gratification of a desire, even though the desire will resurface, does not necessarily entail "relative dissatisfaction" in the same way urinating and having to urinate later in the day does not increase "relative dissatisfaction" with urination itself.
sorianofan wrote:
You wrote:
Quote:
In simple terms, greed is the desire for material possessions. Again, as with the sin of envy, I hardly see how greed is possibly deadly. Greed is what motivates the economic system of every society since the dawn of time. Person A wants something that Person B owns, so they make a trade. Eventually, barter gave way to medium-based economics where a non-perishable medium was used to store value and replace bartering with buying.
My response: "I cover this point in envy."
In my mind, I disproved that envy is the best force behind action, and you offer no other proof behind what makes greed good. So, the same counter argument appllies, because greed is a material form of envy.
You used a logical fallacy, not proof.
sorianofan wrote:
Now let me make clear, I do not think there is any human who lives without any of these sins. I don't think a better economy can be made without greed, because greed can always exst. However, that does not mean we cannot be critical of the negative parts of our nature and not try to master it.
Since I'm a materialist and since I do not see material gratification of material desires as negative inherently, I only see your view as religious rhetoric. If I wanted to hear a lecture on why sin is always bad and how it needs to be mastered I probably could have just gone down to my local church and heard a sermon on the teachings of the magical Jew.
sorianofan wrote:
You do offer an argument and a premise outside of the utilitarian argument for greed:
Quote:
A common statement is that money doesn't buy happiness. People who say that are just poor.
Your argument:
1. Money makes people happy
Your premise:
1. Poor people wouldn't know
Your argument cannot help but be dogmatic, and I will explain why.
And I don't see you as being a religious dogmatist? It's funny you should say I'm a dogmatist, considering I say, myself, that some human desires are negative, and that sometimes, the ways we go about gratifying our desires can be negative, which means I'm both not saying my viewpoint is indisputable or undoubtful. You, on the other hand, are maintaining one single viewpoint: that gratification of our desires is wrong. You've not changed this, and you've not shown a single point where you find exceptions. If we go by what "dogma" actually means, I'm not the one being dogmatic, but hey, just keep pretending that to yourself. Who am I to diminish your happiness if you think you're not dogmatic and that I am?
sorianofan wrote:
You assume things make people happy, but offer no premise or example that would show this. Instead, your evidence is that if you don't have things, you wouldn't know any better. That's a weak argument if we are going to seriously discuss any of these things. Why does money makes us happy? Because it gets us things. Why do things make us happy? You do not explain.
I don't think you've been paying attention to my argument. I've said, numerous times, that this universe is material, and that we can only gratify our desires (without worshipping imaginary friends) with materialistic gratification of those desires. Having an abudance of material things will entail security, happiness (through gratification of our desires), and contentment. If you don't like my argument, feel free to attack it for the nth time.
sorianofan wrote:
Thus, explicit in my counter-argument is that 1. things DO NOT make people any happier, thus 2. the use of greed to attain more things is bad, because 3. Greed is not the best force behind action (already covered) and makes the individual less happy (already covered in envy.) My premises and arguments are explained in the following:
Why do you think materialism doesn't make people happy? My response to your "third" point is
Myself wrote:
Not all actions require jealousy. Being thirsty and thus, getting a drink, has nothing to with jealousy. However, as I've said before, economic incentives (almost every time) have everything to do with the desire to acquire more and or the desire to have similar things that other people have.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, all of those rich rock and rollers who have anything at their fingertips who kill themselves are happy. Better yet, was a pharoh in ancient egypt happier than an average poor westernized person today? Poor people today have more material posessions (other than those made of rock, wood, or bullion.) Medicine, AC, mind altering drugs, food, air conditioning...you name it, the pharoh couldn't buy it. So, the question is whether the poor person now is exponentially happier now than the pharoh, and if Bill Gates is the happiest man who ever walked the Earth. These ideas are obviously false. If we can feel secure in what ever economic state we are in, we can more easily find happiness. I have lived as both "poor" and modestly wealthy, so I can speak from experience.
My premises:
1. There are examples of rich people who are very unhappy, so richness cannot be the most important part of happiness
1. Richness is actually relative. People now are fantastically wealthy by past standards, but fail to be happy with their richness.
1. (Implicit in preceding) If people desire are disappointed regardless to their relative wealthiness when compared to the past, then no amount of wealth can satisfy, thus it can only make us less satisfied and less happy
1. I lived through both and I would know (bad premise)
My number 1 and arguments already covered in envy certainly answer to your charge that money makes people happy and greed has ultilty.
We've already gone over this, and my response are my feelings on materialism.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Money buys everything, and having a large house, a decent car, a lovely woman on your lap, the entire collection of the Star Trek series whose Amazon.com prices are outrageous, and plenty of food and comforts, does make you happy. I like having stuff, it makes me feel good. Having my laptop makes me feel great because most people in this world don't have their own computer, and the various other luxury items I possess also make me feel good because they're so useful, comfortable, and indicative of status. Hooray for material possessions, because materialism rocks!
Your argument:
1. Materialism rocks
Your evidence
1. It makes you feel good
This hardly qualifies as an argument, an outside of using yourself as evidence, it is entirely dogmatic. By the way, my friend got every episode of star trek for 60 bucks.
I continue my charge that greed makes one less free:
Again, because I disproved that an increase in material possessions is equivalent to an increase in happiness, one cannot say that material things make us happy. Furthermore, to be enslaved by the desire for more material things we have no hope of having will only make us miserable with what we have at the moment, even if it trumps the ancient Pharoh's treasures. If we are content with what we ave and desire no more of it, we are free from an unsatisfied appetite, thus one is freer and happier wthout greed.
My arguments:
1. Greed makes one less happy
2. Greed makes one less free
My premises:
1. Refer to my above argument that material goods are not conducive to happiness
2. The desire to want more things than we cannot attain makes disappoints us
2. If we were always satified as opposed to disappointed, we are free from disppointment
As always, there are additional things covered in preceding arguments, but I always explicitly state the premie(s) of my arguments or the fact I answered to the needed premises elsewhere.
Your said:
Quote:
Gluttony is a pretty straightforward sin: eat too much, and you go to hell. I don't know about anyone else, and I don't claim to speak for anyone, but I enjoy my meat and potatoes, and I love overeating when it's damned good food on my plate. Take me to a sushi bar and I'll eat an incredulous amount of food relative to my actual body size. It's amazing that I'm not overweight.
