# Why we shouldn't do things because of duty ranty rant of rants



## William Howard 2 (Nov 12, 2017)

Have you ever been told that you're a bad person for not doing something that you "should be"? We hear it all the time on why we should work. Why we should go to the military service. Why we should do whatever else we are supposed to do from those barking orders. 

I mean really? People don't do things ONLY because they are obligated to by society. Ask any parent why they do the parent thing. They will always say they do it out of love, or they get some kind of happiness from it. If we are forced to do things only out of duty, we will always just go through the motions. The result will be far inferior to someone who did it and was happy doing it. 

I don't think Michelangelo only sculped out of duty to his religion. I think he was deeply in love with his subject matter. Or look at any other successful person. Ever. This is what erks me. Society always wants to play that duty card to get us to do things we hate doing, but those who do things WELL do it out of choice because they like doing it, and duty is just a means to those ends. GRR.

I guess that's my point. To do things well, one must get enjoyment to make it all worth it. Why force things on people who aren't happy doing it? 

Maybe that's a sign of something deeper? It's like we are saying "what you feel doesn't matter. What matters is what is done". Hum paradox much? 

1. how are we able to justify the act when the results are not guaranteed?

2. If duty ethics is supposed to ignore outcomes (we should only do things because it's "right", not what comes of it), then why are we doing it to begin with?! A.k.a if the end doesn't matter anyway, why can't I take another choice based on happiness?

3. If we only do things for the next generation, or a better tomorrow, ect., no one is actually enjoying anything. We are always looking to some far off future. "We are neither here nor there", neither in the future nor really enjoying the present. 

4. prioritizing outcomes over emotions. Maybe emotions have a useful purpose? (Gasp!) Maybe we need a system that gives emotions dignity and usefulness, rather then just being subordinate (and beneath) to reason?


----------



## creature (Nov 13, 2017)

William Howard 2 said:


> 1. how are we able to justify the act when the results are not guaranteed?



you are confusing, and thus diluting, "duty" & "obligation" with 'expectation'.
duty & obligation originate from self, with reference to honor/integrity/trustworthiness as opposed to what others require of you without regard for your personal moral imperatives (or diminish them as subjugated to their own).

why do you need a guarantee?
that is a desire for safety.
beauty is blowing your foot off & saying "jesus. i *thought* that was going to happen.."



William Howard 2 said:


> 2. If duty ethics is supposed to ignore outcomes... why can't I take another choice based on happiness?



simple answer: 'happiness' isn't always right.
nor even relevant.
the core definition of being is what you are willing to die for.
that is your basic, personal, existential measure.

basically?
you can't just do what you want to do, unless you are a shit.

maybe a warm potpie will fly into your mouth, but generally you have to earn things..

anything else is just complaining that things aren't easy enough.

the bitch in western civilization is *how* they make us earn stuff, & *what* they allow us to earn, before they seriously fuck with us..



William Howard 2 said:


> 3. If we only do things for the next generation... ect., no one is actually enjoying anything. We are always looking to some far off future.



not sure i get this.. when we do stuff for others yet to be, aren't we just trying to give the what we *already* enjoy?
i mean, we have to know its value if we're going to try to pay it forward, correct?
so we *do* enjoy it, and that is *why* we dick ourselves up the ass with worry & with work & with anger & with hope..

the good servant is selfless, if they serve what they hope, but that doesn't mean they are unaware....




William Howard 2 said:


> 4. prioritizing outcomes over emotions. Maybe emotions have a useful purpose? (Gasp!) Maybe we need a system that gives emotions dignity and usefulness, rather then just being subordinate (and beneath) to reason?



yer young.
breath some gasoline in a burning building, & things will clarify..

outcomes over emotions is the lovechild (or bedwhore) of prince machiavelli..

means vs. ends, etc..
your assertion and argument are not properly framed.
read #4 as a logical proposition requiring resolution within its own assertions of weighted validities.

if you are looking at the first clause; "prioritizing outcomes over emotions" as an *condition* to be assessed, *then uniquely frame it as such, *within a comparative argument, because you are utilizing compositional logic, & not just engaging in a drunken rant...
your second clause in #4 "maybe we need a system [where] emotions [are not] just.. subordinate.. to reason?" is directly contradictory to clause 1, "prioritizing..."

i get your anger & whatnot..

i know.

i know...


bless yer pointy little head...


there are basically two choices in existence, & one successfull synthesis..

choice 1: talk
choice 2: do

successfull synthesis: (apply logic, here)


also; fuck ranting.
ranting is for idiots..

trust me.

i know...


