seven deadly sins

[Theoketos]

[quote]All of them, in a general sense, can be good or bad. For definitions, I refer you to www.dictionary.com If there's more than one definition, [b]pick the one that makes my argument make sense.[/b] P.gif There'll be one. I'll give you the opposite situation for what each is usually expected to have.[/quote]

This is were our debate lies, and where the nuance might be lost on you.

edit to add

Why dont you pick the one that makes the Church's position make sense?

Edited November 26, 2005 by Theoketos

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't see how the nuance is lost on me. I corrected myself with the original intent thing. Aside from this, I pointed out how there are many definitions that could be used, so my point remined again without the intent thing. Finally, I dug out his point, if it was his point, that I could have used the bad or good to correspond to a list that would be right. My original point would still remain though that you shouldn't brush aside all forms of pride etc. and that people often feign from righteous indignation etc because they think anger is wrong, due to the semantics of the words. The best argument is the intent thing because had the list been made today, I would be the first to throw disclaimers on it, while admitting that it was even today meant to make sense in the one way.. The way he is responding leads me to believe that he doesn't understand the nuance because he doesn't acknowldege my point, he was the one who was using the definitions that I said he should not use if my argument were to make sense, and he does such a poor job making his that I am not sure I even know his point for sure. Plus the fact he probably will never admit to the platitudes he displays not only in this thread or with me leads me to believe the nuance if it wasn't lost on him was poorly made because he was too sidetracked with petty issues.

Edited November 26, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[argent_paladin]

Here's an analogy to your argument, darygirl:

Rape is not necessarily evil. Sometimes it can be good. For example:

[quote]rape2 (rāp)
n.

A European plant (Brassica napus) of the mustard family, cultivated as fodder and for its seed that yields a valuable oil. [/quote]

Indeed, rape yields a valuable oil.

Therefore, I have proved that rape is not immoral, and in fact, may be quite good.


Obviously, that is stupid because we are using two different definitions. First, we need to agree on a common definition and then discuss its merits.

BTW, punctuation is a good thing. One can hardly understand what you are trying to say, dairygirl, because it is all one sentence. If you truly wish to avoid causing confusion, perhaps you should use actual sentences. It would save us all a lot of time.

[tojo]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Nov 26 2005, 01:25 AM']This is were our debate lies, and where the nuance might be lost on you.

edit to add

Why dont you pick the one that makes the Church's position make sense?
[right][snapback]800687[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly....

[dairygirl4u2c]

I could use the definition that would make the arguement given by the church to make sense. In fact, I mentioned in my fris thread that if you were to do that, assume the bad were bad etc, that I will not make my argument. If using the definition that would make the church's list make sense is what cam was getting at, it's a good point which I pointed out and drew out. I actually drew it out, but I did point out in the original thread that I was not going to do this. Really the only reason I said he had a good point was because my attempt to be amicable blinded me. The reason I was not going to use a word to make the list make sense as you say is because I think it's dangerous to say pride is a vice, when it can by today's standard be a virtue. (the original intent thing is a good point because back in the day it was clear, though to add to the confusion, I bet this clarity with the lack of a word or common word for righteous indignation grew from that, so I would here even throw out a smiliar disclaimer now that I think about it) It's okay to say that for instance pride is bad, but to simply say that alone is dangerous, and I was making the disclaimer.

The plant analogy does not stand because it is clear the distinction between the two rapes. The distinction between say pride is not clear. That is why people think all pride is wrong, all anger is wrong etc to the point they avoid righteous indignation etc. The distinction you might argue is clear if you think about it, I agree, but obviously people do ont think about it, so the distinction generally is not clear.

Edited November 27, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

The world can hardly be said to be suffering from an over-abundance of humility, generosity, brotherly love, meekness, chastity, temperance, and diligence.

[dairygirl4u2c]

My attempt to be amicable also blinded me to the fact that I also said in my initial thread "Some of the vices mentioned might fall in that category." the category being vice/virtues that cannot have any general or different definition such as avarice. I was wrong to try to twist it, but I was more playing and pretty much stating the whole time I was twisting those ones. I see no logical errors on my part in this thread other than my arrogance. I think everyone else here has just been trying to argue for the most part, and hasn't made a single new point yet. I actually had a feeling this would be the case, that's what I was thinking when I said in the original thread, "I'd think you'd all agree with me. What are your thoughts?" I knew some here would argue simply to argue. I knew some would say they were not being disingenuous and only I had something to lose, when they had their pride to lose, and it has now become shown to be the case. I can only think cam was offended looking through the thread when I said itw as ironic I noticed the intent thing without anyone else and said cam was on the right track. I did not mean anything by that. I actually knew he was probably on to something and drawing it out to show me the error. I still don't know what his point was, and if it's what I think it was, I stated the whole time I was not following those standards, but anyway I did not mean to throw a stone by that comment and I apologize for that.

Edited November 27, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 26 2005, 08:31 PM']My attempt to be amicable also blinded me to the fact that I also said in my initial thread "Some of the vices mentioned might fall in that category." the category being vice/virtues that cannot have any general or different definition such as avarice. I was wrong to try to twist it, but I was more playing and pretty much stating the whole time I was twisting those ones. I see no logical errors on my part in this thread other than my arrogance. I think everyone else here has just been trying to argue for the most part, and hasn't made a single new point yet. I actually had a feeling this would be the case, that's what I was thinking when I said in the original thread, "I'd think you'd all agree with me. What are your thoughts?" I knew some here would argue simply to argue. I knew some would say they were not being disingenuous and only I had something to lose, when they had their pride to lose, and it has now become shown to be the case. I can only think cam was offended looking through the thread when I said itw as ironic I noticed the intent thing without anyone else and said cam was on the right track. I did not mean anything by that. I actually knew he was probably on to something and drawing it out to show me the error. I still don't know what his point was, and if it's what I think it was, I stated the whole time I was not following those standards, but anyway I did not mean to throw a stone by that comment and I apologize for that.
[right][snapback]801140[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh come off it. I think everyone arguing against you had good legitimate points, Cam as much or more than anybody else. (And it was quite obvioius what his point was.)
You can't just say that you are right and that everyone else here must just be arguing for the sake of arguing. In fact, if you ask me, it looks like the other way around.
You have hardly shown the traditional concepts of the virtues and vices to be "a bunch of hooey."