...I have no intention or reason to deliberately cause harm, or to not help someone...But in any case, it's an individual choice to overeat, and if you want to overeat, more power to you.
Your argument:
1. Gluttony makes one happy
2. Gluttony is a sort of freedom
Your premises:
1. Gluttony makes me happy
1. (implied) Gluttony is enjoyable
2. Choosing to overeat is a choice, thus a freedom
My response:
Quote:
Yes, but over eating expansds your stomach, making it harder to be satisfied with the amount of food you would be satisfied with before. So you eat and intoxicate youyrself more and more, while the one who abstains from this is free from health problems AND the domination of her/his life from constant ingestion. After all, by your logic, gluttony costs money, and if gluttony fails to satisfy, this will decrease the amount of material posessions you can by, thus the amount of happiness you can assume.
My arguments:
1. Gluttony makes one less happy
2. Gluttony makes one less free
You only offer personal evidence for your premise number 1, which leads to a weak argument. I am stuffed right now and have to eat food before it spoils in a hotel, I am less happy because of it. Does this prove the negative? Instead, I gave you the credit that you were arguing that there is a pleasurable physical reaction to eating, though you never explicitly say so. My counter argument to this is that there is a marked amount of dissatisfaction involved in gluttony that outweighs its only pro.
Your number 2 fails to answer to the fact that you can choose to overeat and drink or not to. There are two choices, thus by your proof that choice=freedom, both are equally free. So, to figure out the "freer" choice, the quesion is which one allows you to live an overall freer lifestyle.
My premises:
1. Gluttony makes one harder to be satisfied, thus increasingly disatisfied
1. Gluttony is bad for one's health
2. Less gluttony equals more time for other things
2. Gluttony costs money, which the lack of it causes stress your your logic (I am disproving one of your arguments merely by pointing out that there is a contradiction in believing both. However, both of us can certainly agree that being a glutton is not good if one is so poor, they need every penny to survive--so gluttony is bad in a monetary sense that it lacks to give any health benefits or satisfication fot one's hard work)
You said:
Quote:
Sexual desire is an animalistic instinct all monosexual organisms possess. It gives us an incentive and will to mate, thus, to pass on our genetic legacy, and to continue the propagation of our species. To vilify such a natural impulse is absolutely ridiculous. We all have sexual desire (besides very few individuals who claimt to be asexual) and we all have sexual thoughts. It cannot be helped; we are programmed to be sexual creatures. Sex is an intensely intimate act, and is completely natural.
Your argument:
1. Lust is good
Your premise:
1. It is good for the race in a utilitarian way
1. It is natural
1. (Implied) It feels good
I said:
Quote:
Doggies have sex in the park, yet we have the good sense to abstain from it. To paraphrase from the humanist Pico della Mirandola, men can be vegetative, brutes, or angels. We choose what we are through our own good (or lack of) sense. We can degrade ourselves like animals and have voyeuristic sex, and make people uncomfortable by always staring at them, and why not when we are at it, jack off in public. Again, to lust for something you cannot have (sex with every single person you would like to have sex with) while fucking up your whole life in divorces and such trying to buy sex, will make you mentally, and economically, less free and less happy. If we look at our brothers and sisters in humanity as people and not brutish sex objects, we can have more meaningful friendships and not dominate our minds with insatiable appetites.
My arguments:
1. Sex is natural, but lust can be blatantly negative
2. Lust can increase stress in our lives
3. Lust distracts us from finding happiness in more friends
4. Lust is insatiable
I'll add now that while having sexual feelings is undeniably needed for the continuing of our race. Sexual feelins are natural, but it being excessive is not...it is a councious choice to abstain or partake like everything else on this list. However, is lust beyond procreation and marriage good or necessary? That's where the sin comes into play. Belief that lust is bad would make the answer to the question no.
Thus, my premises:
1. Excessive lust is bad, so it in any degree is bad, just less excessively
2. Lust often leads to bad decision making
2. Lust ruins relationships
3. We can be more truthful and straightforward with people if we are not immediately trying to get sex out of them
4. Totally not supported
I do not support 4. Perhaps I thought it was self-evident that there seems to be "never enough" sex, and based upon the arguments I already given about how the lack of satisfaction making us less happy and less free, I gave no further explanation. So now I make clear, 1. that lust is the desire for sex we are not currently having, and we hould be satisfied ONLY with what we have and desire nothing we cannot attain.
Why? 1. Because the disatisfaction of failing to get such things makes us notably less happy and 1. never wanting it is a zero sum game. If I did not want it, I am not disappointed in not having it, thuis thankful for what I do have and happy because of it.
You said:
Quote:
I'm a pretty prideful person; I'm incredibly stubborn when I feel like being stubborn, and I'm very proud of my achievements and my works. Why shouldn't I be proud of what I do? It's a celebration of my ego, and is purely constructive. Constructive pride is essentially the same as constructive egotism. To encourage the ego and to encourage oneself to perform and achieve great things develops the individual to be independent and productive, as well as motivated, and gives a sense of self-worth and self-esteem through pride in one's doings.
Your argument:
1. Pride is good
2. Pride is a constructive force behind action
Your premises:
1. (implied) Pride makes me feel good
2. Ego acts as motivation for great thngs to be accomplished
Your premise for number 1, like many others, is weak. However, let us doubt that you were arguing this. Then the only pro of pride is its use as a constructive force behind action. What if there are more constructive forces? Better yet, what if pride makes the individual unhappy?
I wrote back:
Quote:
However, any sort of pride develops precisely into hubris. It gets us hot headed and angry in trivial arguments. It leads people to kill for the sake of honor. Pride is not necessary for constructive reasons and is inherently destructive to the individual's character and all that are in contact wit that person.
Pride weighs you down, because you have to carry the ewxcessive ego which you cannot ever live up to. We should never be proud of our accomplishments or our abilities. We should expect to do well, be good, and be constructive. For example, I never went to my high school or college graduation for two reasons: 1. Graduation is a trivial celebration and 2. my parents hate each other. This discussion has more to do with number 1, so I will concern myself with that. I do not need o celebrate the fact that I need an education and I succeeded in that fact. I have been asked, "Aren't you proud of your accomplishments?" My good sense tells me that I should not be and that's what I tell them. Furthermore, why should we be proud of events and celebrate our own greatness? Every single day is a gift, to celebrate something trivial one day is to dtract from the gift that wer have any days to enjoy.