----------



## Drengor (Nov 13, 2017)

Like you said, William: those who are exceptional at things do those things out of some passion. Are you exceptional at something? Do you have passion? Then you're good!

Are you not exceptional at anything? Well you're in luck! There's plenty of people exceptional at telling you what to do. This sense of duty thrust upon others you're worried about is just a social tool used to get those who would not do anything on their own to at the very least do _something_.

You've got a few choices. Do what you're good at, or don't. Convince people to do what they're good at, or don't.

Complaining about how some people go about convincing people to do things shouldn't be high on your to-do list if both those people are productive in their own way.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Nov 13, 2017)

1. Confusing duty and obligation with expectation. 
A. Duty and obligation come from self. Expectation from others. 

how does duty come from the self? Find that hard to believe. Where did those ideals cone from in the first place? 

Then what makes duty and obligation equal, but radically different from expectation? That's why I just used a univocal definition for those interchangeably. It's like trying to sort out beauty and the good. I gave up. 

2. You said something like "why do we need to know outcomes?" I think it's obvious. We both agree that we can have degrees of knowledge of effects. But there's a point I would imagine where the outcome is so far out of prediction that it's pointless to do it if the sacrifices are too great. 

3. You said something like "Happiness isn't always right, nor are they relevant". Yes I agree that they aren't always right. But pain and pleasure has a evolutionary reason for existing. It's a guide when the faculties fail. Sometimes all we go off of is a gut feeling that something is wrong, and THEN we use reason. But to say that happiness is completely irrelevant is strange. Does that contradict what you said about "outcomes over emotions being the lovechild of The Prince"? 

Not sure I understand "being is what you want to die for". Is this ontology or your giving a definition of happiness? Either way, it seems like a strange claim. 

5. I framed means and ends wrong. Actually you got me there. I wasnt trying to sort the damn thing out. It's pointless. Read Kant if you don't believe me. I was giving a very blunt dumbed down version so I wouldn't have to write a book like I'm doing now :/ 

6. There is talk. There is do. 
Doesnt dialectic inform our actions? So isn't that a false dichotomy in a sense? Maybe a cyclical relationship? 

I'm just tired right now of this analytical stuff. It's just a game where people try to one up the other person. Like you told me, not everyone expresses themselves in the same way. For dialectic to work, it has to be working together. I just don't think actual dialectic is possiable over the internet with other people who could probably care less about finding general principles and more about being right.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Nov 14, 2017)

Drengor said:


> This sense of duty thrust upon others you're worried about is just a social tool used to get those who would not do anything on their own to at the very least do _something._
> 
> Complaining about how some people go about convincing people to do things shouldn't be high on your to-do list if both those people are productive in their own way.


So your saying 
1. Duty is used to get people to do something that would not do any other thing. (Duty defined as a organizer)
2. Duty is it's own type of production. (Duty produces)

Well I think point one is easily refuted. We can ask "to what are we being organized to"? We can be organized to evil, but is doing evil better than not doing anything? That's why we can't just get people moving for the sake of moving, or creating unity for the sake of unity. We have to ask "to WHAT are we being unified under?" That's a common trip up nowadays, and just a breeding ground for fascism. 

Whose to say that if people didn't do something out of duty, they wouldn't do anything at all? It sort of contains this concept of human nature as a state of laziness.

A point if mine was that if we ARE going to frame duty as "production" or getting people moving in a direction, it creates three problems:

1. Its production is far inferior because happy people produce more, and better.
2. Framing duty as production is Utilitarian. So now we are mixing opposite ideas.
2. Doing something just for the sake of "doing something" created this weird paradox where some people are not really actually doing anything useful ("bullshit jobs").

Damnit I told myself I wouldn't break things down anyone. Ugh.


----------



## Drengor (Nov 14, 2017)

Pointing to the evil that could be accomplished with a tool does not make the tool evil. Any tool with value or power can have its power applied in negative ways. This isn't something unique to social engineering. It's equally a breeding ground for fascism as it is for democracy, or utilitarianism, or peaceful, cooperative anarchy. What comes out of it is what we do with it.

