morality's half twists

[Admin]

"Beat me" said the masochist.

"No" said the sadist.

[President Bush]

One I like is "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."

If one of the parties involved is much more powerful than the other it may pay lip service to this all while violating the principle with enthusiasm.

US foreign policy, especially in the 1960s-1980s an example... instigating coups against democratically-elected governments, labeling enemies as “human rights abusers”, refusing to sign global treaties protecting fundamental rights, blanket sanctions and embargos against countries on the shit list, not to mention carpet bombing countries we weren't even at war with.

[sparks]

Like I said, it seldom works out, but this is true of most of that shit in The Babble.

[stanky]

loop holes...

gotta be some loop holes?

sincere deception?
points for entertaining the lords?

If a person is so poorly developed that he/she needs moral advice and leadership, shouldn't the bosses give breaks for honest misinterpretation? Like, I want that woman to grab me by my tallywhacker, so i grabbed her by the twitchet.

at any rate, there's a conundrum of morality being self serving in that (in theory) you'll do better if you follow these rules for engagement, which appear to promote selflessness.

[President Bush]

sincere deception?
points for entertaining the lords?

GENUINE FAKES

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq2wtDgxNag

https://www.sarasotamagazine.com/arts-a ... ord-irving

[Meadmaker]

at any rate, there's a conundrum of morality being self serving in that (in theory) you'll do better if you follow these rules for engagement, which appear to promote selflessness.

The Catholics have been doing this for 2000 years, and they've worked out most of the details.


Basically, a truly awesome person does good because he loves God and always does the things God wants just to be a good person. A not quite as good person does good because God will reward him. The second sort isn't quite as good as the first, but both will end up in Heaven. It works the same on the other side. An act of perfect contrition is regretting sin because you went against God. An act of imperfect contrition is regretting sin because God might kick your flaming ass for all of eternity. However, either one is good enough to keep you out of Hell.

Unless you ruin it all by masturbating again.

So...it's ok to be self serving as long as you are serving others in the process. It would be even better if you were not self serving at all, but God cuts people some slack if they are doing good.

[President Bush]

at any rate, there's a conundrum of morality being self serving in that (in theory) you'll do better if you follow these rules for engagement, which appear to promote selflessness.

The Catholics have been doing this for 2000 years, and they've worked out most of the details.


Basically, a truly awesome person does good because he loves God and always does the things God wants just to be a good person. A not quite as good person does good because God will reward him. The second sort isn't quite as good as the first, but both will end up in Heaven. It works the same on the other side. An act of perfect contrition is regretting sin because you went against God. An act of imperfect contrition is regretting sin because God might kick your flaming ass for all of eternity. However, either one is good enough to keep you out of Hell.

Unless you ruin it all by masturbating again.

So...it's ok to be self serving as long as you are serving others in the process. It would be even better if you were not self serving at all, but God cuts people some slack if they are doing good.

Except for Job.

[sparks]

Good thing the whole mess is a myth.

[President Bush]

Good thing the whole mess is a myth.

hey sparks, if you were raised Catholic you might like this comic book...

https://therevealer.org/the-mystic-torm ... nky-brown/

[Meadmaker]

Good thing the whole mess is a myth.

Of course, God judges people in the way that we think we should judge people, because God was created in our image, or in the image of whatever culture came up with whatever god they set up as judge.

We, too, mostly give people some sort of credit for doing good, but less so if they are just doing it to look good.

For some reason, I happened to be thinking of the British royal family when I sat down to read. We give them credit for their work with charities, but it's really only half credit, because that's their job and they are paid very, very, well for it. Similarly, various pseudoroyal Americans, like billionaires or First Ladies, are credited with good acts when they do them, but I'm less impressed by a billionaire who gives money to a charitable cause than I am by someone who volunteers on weekends to help a charity. The former might be doing it as part of a public image campaign. The other is making a real sacrifice to help others.