So, when free of pride, we can be motivated by sources that can be satisfied. The desire to do good fopr example. However, if we are motivated to do anything in order to enhance ego, we will find ourselves unable to hol up the ego we place on top of our shoulders. It will only weigh you down, because it cannot be satisfied and it could never be great enough.
My arguments:
1. Pride makes us unhappy
2. Pride is not the most constructive force
If these 2 things are proved, it nullifies your argument. Here are my premises:
1 and 2: Pride leads us to hurt people
1 and 2: Pride distracts us from being thankful, thus satisfied
1. Pride feels like weight on our shoulders (bad argument due to it not being very clear or provable. To make it clearer, if we build up an ego, we are forced to sustain it, which takes great work and disappoints us whenever we fail to hold up the fascade of it. In this light, the premise is stronger)
2. It is more constructive to act out of principle (not the best argument, but in the light that pride comes with great cost while principle has much less, then this premise is made stronger)
This is probably the worse of my arguments, to to it going back and forth so much. So I will make it much simpler:
My arguments:
1. Pride makes us unhappy
2. Pride is not the most constructive force
Mr Premises:
2. Pride is not a necessary force behind action
1. Pride makes us feel disatisfied when we cannot live up to our egos
1. Pride makes others think less of you, which hurts the prideful one
You wrote:
Quote:
Yeah, lying around is really deadly. I'm a very lazy person. I like to lie around, I hate exercizing and doing stuff, and I like to sit in bed all day. And who's business is it to tell me I can't be lazy? I think Christians have a nanny-complex.
The last part is a great concept, and makes complete sense. We have developed technology to free us from labor, or to make labor less strenuous. If we didn't feel like being lazy, we would still be out hunting deer and wearing loincloths.
Your arguments:
1. Laziness is good
2. Laziness is a force behind action
Your premises:
1.Laziness does not hurt anyone (implied) unless you starve yourself to death
2. If we weren't too lazy to do a sort of work, we never would have made a process to make it easier
Quote:
We are lazy because we are afraid of doing anything tiring. So, we put off what we need to do and learn, and in result, less amounts of essential work makes the lazy one feel overwhelmed. At this point, one's reaction is to correct oneself and feel like he/she is doing more wok than they should be, or be lazy again and run into this problem two fold. The hard worker finds additional work to be less tiring, thus feels more secure when their is necessary labor. It is better to be active for health reasons and for moral reasons (you need to work in order to work in a sop kitchen). To be honest, I am very good at doing the types of work I do, and I can work for man hours doing it. However, I wish I was more physically active, but my health toooften gets in the way. Perhaps I am too lazy. Now you guilted me into running tomorrow!
I didn't fully answer to your argument so I will make bold what I missed:
My arguments
1. Laziness makes us less happy
2. Laziness is not the true force behind action
My premises:
1. Hard work is healthier (qualification: unless you do something stressful so long, the opposite is true)
1. Hard work makes us more satisfied, because work is unavoidable making the lazy person increasing disatisfied as work compounds
1. Hard work makes security, which increases satisfaction
2. Ingenuity takes hard work and therefore is not the result of laziness[/i]
[b]2. Ingenuity is often the result to do more work in the same amount of time, not avoid work altogether
You said:
Quote:
Wrath, when used to right a wrong, such as reciprocating an act by an individual who has unjustly harmed, is not inherently "wrong". Animals recriprocate; humans do as well. Law is state-sanctioned revenge. While if we were to take out revenge whenever someone wronged us and result in a state of anarchy, the law is used methodically to mete out punishment to those who have committed crimes. Without wrath, crime cannot be punished, and without wrath, revenge by vigilantism becomes a norm.
Aside from the factthat vigilantes are wrathful, which I am sure you know, you seem to think it is cool to prove a sin is good. However, you seem to be justifying just punishment, not wrath. You are certainly not justifying someone killing you out of wrathe because you called him a name. Thus, my counter argument about this concerned these facts:
Quote:
Wrath is unjust punishment. In England, they were quite qrathful with their robbers. Those wh robbed were hanged. The response? The robbers would kill those who they robbed, to lssen the chances they would be caught, so they would be hanged anyway. Thus, wrath creates worse results for everyone, while just and "unwrathful" punishment leads to the best result. Thus, to act without revenge in mind is much better than wrath. To be dominated by wrath will consume your whole life--like hating that punk that taunted you in middle school. To be free from that hatred makes you happier and freer.
My argument:
1. Wrath is not just punishment
2. Wrath hurts everyone
3. Not being wrathful makes on freer
My premises:
1 and 2. Wrath can be an unjust punishment that fails in creating good results
1. Good punishments lack a degree of wrath
3. Having hatred dominates one's mind
3. (Implied )Wrath, because it is not the best at making desired outcomes, forces the wrathful into making decisions one would not want to make
3. One is freer without reservations for others
The implied premise relates to 1 and 2.
You wrote:
Quote:
1. They aren't deadly. Gluttony can result in death, but the chances are slim compared to the rate of starvation world-wide. None of these acts which have been vilified will inherently cause death or individual destruction, unless you sit down, never move, and eat Twinkies non-stop for the rest of your life, and then atrophy and die of heart failure brought on by arteriosclerosis.
Your argument:
1. Sins are good, because they are not literally deadly
Your premise:
1. They don't literally kill you
Well, duh! They are deadly in a figurative sense. My response:
Quote:
How are the sins deadly? If you waste the only life you have in being in inconsumable sin, you can never be satisfied, thus you waste your whole life and you are dead in sin. Thus, the sins are indeed deadly in the secular sense.
My argument:
1. Sins are bad, because you waste your life
My premises:
1. They take a lot of time out of your life
1. They make you disatisfied, because they are all insatiable
1. Thus they make one unhappy
You said:
Quote:
2. It's an example of religious totalitarianism. All of these sins are synonymous, in concept, with the Newspeak word of "ownlife". These behaviors are individualistic; they all boost the ego, indulge us in pleasure, or provide us with comfort of mind or body. To be enslaved to a religion, you need to think that individualism is bad, that pleasure is bad, that comfort is bad, and that ownlife is a bad thing.