Is someone trying to coerce you into doing evil? If so, I'd recommend you not do it. If not, I'd recommend not worrying about the potential for someone to try to.



William Howard 2 said:


> Whose to say that if people didn't do something out of duty, they wouldn't do anything at all? It sort of contains this concept of human nature as a state of laziness.



Humans are lazy in that once all bodily necessities are met and all passions fulfilled we will revel in the earned luxury and leisure. Very few people will continue producing value that they reap no benefit from just for value's sake.

A starving person will work for food, no duty involved. An artist will paint for them-self, no duty involved. Someone who has food, shelter, and success in passions will usually accept victory. Being unsatisfied at that point, and not giving into 'laziness' sounds like a mental issue.

Someone with no passions will achieve laziness sooner than those who do. They feed themselves, secure shelter, and that's about it. It's these people duty tries to eek more out of.

As to whether the majority of people have passions or not, I really couldn't tell you, and I think that's quite outside the understanding of most. My optimism tells me to believe almost everybody has passions, but a fair few succumb to boredom and laziness, or unfavourable circumstances, before discovering what their passion is. Duty to continue past base necessities would also help these few by exposing them to more of the world, in the hopes that they find their passion.



William Howard 2 said:


> 1. Its production is far inferior because happy people produce more, and better.



I don't think anyone would refute that production wrought by passion is far superiour, at least in terms of efficiency of the persons time, than that wrought by duty.



William Howard 2 said:


> 2. Framing duty as production is Utilitarian. So now we are mixing opposite ideas.



Duty isn't production, it's a social engineering tool who's sole purpose is to increase production. Deontological thinking tries to apply intrinsic value to an act, regardless of its value within reality, but the only purpose of believing that, or trying to convince others to, is in the hopes that they do the act that duty requires of them whether or not they themselves can determine its value within reality, the value of the outcome, in the hopes that the value of the outcome more often than not outweighs the cost of the action, either to the person following the duty or to the person imploring them to.

Or you just like doing the act. Plenty of people reap sentimental value from an act they hold in high regards. Sentimental value is basically what duty is selling to those who wouldn't reap practical value from a duty.



William Howard 2 said:


> 2. Doing something just for the sake of "doing something" created this weird paradox where some people are not really actually doing anything useful ("bullshit jobs").



Bullshit jobs are a product of a capitalist society where a select few at the top control all the wealth, and need to find creative ways of occupying the dissatisfied masses and distract them from the idea that an affordable, well organized social welfare system, while costing the top more in abstract monetary value, would ultimately benefit society as a whole in incredible ways that would repay that due in very tangible value within reality.

Its far easier to offer up a bunch of pointless $8/h jobs to teenagers and struggling young adults and thereby providing them with a base subsistence of a life than contending with them not having that easy boring life as an option that would ultimately force them to rise against the system. I wouldn't call it a paradox, I'd call it a beautiful lie that's easily digested, since refusing it costs each individual person more effort in the short term.


----------



## creature (Nov 14, 2017)

too many words..

perople who use too many many words are either making excuses or trying to impress people.

enjoy your rabbit hole, son.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Nov 14, 2017)

Drengor said:


> Pointing to the evil that could be accomplished with a tool does not make the tool evil. Any tool with value or power can have its power applied in negative ways.


To appease Creature I'll be short. Are we really saying
1. Unity is a tool. 
2. Duty is a tool for unity. 
Then are we answering "what are they tools of?"
1. They are tools for good and evil

Question - does good use the same tools that evil uses? 

Question - if duty is a tool, isn't it still consequentialism? I.e., it's a means to a end, not a end in itself? We haven't defined duty, just that it's useful for something else. Isn't that still a problem for Deontology?



Drengor said:


> Humans are lazy in that once all bodily necessities are met and all passions fulfilled we will revel in the earned luxury and leisure. Very few people will continue producing value that they reap no benefit from just for value's sake.
> 
> A starving person will work for food, no duty involved. An artist will paint for them-self, no duty involved. Someone who has food, shelter, and success in passions will usually accept victory. Being unsatisfied at that point, and not giving into 'laziness' sounds like a mental issue.
> 
> Someone with no passions will achieve laziness sooner than those who do. They feed themselves, secure shelter, and that's about it. It's these people duty tries to eek more out of.


