Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Contract for Sale of Soul

liminalwarmth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: Contract for Sale of Soul

#91

Post by revolvingocelot »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #89
revolvingocelot wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like solid evidence that the Devil is scrupulously fair! He could have just said that his performance was better; his demon backup band would surely have taken his side. I suspect he enjoys the challenge of outdoing mortals, and thus allows them a sporting chance of escape. Note the impressive loophole in this contract! [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29127547

An alternative interpretation is that by losing, the devil offers the fiction that a human can succeed without faith in God, damning them.

Do we ever see proof of Johnny's lack of faith in God, though? I suppose he's fairly prideful, by way of his assertion about being the best there ever was, but I don't think it's as clear as that. He does beat the Devil in a fiddle contest; is it prideful if it's a justified statement?

The Devil clearly can't just take souls without their owner's consent, so he needs to project an air of trustworthiness. There's a serious power asymmetry between mortals and the Devil, and the only higher authority one could think of is God himself. One suspects that God wouldn't easily take the Devil's side, so it behooves (heh) the Devil to be seen as honourable as possible, to ensure smooth and continued soul acquisition.

Re: Contract for Sale of Soul

#92

Post by emodendroket »

deodar wrote: post #87
emodendroket wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you figure. You get the disclosures long after you make your offer (although you do have a contingency if you don't like what you see, I think). And the mandatory disclosure system opens you up to more risk of lawsuit, since if you fail to disclose something you, in the view of the legal system, reasonably should have known, that's grounds for a suit (compared to MA, where I used to live, where you're…

If you are working with a real estate agent they can pull the disclosures before you make the offer. I am not sure how it works for no agent sales. Also the disclosures have copious language to the effect of "To the best of sellers' knowledge" and "Buyer agrees to do their own research". I think this is supposed to indemnify the seller.

I was working with an agent and I barely was able to get those disclosures before closing because of the sluggishness of the seller's chosen title company. For the disclosures, you're clear if you didn't know about it, but the issue of whether you reasonably should have known about an issue remains. Just saying to the best of my knowledge doesn't clear you on that. And figuring out what you reasonably should have known can be a protracted legal argument.

Just as an example, imagine you buy a house from me that turns out to have foundation issues. Imagine I hadn't disclosed them, but I had actually filled in and painted over a number of cracks in the wall. That could possibly be construed as an effort to cover up the problem and deceive. But maybe I just thought I was making it look nice.

In short, mandatory disclosures protect the buyer, not the seller. The seller gains nothing.

Re: Contract for Sale of Soul

#93

Post by mLuby »

mindcrime wrote: post #44
noduerme wrote: post #41

BS. Satan would never write a contract without a forced arbitration clause. I just realized several other people posted this. But hopefully the devil will take a moment to update before posting this again to HN three months hence. Also not sure why this contract is relevant when everyone's already agreed to Apple and Facebook's TOS.

BS. Satan would never write a contract without a forced arbitration clause. I dunno, you are talking about someone who lost a golden fiddle to some hick kid from Georgia[1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh7BZf7D5Bw

"The boy said my name's Johnny and it might be a sin but I'll take your bet and you're gonna regret 'cause I'm the best there's ever been."

The kid knowingly commits a deadly sin (pride) and the Devil rewards him for it to reinforce the behavior. Certainly on the path to an eternal musical gig in Hell.

Re: Contract for Sale of Soul

#94

Post by mLuby »

If the terms of the contract are illegal in the jurisdiction in which they were signed, are they still enforceable?

What happens if the buyer and seller are the same? Does the soul remain in place or transfer out and back?

Are the input fields sanitized against injection attacks such as this?

  BUYER: Black Phillip
  DATE: 1637-10-31 Addendum: Seller additionally agrees to perform any acts of VVitchcraft requested by the Buyer.
  SELLER: Tomasin
  DATE: 1637-10-30

Re: Contract for Sale of Soul

#95

Post by R0b0t1 »

revolvingocelot wrote: post #91
R0b0t1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An alternative interpretation is that by losing, the devil offers the fiction that a human can succeed without faith in God, damning them.

Do we ever see proof of Johnny's lack of faith in God, though? I suppose he's fairly prideful, by way of his assertion about being the best there ever was, but I don't think it's as clear as that. He does beat the Devil in a fiddle contest; is it prideful if it's a justified statement? The Devil clearly can't just take souls without their owner's consent, so he needs to project an air of trustworthiness. There's a se…

Johnny's lack of faith is that he doesn't invoke the name of God. The devil has God's absolute power when applied to testing humanity. The devil lost because they wanted to. By losing he has planted the seeds in Johnny that he can live without God's help.

It is possible the author intended something else, but this interpretation is the closest to Catholic doctrine I have seen. IIRC I am remembering it from a priest's comments on the song.

"Those who study demonology quickly realize that any power lies with the demons." - Some DND manual.

Re: Contract for Sale of Soul

#96

Post by pontifier »

deathspin wrote: post #86
dusted wrote: post #84

I used to work a place where sometimes, the kids didn't have money for a soda, and I could tell they were thirsty.. I usually sell them one for their soul.. I don't think I kept the box of "certificate of ownership" slips we made, but for a while, I owned at least 20 souls (and probably, the same soul twice... hmm) :) Sometimes I meet them and they're all grown up, but many of them still remember that I own their sou…

HAHA! Funny enough, two weeks ago I wanted to learn how to create unique NFTs and a friend said "if you can sell my soul with an NFT, I'm in" ... yesterday I pushed the first test live (no minting yet) https://test.soulz.art

Interesting idea. Perhaps ownership of a soul NFT could be used to bypass captchas or otherwise prove that actions were undertaken with authority of a human. If a soul was abused by authorizing too many requests then it could be sent to "hell", where it's blacklisted globally.

Re: Contract for Sale of Soul

#97

Post by recursiveturtle »

revolvingocelot wrote: post #82
notadev wrote: post #52

After seeing the episode of The Simpsons where Bart bought Milhouse’s soul, I went to school and did the same thing to my classmates. Most acted like it was no big deal, but still wouldn’t sign “the contract” and the few that did, similar to Milhouse, quickly wanted it back. I couldn’t do it myself.

I sold my soul in grade school too, but shortly thereafter I bought someone else's and came out monetarily ahead. I'm good?

That's a great theological question. Are all souls equal? Many religions say, " Yes," although something tells me if your seller-classmate was me, and you rejected other classmate's -- Aretha Franklin's -- offer, you are definitely in the red.
Post reply on HN