Argument:
1. Religion is enslaving
2. Sin is liberating
Premises:
1. (implied) prevents you from sinning, while sinning is liberating
1. Religion destroys pleasure, comfort, and individualism
2. Sin is individualistic
Your number 1 is extremely dogmatic, because you never say what religion or how it prevents one from being happy. Polls actually have been done asking how happy one is, and religious people are happier. (http://www.newspolls.org/story.php?story_id=53) Just try finding a poll that says the opposite: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=poll+religion+happiness
Maybe, religion helps increase one's sense of community and that increases happiness. Perhaps the moral guidelines are a nice guidebook to life, which makes people happy. Maybe it is the belief in a lie as a perceived truth that makes one comfortable makes one happy. Maybe its a combination of all of these or some additional factor. Nonetheless, this certainly disproves the idea that religion limits happiness.
In my opinion, religion should not enter this conversation at all. You made a blanket statement that could not possibly be accurate. That's why it is better to argue whether the free choice not to sin is better than the free choice to sin or visa versa. Which makes us happier, which is more free?
If you dogmatically assume religion is inherently unfree, you expose a major flaw in your reasoning:
1. Sin is individualistic and not sinning is the oppoite
My argument:
1. They both are individualistic
Premises:
1. Both are the result of individual choices
1. Both are part of lifestyles that had existed for all time
1. Both do not exist in their most extreme degree
So the question is, in which direction should we go? Towards ridiculous hedonism or ridiculous moderation?
I proved through my arguments above that each sin makes the individual less happy and abstaining makes one more happy. Now unless, you disprove my premises, then this is true. I have laid it out, while you often made dogmatic assertions or used personal evidence only applying to you, I on the most part avoided that. So let us deal with what is written here.
Now, finally to answer the question, is the direction of hedonism or moderation makes us freer? Both are equally choices of lifestyle, which makes us more free: Here is what I wrote:
Quote:
So, is it better to be free to punch your brother, while he punches you back for an hopur, or have your mom make a rule, "no punching your brother." Does the rule inhibit our freedom? Far from it! It frees us from an hour of needless punching. Religions have attempted to make rules for the opposite of enslaving people. People can better be individuals when they are free from earthly flaws than enslaved to animalistic insticts that could be moderated. Sure, you can conform to a society of couch potatos and suc[h], but you can be better than that. You can choose to rise aove it. You can be freer and happier.
My argument:
1. Moderation makes one happier
My premises:
1. Pride will lead one to go tit for tat (not necessarily beat the shit out of someone else)
1. Going tit for tat makes one less free, because we are so consumed by it we cannot decide other things
1. Giving moral boundaries liberates the individual to avoid flaws
1. Insatiable flaws and instincts cannot be satisfied, thus one is disatisfied
1. Moderating these things increases the probability of not being disatisfied and allows one to pursue satisfying activities
I'll lay it down very simply in your language. Your wife says you are not the smartest man she knows. You out of pride can argue with her, prove your smartness, make her angry, but constructively become smarter by learning a few things in the intellectual exercise of arguing your smartness...
Or, you can lay down your pride, say, "Yeah, I am dumb. Dumb enough to marry you babe." Get her to laugh, have sex, and go to bed easy.
Which makes you happier? The freedom to sin or the freedom to abstain from it? After reading all of this, with every argument and premise discussed, with all the dogma disregarded, how can we doubt it? We are free either way. What decision makes us more free to be happy? Moderation-- abstaining from the seven deadly sins.
We've gone over these things before, and my response is here. _________________
Post #28363
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2006-06-29 20:37
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
That's not your response, that's the very post which I initially responded to.
I keep having this feeling that you are supposed to be angry at me, that somehow I am conducting myself wrong. If I am, I apologize. If not, pretend you didn't read this.
Post #28370
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Thu 2006-06-29 20:52
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
That's not your response, that's the very post which I initially responded to.
I keep having this feeling that you are supposed to be angry at me, that somehow I am conducting myself wrong. If I am, I apologize. If not, pretend you didn't read this.
It's how I feel. I respect the fact you feel that the "sins" are bad. Since you've said you feel both free and happy abstaining from the gratification of those desires, I wish you the best. I simply fundamentally disagree with your viewpoint on the sins.
I'm not angry, I'm not just interested in deigning to respond to things like this:
sorianofan wrote:
you seem to think it is cool to prove a sin is good.
Post #28404
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2006-06-30 00:26
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Well, I have to be honest. I don't embrace Christianity and I probably never will. Nevertheless, the Christian sins and virtues represent "common sense" in many respects. (This does of course not mean that Christians were the first to live by these principles. Logically, values and morals must have existed long before the emergence of religion.)
It's my belief that if one lives by the so-called virtues and avoid the so-called sins, one will probably be a more harmonic and balanced individual. However, if such a lifestyle entails bigotry and hipocracy, we have a big problem. It's my firm belief that as long as no third part is in the dangerzone of getting harmed or hurt, one should let other people live their lives as they please.
IO, I believe you once mentioned something like "I eat whatever I want and I never exercise", which means you engage, at the very least assuming you're a perfect example of a religious follower, in gluttony and sloth.
I can see how they may represent "common sense" by being a common denominator amongst the morals of people around the world, but I do not see them as being very sensical. My position that gratification of our material desires is helpful and good for the ego. Granted, I've said there's exceptions; too much can kill you; there's negative ways to achieve ego gratification which harm others. Which is why I agree with you that as long as someone doesn't hurt others without their consent, they have the right to be themselves.
Just for the record, I do have a system of morals. Mine aren't contrived from a religious scripture, or from prophets rambling whilst on the influence of narcotics. I believe that actions which do not harm people unless it's consentual are "okay". I consider actions which cause harm to people when it is not consentual to be "bad". Without a social order, society can't operate, and without a society, we're back to anarchy and primitive tribalistic despotism.
Well, that's enough rant for right now. _________________
Post #28481
Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2006-06-30 16:21
Politics: Libertarian
Country: American Empire
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Quote:
I'm not angry, I'm not just interested in deigning to respond to things like this:
sorianofan wrote:
you seem to think it is cool to prove a sin is good.
The truth is, I do not know if you are honestly trying to defend the goodness of wrath. No one proudly says, "I'm a wrathful guy, I'm awesome." Therefore, I do not know how much of your argument is heart felt and how much is intellectual exercise. For example, I find it fun to prove that I am God using the ontological argument, though I do not believe it.