1. If bodily necessities are met, we are satisfied. 
2. Then if we are satisfied, we "revel". 
3. Those who are satisfied get duty (to revel?). 
4. Those who are not satisfied are mentally ill. 

The problem is that it's not falsifiable, it's a catch 22 where it's never ok to be satisfied. 
1. If we are satisfied, we become hedonists. 
2. If we are not satisfied, we are mentally it. 

Then two examples were given -
1. Starving person. 
2. Artist. 

Question - are the "revels" of the artist and the starving man the same? Revels can be subdivided into the higher and lower pleasures (Epicureanism). Maybe the full man practices gluttony, but a artist dwells with beautiful forms. Then it's said "revels" produce no benefits. But doesn't the artist revel with beauty produce a good? Can we have too much beauty? 

1. Duty is for people who are content.

Question - This is really interesting. Is that sort of like the allegory of the cave? Or like Buddhism where people have to go back to help those suffering out of compassion? I like that. 



Drengor said:


> Duty isn't production, it's a social engineering tool who's sole purpose is to increase production


1. Duty isn't production.
2. Duty is a tool for social engineering.
3. (The)Social engineering sole purpose is to increases production. 

I'm still not happy that duty is a tool viewed economically  

By the way Drengor thank you. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Rabbit holes can be fun  I'm sure Alice learned a lot in wonderland.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Nov 14, 2017)

creature said:


> too many words..
> 
> perople who use too many many words are either making excuses or trying to impress people.
> 
> enjoy your rabbit hole, son.


And people that rely on abstraction and vagueness with disjointed points are probably using obscurity to hide from criticism *ahem*


----------



## Drengor (Nov 14, 2017)

William Howard 2 said:


> Question - does good use the same tools that evil uses?



This is pretty broad, and easily answered with a 'yes'. A gun hunts for food and murders. lots of tools have all kinds of uses, both good and evil. Are there tools that are solely good or solely evil? Probably not. If you give me a definition of an 'evil tool' I'm sure I can point to how its a neutral tool that you are only describing an evil use for.



William Howard 2 said:


> Question - if duty is a tool, isn't it still consequentialism? I.e., it's a means to a end, not a end in itself? We haven't defined duty, just that it's useful for something else. Isn't that still a problem for Deontology?



That is very much the problem with deontology. The problem with consequentialism is it ignores ignorance (hah) on the part of the actor. Bad outcomes, while implying a bad decision in hindsight, do not imply a bad decision at the time. One can act morally while lacking complete information and end up causing harm. "I was just following orders" is a valid excuse, up until the dutiful are aware of the treachery they cause.



William Howard 2 said:


> 3. Those who are satisfied get duty (to revel?).



More like "Those who are satisfied can be motivated through duty to achieve more (instead of reveling)."



William Howard 2 said:


> 4. Those who are not satisfied are mentally ill.



Those who are not satisfied _with reasonable success_ could be mentally ill. This is very infrequent.

There is no catch 22, unless you ignore the core of what I was pointing at: passionate people who achieve their passions have no use for duty, and are rewarded with revelation. This is hopefully frequent.

The starving man does not revel, he searches for food. If he feeds himself, and is just a man without passion, then his revelation would be just as basic. Enjoying a cold beer on a beach is quite enough for many.

The artist producing art is not reveling, he is fulfilling his passion. He revels after he is finished painting, maybe by drinking a cold beer at the beach, or in his artists loft. The great part about having a passion and pursuing it is that it doesn't feel like work, but it is work in the sense that you produce value. It's the good kind of work. What you branded as reveling is what you do when the work is all done, good or bad.



William Howard 2 said:


> 1. Duty is for people who are content.
> 
> Question - This is really interesting. Is that sort of like the allegory of the cave? Or like Buddhism where people have to go back to help those suffering out of compassion? I like that.



Duty is for those who are (or are about to be) wrongly content, at least in the eye of the one selling the duty. A teenager may be content, having completed their homework, dinner, and chores, but a parent may save the teenager from a fate of playing video-games by giving them the duty to volunteer at the community center. It's not required, this teen in question would not have chosen to on their own, but everyone involved benefits from it. The first time the teen helps those in need may be in frustrated duty, but the hope is that it fosters a sense of kinship and caring. The next time the teen helps will not be in duty to their parents, but in 'duty' to their own conscience.



William Howard 2 said:


> I'm still not happy that duty is a tool viewed economically



I use the word 'production' and 'value' not in economic senses but in realistic senses. None of this is about money. Money is simply the tool we use to measure some things.

Those interested in making money may employ duty, but those interested simply in making the world a better place may also employ duty. Both produce value, one just wants it in cash.

Rabbit holes are very fun with people eager to learn and teach.


----------



## Drengor (Nov 15, 2017)

I guess to bring it full circle to the title you chose, doing something out of passion is better than doing it out of duty, but doing something is better than doing nothing, and if duty is the only reason you're doing something, that's A-OK for you.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Nov 15, 2017)

Drengor said:


> Duty is for those who are (or are about to be) wrongly content, at least in the eye of the one selling the duty. A teenager may be content, having completed their homework, dinner, and chores, but a parent may save the teenager from a fate of playing video-games by giving them the duty to volunteer at the community center. It's not required, this teen in question would not have chosen to on their own, but everyone involved benefits from it. The first time the teen helps those in need may be in frustrated duty, but the hope is that it fosters a sense of kinship and caring. The next time the teen helps will not be in duty to their parents, but in 'duty' to their own conscious.


So duty here is a sort of seed that we give people who are wrongfully content so they can step outside there comfort zone, and hopefully these seeds will bloom into full compassion or love.

It seems like here we are really talking about hard core Virtue ethics and not Deontology, with all the constant emphasis on the effects of duty on ones character over time. What we are describing is how duty can shape ones identity, to where, out of habit or practice, it leaves a imprint on the personality. This is all Aristotle's/Plato's feedback loop and not Kant anymore. 

This is sort of my poorly explained original point. We dumb humans just can't seem to comprehend Deontology by itself, with 99 percent of people placing Utilitarian ideology on top of it, and the other more skillful 1 percent using Virtue Ethics.

This led me to ask in a drunken stupor "if we suck so bad at understanding this thing, how they hell can we expect others to make sacrifices of such important things to them such as liberty and happiness? If we are sending people off to die, or to a unhappy commitment of some kind, I would at least like to give them a solid explanation of why it should be done". It's sort of like asking people to die for God and then we they ask why, we just point up.

Anyway thanks Drengor your post was very much a pleasure to read. I'm totally impressed with the idea of a just and unjust contentment.


----------



## Drengor (Nov 15, 2017)

Right yeah, you'll get a lot of utilitarianism from me, or altruism, or at least a disinterest in deontology cause I'm not big on that. It's an attempt to reason sentimental value into the real world past those who hold the sentimental value. In the end its a demand for respect for respect's sake, and I'm more concerned with doing actual measurable good in the world, in place of warm fuzzy feelings on the part of those who want for little.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Nov 15, 2017)

Drengor said:


> I guess to bring it full circle to the title you chose, doing something out of passion is better than doing it out of duty, but doing something is better than doing nothing, and if duty is the only reason you're doing something, that's A-OK for you.


Wait... We just admitted that
1. Duty is a tool.
2. Tools are used for good and evil
3. Good and evil use the same tools.
So therefore we can conclude that both good and evil use the tool of duty.

So yes. We should still be critical of duty. We even denied that some tools are exclusively used by good.


----------



## Drengor (Nov 15, 2017)

"and if duty is the only reason you're doing something _good_, that's A-OK for you."


----------



## William Howard 2 (Nov 16, 2017)

Drengor said:


> "and if duty is the only reason you're doing something _good_, that's A-OK for you."


case closed. Works for me. 

Just one last thought though.. We are only giving weapons to those who are bad in the hopes that they become good. No wonder duty has been so abused! The less virtuous will need duty the most and more of it, giving the unskilled in virtue the most potent form of duty, while the skilled in virtue receive nothing.


----------



## mouse (Nov 18, 2017)

Interesting questions. People who think about these kinds of things are called _philosophers_. 

I will throw in some loose, pre-coffee thoughts.



William Howard 2 said:


> I don't think Michelangelo only sculped out of duty to his religion. I think he was deeply in love with his subject matter.



Michelangelo was deeply in _debt_, at least partially because of a sponging family. He and other renaissance artists followed the money (the patrons), whether it be from wealthy families or the papacy. One of the reasons there are so many unfinished works by him is that the patrons would stop paying for whatever reason (war, liquidity, personal or political reasons).