To be honest, much of what I am arguing has nothing to do with scripture. IO also speaks of the warrants oif such moral guidelines and I do agree with the meat of what he says. For example, I am reading Cicero right now (a stoic pagan), and though he never heeded his own advice, he spoke many of the same things.
Quote:
Just for the record, I do have a system of morals. Mine aren't contrived from a religious scripture, or from prophets rambling whilst on the influence of narcotics. I believe that actions which do not harm people unless it's consentual are "okay". I consider actions which cause harm to people when it is not consentual to be "bad". Without a social order, society can't operate, and without a society, we're back to anarchy and primitive tribalistic despotism.
These are not a bad or illogical. set of morals, but I do think that some of these sins, like wrath, would contradict this set of morals.
Post #28524
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Fri 2006-06-30 21:45
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
I'm not angry, I'm not just interested in deigning to respond to things like this:
sorianofan wrote:
you seem to think it is cool to prove a sin is good.
The truth is, I do not know if you are honestly trying to defend the goodness of wrath. No one proudly says, "I'm a wrathful guy, I'm awesome." Therefore, I do not know how much of your argument is heart felt and how much is intellectual exercise. For example, I find it fun to prove that I am God using the ontological argument, though I do not believe it.
To be honest, much of what I am arguing has nothing to do with scripture. IO also speaks of the warrants oif such moral guidelines and I do agree with the meat of what he says. For example, I am reading Cicero right now (a stoic pagan), and though he never heeded his own advice, he spoke many of the same things.
I defend the right of people to avenge wrongs. Whether that means pursuing vengeance through legal means, or though physical means, I'm not specifying because it's ambiguous even to me what I would do in the heat of the moment; anyone is capable of anything. I'd encourage people to pursue the righting of wrongs through the courts, but, for instance, someone hits you, I'd suggest you hit them back. Rolling over and playing submissive invites more brutality.
sorianofan wrote:
Quote:
Just for the record, I do have a system of morals. Mine aren't contrived from a religious scripture, or from prophets rambling whilst on the influence of narcotics. I believe that actions which do not harm people unless it's consentual are "okay". I consider actions which cause harm to people when it is not consentual to be "bad". Without a social order, society can't operate, and without a society, we're back to anarchy and primitive tribalistic despotism.
These are not a bad or illogical. set of morals, but I do think that some of these sins, like wrath, would contradict this set of morals.
When someone seeks to cause harm, he becomes a threat to the safety of those around him, and he has to be pacified. I'd rather use non-lethal means, but sometimes that isn't enough. _________________
Post #28558
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2006-07-01 02:45
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
IO, I believe you once mentioned something like "I eat whatever I want and I never exercise", which means you engage, at the very least assuming you're a perfect example of a religious follower, in gluttony and sloth.
Unfortunately, these two examples aren't very suitable. I don't care much about what I eat, but I don't eat excessively, as I'm not really interested in food; I'm actually very slim. I don't exercise, but my work requires that I work my ass off and I sometimes do heavy physical labour at my parents' home.
Well, whatever makes you happy or makes you feel obligated, more power to you. How old are your parents, by the way?
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
I can see how they may represent "common sense" by being a common denominator amongst the morals of people around the world, but I do not see them as being very sensical. My position that gratification of our material desires is helpful and good for the ego. Granted, I've said there's exceptions; too much can kill you; there's negative ways to achieve ego gratification which harm others. Which is why I agree with you that as long as someone doesn't hurt others without their consent, they have the right to be themselves.
I respect your perspective, but I don't share it. To me, it's about living life rationally, reaching happiness and enlightenment. When I give in to sloth, wrath, envy and pride I become unhappy, and it's as simple as that.
Just because Christianity has adopted some old principles doesn't make them automatically wrong.
Eh, it's no surprise some people actively wish to live a life of moderation. I simply don't, unless of course, I feel like moderating myself when my mood fits me best.
Most of those "sins" are shared by the other monotheistic religions, so it's not as if I'm only demonizing Christianity.
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Just for the record, I do have a system of morals. Mine aren't contrived from a religious scripture, or from prophets rambling whilst on the influence of narcotics. I believe that actions which do not harm people unless it's consentual are "okay". I consider actions which cause harm to people when it is not consentual to be "bad". Without a social order, society can't operate, and without a society, we're back to anarchy and primitive tribalistic despotism.
I couldn't agree more. I don't care what the scriptures say, because they hardly have a monopoly on these principles. It's not about moral or values, or good or bad - it's about constructive or desctructive living.
As I've explained, my morals seem to compare favorably to your own. There's really only two major maxims I follow; "do unto others as they do unto you", which is of course a modification of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; and "do what thou wilt". Of course, the only exception to those two rules is to not harm innocents. _________________
Post #28641
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2006-07-01 18:56
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Well, whatever makes you happy or makes you feel obligated, more power to you.
Right. That's what it's all about in the end, isn't it?
Yes, it is.
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
How old are your parents, by the way?
Why?
Because by telling me your parent's age, I'll magically be able to know their address. With that information, I'll teleport into Sweden and then kidnap them, being able to also magically know their appearances.
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Eh, it's no surprise some people actively wish to live a life of moderation. I simply don't, unless of course, I feel like moderating myself when my mood fits me best.
Well, to me, it's not about moderation either, really. I just want to avoid behaving in a way that affects me destructively. For instance, to envy people is to compare oneself to other people. Ultimately, it limits one's thinking and makes one wish to conform, which inevitable will make one unhappy.
It depends on your method of handling envy. If you can't keep it constructive, then I'd suggest you try not to be envious at all. However, my rant was targeted at people who can control their own lives.
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
Most of those "sins" are shared by the other monotheistic religions, so it's not as if I'm only demonizing Christianity.
Most true. It's my impression that there has been more focus on Christianity than other religions, though.
It's probably because Christianity doesn't know when to shut the fuck up.
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
As I've explained, my morals seem to compare favorably to your own.
I don't question that for a second.
And thus, another example of IO and Mephi getting along.
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
There's really only two major maxims I follow; "do unto others as they do unto you", which is of course a modification of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"; and "do what thou wilt". Of course, the only exception to those two rules is to not harm innocents.