He disliked some of the projects and patrons greatly; he was said to have intentionally dripped paint from his work on the ceiling of the Sistine onto P. Julius II's head. The pope would come in and bug him and that is how M. retaliated. That's pretty gangsta.

Lots of cool contemporary stories about M. in Cellini's autobiography, including M. leaving early with a bevy of lovely transfolk he met at a party. History is not _all_ boring. 



William Howard 2 said:


> 2. If duty ethics is supposed to ignore outcomes (we should only do things because it's "right", not what comes of it), then why are we doing it to begin with?!



Religious deontology (duty-based ethics): "because god says so".
Secular deontology: "because it's all we have"
Classical deontology: "because it is behavior befitting a citizen"
Existentialism: "because we were thrust here and we have to make our own rules"
Nihilism: "fuck that shit"




William Howard 2 said:


> 3. If we only do things for the next generation, or a better tomorrow, ect., no one is actually enjoying anything. We are always looking to some far off future. "We are neither here nor there", neither in the future nor really enjoying the present.



You might find zen to be a good fit. I think I remember in one of Huxley's novels minah birds were taught to say "here and now" to remind folks to be present in the moment.

There really are benefits to thinking ahead (delayed gratification), though. It is the difference between substinence and civilization. 

Not trying to offend religious folk, but i find scaring people into an eternity-focused life makes them much easier to control from an organizational point of view: 
"Invisible Deity<tm> says you must give me 10% of your money!"
"Invisible Deity<tm> says you must do what the priestly caste says!"
"Invisible Deity<tm> says you must breed uncontrollably, which _entirely_ coincidentally increases the number of tithing congregants!"

It is convenient that the rewards bestowed by the organization are only delivered after death. Perhaps I will try this in my own life. "Please give me all your money; you will be repaid in full after your death. No one has yet complained about lack of payment!"



William Howard 2 said:


> 4. prioritizing outcomes over emotions. Maybe emotions have a useful purpose? (Gasp!) Maybe we need a system that gives emotions dignity and usefulness, rather then just being subordinate (and beneath) to reason?



Feelings and instinct are a core function of our lizard brains. Reason is an optional add-on that is expensive and slow to use. _Feelings_ are why we have relationships, families, campfires, religious terrorists, joy and sorrow, drive-by shootings, feuds and dictators. _Reason_ is why we have mobile phones, trains, airplanes, electricity, low infant mortality, rule of law, constitutional governance, etc.

A preference for emotion over reason is a valid choice and _vice versa_. The ability to switch modes as appropriate might be best. I suggest the public is WAY over on the emotional side; our crazed political mood is a good example. This happens because we are born with lizard brain as a survival trait, while critical thinking is a subtle skill that takes education, desire, and effort. Not everyone has access to that, and some are actively hostile.


----------



## William Howard 2 (Nov 20, 2017)

mouse said:


> You might find zen to be a good fit. I think I remember in one of Huxley's novels minah birds were taught to say "here and now" to remind folks to be present in the moment.


I was raised under Zen Buddhism by my parents. They worked for a Japanese company and got us into it through them.

That's partly what inspired my rant actually. There is a darker side to the more militant form of Buddhism that is Zen. Makes sense I guess as the most common profession of retired soldiers was to enter into the priesthood. They called this "a living death". Sounds great, right?

When I was a kid I remember reading from someone "whether sitting or reclining, bathing or sleeping, one must be constantly ever ready to do ones duty (and die if need be)". I think that's called "servant leadership" now in western philosophy. 

I remember a Confucian writer responding to him - if all we do is meditate on death, no one is actually living. 

That's also partly why I disagreed with Drengor. Duty isn't a teachable virtue in itself, it's only something virtuous people do. 

Another story I heard from my teachers was "if there is a nail sticking up, you hammer it down", the nail being a metaphor for individuality (I was the nail).

The point is, I realized that "nature finds a way". We can try to force people into moulds, but true nature flies out in time. Being "hammered" by duty tends to make one bitter toward the whole thing.


----------



## Chillhowee90 (Sep 3, 2018)

I'm working through this conflict with some literature from the library here at StP.

When someone tries to make you feel wrong for what you are or "are not" doing, this is referred to as an emotional trap.

-Traps only serve to rob us of our true freedom to live life. 

NEVER FALL INTO THEIR TRAPS


----------



## mouse (Sep 4, 2018)

[deleting because I am stupid]


----------