I'd say that's a quite constructive approach to life, although my own approach is somewhat different.
Perhaps it's constructive; I see it as being empowering. So, what's your approach, besides what you already said, which I responded to with my two maxims? _________________
Post #28826
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-07-03 01:10
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Indeed, it seems monotheistic religions are more aggressive than other religions. I wonder why that is.
I can think of a few reasons-
+ Exclusitivity. Monotheistic religions are all very streamlined in their path to the divine: there is one god, one way of worshipping this god and one set of laws given by this god. In a polytheist religion- even a highly sophisticated polytheistic religion like Hinduism- there are many gods and many paths to these gods. Naturally, the polytheistic religions will have less of a superiority complex.
+ Co-existence. Polytheists throughout history have been able to solve many debates by saying "Well, your sea god may control that where you live, but here Poseidon rules OK, right? Cool", although they probably said it in Greek. Romans used to offer sacrifices and promises to the gods of the cities they were attacking, partially in order to psychologically intimidate the inhabitants, but also out of a genuine belief in the power of these local gods. Obviously, monotheists believe that other gods are either fake or (notably in the case of Late Antiquite Roman Christianity) the creation of daemons.
+ Lack of congeniality. One of the most notable things about the relationship over the years between Hinduism and Buddhism has been their ability to say "We're both trying to get to a spiritual escape, we might as well do it in our own way." Such co-operation, while found in a few trendy parts of the West, is still a pretty Asian concept.
Now, what I wonder is, why does religious violence almost always involve one of the 3 "Abrahamic" religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity)? Even other monotheistic religions, such as Zorastrianism and Machineaism, haven't been known for their religious violence. There has been some religious conflict outside of these religions- Buddhism VS Shinto in historic Japan; Roman VS the Mysteries Of Dionysus- but the concept of religious wars and mass persecutions is very much an attribute belonging to the Abrahamic religions. I don't think that it's a coincidence that these three religions are closely related. _________________ If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable
Post #28833
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-07-03 02:27
Politics: Just plain NUTS!
Country: Scotland
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
You know, I hate to admit it, but Jehovah really is the best deity out there. Don't believe me? You think that, because Tor and Heracles had their own comics, that they're somehow cooler than God? Check THIS out-
Post #28834
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Mon 2006-07-03 02:52
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
One Of The Few wrote:
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Indeed, it seems monotheistic religions are more aggressive than other religions. I wonder why that is.
I can think of a few reasons-
+ Exclusitivity. Monotheistic religions are all very streamlined in their path to the divine: there is one god, one way of worshipping this god and one set of laws given by this god. In a polytheist religion- even a highly sophisticated polytheistic religion like Hinduism- there are many gods and many paths to these gods. Naturally, the polytheistic religions will have less of a superiority complex.
+ Co-existence. Polytheists throughout history have been able to solve many debates by saying "Well, your sea god may control that where you live, but here Poseidon rules OK, right? Cool", although they probably said it in Greek. Romans used to offer sacrifices and promises to the gods of the cities they were attacking, partially in order to psychologically intimidate the inhabitants, but also out of a genuine belief in the power of these local gods. Obviously, monotheists believe that other gods are either fake or (notably in the case of Late Antiquite Roman Christianity) the creation of daemons.
+ Lack of congeniality. One of the most notable things about the relationship over the years between Hinduism and Buddhism has been their ability to say "We're both trying to get to a spiritual escape, we might as well do it in our own way." Such co-operation, while found in a few trendy parts of the West, is still a pretty Asian concept.
Now, what I wonder is, why does religious violence almost always involve one of the 3 "Abrahamic" religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity)? Even other monotheistic religions, such as Zorastrianism and Machineaism, haven't been known for their religious violence. There has been some religious conflict outside of these religions- Buddhism VS Shinto in historic Japan; Roman VS the Mysteries Of Dionysus- but the concept of religious wars and mass persecutions is very much an attribute belonging to the Abrahamic religions. I don't think that it's a coincidence that these three religions are closely related.
I was about to write up an extended answer for IO until you effectively tackled it yourself, and in all honesty I share your viewpoint. My only focus on the fact that monotheism is so aggressive is simply the nature of their respective god. I don't focus on scripture or anything else besides the purported personality of the creator-god. In a monotheistic religion it's all-powerful and knows all. It doesn't tolerate dissent, i.e. hell. It justifies genocide and murder if it's in its name. Basically, brutality, torture, murder, conquest, slavery, and bigotry are okay as long as you worship it. But the moment someone else does it, you become a hypocritical loony and persecute them.
So, it doesn't surprise me that the followers of whatever cult they follow which involves a "one true god" would be violent and hateful and aggressive. _________________
Post #29970
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Wed 2006-07-12 04:02
Politics: Satanist
Country: Ninth Plane of Hell
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Ingsoc Officer wrote:
Polytheistic religions = An infinite set of individual methods of reaching salvation
Monotheistic religions = A limited set of universal methods of reaching salvation
I think it's a lot more stark than that; "Monotheistic religions = One universal method of reaching salvation". No monotheistic religion offers multiple methods of reaching salvation; Christianity has many branches which teach differently, but each one espouses "Only One True Way".
I don't think anyone else touched on this, so I might as well do it. Another major difference between polytheistic religions and monotheistic religions is the way they threaten you. Most of the major polytheistic religions seem to offer the chance to try again; reincarnation, karma, etc. In essence, polytheism teaches that every human being is capable of redemption, and thus, their spiritual dogma reflects on that redemption clause. However, with monotheistic religions, almost every single one teaches that if you don't accept their particular dogma (and even if you have never heard of their dogma, their god doesn't seem to care about you even in that situation) you get to live forever. In a fucking lake of fire. _________________
Post #59053
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a
Posted: Sat 2009-05-30 08:40
Politics: Oligarchical Collectivist
Country: United States
Re: Seven "Deadly" Sins, my ass.
Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
Mephistopheles wrote:
As most people know from very vocal evangelical monotheists, there are seven "deadly" sins: pride, envy, sloth, wrath, greed, lust, and gluttony. The three largest monotheistic religions: Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all condemn sin as being transgressions against their respective god's will. A fourth, less popular monotheistic religion, and is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion still around, Zoroastrianism, has no concept of repentence from sin. "Mazda has already set up the Principle of Consequences, which establishes that you will receive the consequences of your choices in kind and automatically". Additionally, Zoroastrianism has no concept of sin itself, sin being a purely later monotheistic invention.
The basis behind sin is that the behaviors marked off as "sinful" are contrary to the will of god, and thus, antithetical and negative towards god. Such behaviors are considered "evil", or, at the very least, "wicked" and "unspiritual".
Envy is the desire for another's traits, status, abilities, station, or worldly goods. It need not be associated with an object; its salient characteristic is the unfavorable comparison of one's own status with that of another.
Envy is one of the seven deadly sins in the Catholic tradition. It is considered sinful because envious people ignore their own blessings, and focus on others' status rather than their own spiritual growth.
Envy is often confused with the Deadly Sin of covetousness, or greed, a desire for material wealth (which may or may not belong to others). Envy in its covetous form is forbidden by the Ten Commandments in the Bible.
In some cultures, envy is often associated with the colour green, as in "green with envy". The phrase "green-eyed monster" refers to an individual whose current actions appear motivated by envy. This is based on a line from Shakespeare's Othello.
So, in simplistic terminology, envy is the desire to possess traits belonging to someone else. Furthermore, how is desire deadly? What were these Jews smoking when they wrote this up as an evil sin? I'm envious of plenty of people. I desire to possess their physical strength, I desire to possess large sums of money with which to spend on elaborate sex toys, exquisite food, and to finance a jobless life in luxury. There are plenty of other things I desire, and am subsequently envious about since I probably won't be able to have it, but nonetheless, I'm still envious.
Applying envy to economics, an incentive is a play on envy. If you desire something bad enough, you have an incentive to work harder to achieve it. Obviously, envy is a constructive feeling and behavior as long as you're willing to be productive, but why should be be "sinful" at all, even if you are lazy and refuse to work? It's your life, and you're an individual with the right to be as lazy as you want. It doesn't mean I think you should receive charity or welfare if you refuse to work, but it's everyone's right to choose their own life.
Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs. Greed is listed as one of the Catholic seven deadly sins, usually by the synonym of avarice.
Greedy individuals are often portrayed as harmful to society as their motives often appear to disregard the welfare of others: within a closed context of limited resources, one person's improved economic condition must come at the expense of others. However, even in a non-zero sum context, an extreme state of affluence can result only from a diversion of resources from others to the affluent.
When greed entails the covetousness of another person's attributes, the term envy is used. When greed is applied to the subject of the excessive consumption of food or drink the term gluttony is often used, another of the Catholic seven deadly sins. Greed is sometimes represented by the color yellow and the frog.
Buddhists believe greed is based on incorrectly connecting material wealth with happiness. This is caused by a deluded view that exaggerates the positive aspects of an object.
In simple terms, greed is the desire for material possessions. Again, as with the sin of envy, I hardly see how greed is possibly deadly. Greed is what motivates the economic system of every society since the dawn of time. Person A wants something that Person B owns, so they make a trade. Eventually, barter gave way to medium-based economics where a non-perishable medium was used to store value and replace bartering with buying. A common statement is that money doesn't buy happiness. People who say that are just poor. Money buys everything, and having a large house, a decent car, a lovely woman on your lap, the entire collection of the Star Trek series whose Amazon.com prices are outrageous, and plenty of food and comforts, does make you happy. I like having stuff, it makes me feel good. Having my laptop makes me feel great because most people in this world don't have their own computer, and the various other luxury items I possess also make me feel good because they're so useful, comfortable, and indicative of status. Hooray for material possessions, because materialism rocks!
There does come a point when greed can't be used to justify the dimunition of happiness or well-being of others. Logging companies would cut down every damn tree they could get their hands on if environmental organizations and governmental regulations hadn't been passed to limit their consumption of biological resources. Halliburton is another example of non-constructive greed: overcharging soldiers in Iraq for basic food supplies and things like toilet paper and towels. There's always examples of greed being used non-constructively. As long as greed is an individual thing and doesn't harm other people in the process, it's completely alright to me. But, when someone else's greed causes me harm, I would have to take an issue.
I'm also not surprised that Buddhists don't see the connection between materialism and happiness. They're so busy trying to find Nirvana that they don't realize they live in a material universe where material possessions means wealth, which means happiness, because happiness "ain't" cheap.
Gluttony is the over-indulgence and over-consumption of food, drink, or intoxicants to the point of waste. In the Christian religions, it is considered one of the seven deadly sins -- a misplaced desire of food or its withholding from the needy.
Gluttony is a pretty straightforward sin: eat too much, and you go to hell. I don't know about anyone else, and I don't claim to speak for anyone, but I enjoy my meat and potatoes, and I love overeating when it's damned good food on my plate. Take me to a sushi bar and I'll eat an incredulous amount of food relative to my actual body size. It's amazing that I'm not overweight.
And, what do you know! It's an actually deadly behavior, if you eat and eat and don't stop eating, or if you eat fatty foods constantly. You'll end up with overload or heart and arterial diseases. But, that's only if you eat foods regardless of their content, constantly. Most people in this world don't, because they either have cultures which don't have fatty cuisine, or because they don't eat enough food to begin with. Now, although I admit to being gluttonous whenever I can, I wouldn't withhold food from a starving person, and if someone was starving, and was near me, I'd share or give my food away without a second thought. I have no intention or reason to deliberately cause harm, or to not help someone. It's an interesting fact that the world currently produces enough food to feed every single human being on Earth, with plenty of food to spare, and yet people starve to death by the millions.
But in any case, it's an individual choice to overeat, and if you want to overeat, more power to you.
Lust is any intense desire or craving, usually sexual, although it is also common to speak of a "lust for life" or a "lust for power" or other goals.
As a sexual term, lust implies a sexual desire in and of itself, an erotic arousal and wish, or intense physical or sexual attraction or craving. In this sense, it is considered a vice by Christianity, and is listed as one of the seven deadly sins of Catholicism and its related denominations. The Greek word which translates as lust is επιθυμια (epithumia), which also is translated as covet.
This is definitely my favorite sin, however, if I was really hungry, I couldn't pass out on sushi or steak. Pussy can wait.
Sexual desire is an animalistic instinct all monosexual organisms possess. It gives us an incentive and will to mate, thus, to pass on our genetic legacy, and to continue the propagation of our species. To vilify such a natural impulse is absolutely ridiculous. We all have sexual desire (besides very few individuals who claimt to be asexual) and we all have sexual thoughts. It cannot be helped; we are programmed to be sexual creatures. Sex is an intensely intimate act, and is completely natural.
Pride refers to a strong sense of self-respect, a refusal to be humiliated as well as joy in the accomplishments of oneself or a person, group, or object that one identifies with.
It can also refer to Hubris, or excessive pride, which was usually the defining trait that lead to the tragic hero's tragic downfall according to Aristotle. It is in this negative connotation that pride is usually referred to with respect to religion.
In Christianity, pride (or vanity or arrogance) is the essentially competitive and excessive belief in one's own abilities that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God, or the worth which God sees in others. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is listed as one of the seven deadly sins, as superbia.
Pride is also condemned in Hinduism. Ravana, an evil king who was killed by Rama, avatar of Vishnu, exhibited deadly sins of pride and lust. In spirituality pride is linked to the local "I" and ego, as distinct from the nonlocal "us".
In Islam, pride is also forbidden. According to a narration from Muhammad, he said: "He in whose heart there is as much as a grain of pride will not enter paradise," and a man remarked: "A man likes his garment to be beautiful and his sandals to be beautiful." Then Muhammad replied: "God, Most High, is beautiful and likes beauty; pride is disdaining what is true and despising people" (Sahih Muslim).
Likewise, in Judaism, pride is to be avoided. "Blessed is that man that makes the LORD his trust, and looks not to the proud, nor to those that turn aside to lies." (Psalm 40:5)
I'm a pretty prideful person; I'm incredibly stubborn when I feel like being stubborn, and I'm very proud of my achievements and my works. Why shouldn't I be proud of what I do? It's a celebration of my ego, and is purely constructive. Constructive pride is essentially the same as constructive egotism. To encourage the ego and to encourage oneself to perform and achieve great things develops the individual to be independent and productive, as well as motivated, and gives a sense of self-worth and self-esteem through pride in one's doings.
And then there is hubris. Pride which is used to attack others, to impose one's ego on another person, and to downplay or destroy the works or achievements of others in order to further an excessive ego trip is never a good thing, since it alienates and polarizes opinion against such an egotistic individual.
Laziness is the lack of desire to act or work in general or to do an act or work that is expected of the person. In extreme cases, a generalized tendency to do nothing may verge on apathy and be a symptom of depression. What is considered laziness in any given instance, however, varies depending on cultural/societal context and magnitude, but it is generally considered a negative quality, as in sloth (see Seven deadly sins). Laziness can be considered an exaggeration of the natural instinct to do nothing that makes people get healthy rest. Laziness is usually associated with procrastination.
It has been argued that laziness is the source of many innovations that would have stemmed from the will to spare oneself a tiring job.
Yeah, lying around is really deadly. I'm a very lazy person. I like to lie around, I hate exercizing and doing stuff, and I like to sit in bed all day. And who's business is it to tell me I can't be lazy? I think Christians have a nanny-complex.
The last part is a great concept, and makes complete sense. We have developed technology to free us from labor, or to make labor less strenuous. If we didn't feel like being lazy, we would still be out hunting deer and wearing loincloths.
Anger is an emotional response to a grievance; real or imagined; past, present or future. Rage refers to an extreme degree of anger associated with a loss of calmness or discipline (in the case of human conduct).
Often based in a sensation or perception of threat, anger can be considered an emotional component in the increased threat response (part of the broader "stress response") whereby the charged emotional state produces physiological effects (increased adrenaline, cortisol), thereby producing behavioural effect of heightened stress and aggression.
Anger may be "provoked" (or triggered) by perceived threats, like conflict, or by abstract concepts such as injustice.
There are many physical conditions that increase the potential for one to become angry. Common contributors to irritability include fatigue, hunger, being in pain, sexual frustration, recovery from an illness, or the use of certain drugs. Other causes are hormonal changes, such as those associated with PMS, giving birth, and menopause, physical withdrawal, and bipolar disorder. Research also shows that some individuals can be genetically predisposed to higher levels of anger.
Wrath, when used to right a wrong, such as reciprocating an act by an individual who has unjustly harmed, is not inherently "wrong". Animals recriprocate; humans do as well. Law is state-sanctioned revenge. While if we were to take out revenge whenever someone wronged us and result in a state of anarchy, the law is used methodically to mete out punishment to those who have committed crimes. Without wrath, crime cannot be punished, and without wrath, revenge by vigilantism becomes a norm.
After having analyzed and commented on the so-called deadly sins, I've come to two inescapable conclusions:
1. They aren't deadly. Gluttony can result in death, but the chances are slim compared to the rate of starvation world-wide. None of these acts which have been vilified will inherently cause death or individual destruction, unless you sit down, never move, and eat Twinkies non-stop for the rest of your life, and then atrophy and die of heart failure brought on by arteriosclerosis.
2. It's an example of religious totalitarianism. All of these sins are synonymous, in concept, with the Newspeak word of "ownlife". These behaviors are individualistic; they all boost the ego, indulge us in pleasure, or provide us with comfort of mind or body. To be enslaved to a religion, you need to think that individualism is bad, that pleasure is bad, that comfort is bad, and that ownlife is a bad thing.
These sins are nothing more than vilification of individuality.
Individuality, as well as knowledge, are the two mortal enemies of monotheistic religion, because they both pose a threat; glorification of the individual ego and encouragement to enjoy life, and without ignorance, monotheism cannot maintain its hold on a person's mind; respectively.
If someone truly enjoys life, they won't inherently have a desire to turn to superstition and to the worship of imaginary friends. People who do not enjoy life, and are ill-educated, will undoubtedly turn to superstition for answers they can't seek themselves.
In conclusion, I maintain that materialism, individualism, ego-gratification, and pleasures of life are not harmful, as long as they don't involve harm to others. In this way, they're constructive, and useful, to the individual, and there's nothing deadly about that.
Tolerance of mephie's schizophrenia is a crime against the Common Good and Decency. _________________
What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
I'm a very lazy person. I like to lie around, I hate exercizing and doing stuff, and I like to sit in bed all day. And who's business is it to tell me I can't be lazy? I think Christians have a nanny-complex.
wrote:
I'll write back in detail later.
If this is what Christianity has to offer to people, then I'm just going to carry guns when I turn 21.
