Rule 48

Steerpike

Registered Member
#1
Some of the rules can be seen as funny while others can be seen as insightful.

Rule 48 says, "The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife."

Do you think there is anything to this or is it totally offbase and why?

Discuss rule 48.

Disclaimers: No animals were harmed in the making of this post. If you are psychotic, then you are crazy. Do not post while operating dangerous machinery as it may cause serious injury. Your post may be worth a fabulous prize. To get a fabulous prize for your post, all you have to do is to find someone willing to give you a fabulous prize for your post. The OP of the thread is not giving any fabulous prizes for posts. If posting causes you any physical distress, then consult a medical professional. :lol:
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#2
The . . . rules? What rules? Am I the only nerd on here who was expecting this to be another "Rules of the Internet" thing?

The quote seems like it came from an extreme cynic because it seems to make fact that happiness equates to potential for murder/bloodshed.
 

Steerpike

Registered Member
#3
The . . . rules? What rules?
This is from rules pertaining to acquisition.

Am I the only nerd on here who was expecting this to be another "Rules of the Internet" thing?
To answer that empirically would require answers from other "nerds on here" to the question of expectations. :D

The quote seems like it came from an extreme cynic because it seems to make fact that happiness equates to potential for murder/bloodshed.
The quote can definitely be seen as something from a cynical point of view. Could this quote be speaking metaphorically?
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#4
It does sound cynical when taken at face value but may have merit because (metaphorical) smiles can be disarming and I'm too sleepy to finish my train of thought
 

Steerpike

Registered Member
#5
It does sound cynical when taken at face value but may have merit because (metaphorical) smiles can be disarming and I'm too sleepy to finish my train of thought
If (metaphorical) smiles can be disarming, then what do you think rule 48 is trying to impart?
 
Last edited:

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#6
If (metaphorical) smiles can be disarming, then what do you think rule 48 is trying to impart?
As I read it, it warns us to the fact that we're apt to let our guard down at our peril when another person or entity (such as a country) appears to be on our side - but may not be. It's exactly like the man says in the old song "Smiling Faces Sometimes":

I'm telling you beware, beware of the handshake
That hides a snake
Listen to me now,
Beware, beware of that pat on the back
It just might hold you back
Smiling faces, smiling faces sometimes
They don't tell the truth
Smiling faces, smiling faces tell lies
And I got proof

Your enemy won't do you no harm
Cause you'll know where he's coming from
Don't let the handshake and the smile fool ya
Take my advice; I'm only tryin' to school ya


That's my interpretation, anyway. What's yours, OP?
 

Steerpike

Registered Member
#7
As I read it, it warns us to the fact that we're apt to let our guard down at our peril when another person or entity (such as a country) appears to be on our side - but may not be.....That's my interpretation, anyway. What's yours, OP?
You are on the right track. The rules pertain to acquisition, and rule 48 can indeed be seen as a warning about those one does business with. Your read allows for wider application. Good job, TuckerGently. :)

So does rule 48 qualify as aphorism?
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#8
So does rule 48 qualify as aphorism?
The way I've interpreted it, I think it rises to the definition. It's cautionary, pithy and short and it sounds like a jingle. If, however, the intended message is, "Disguise your rapacious intentions with a veneer of civility and the plundering will be easy," then I'd have to say that it doesn't quite qualify. Can you dig it?
 

Steerpike

Registered Member
#9
The way I've interpreted it, I think it rises to the definition. It's cautionary, pithy and short and it sounds like a jingle. If, however, the intended message is, "Disguise your rapacious intentions with a veneer of civility and the plundering will be easy," then I'd have to say that it doesn't quite qualify. Can you dig it?
The way you interpreted it is consistent with the intent of the rules. But why couldn't it be aphorism if it was intending the other message?
 

Tucker

Lion Rampant
#10
The way you interpreted it is consistent with the intent of the rules. But why couldn't it be aphorism if it was intending the other message?
I think that it isn't one in that other interpretation because it aids and instructs in selfish acts, as opposed to being a universal truth designed to better the world as a whole or assist in the defense against a presumably bad-intentioned foe. Succinctly put, it lacks in righteousness. I'll concede the point, however, if you can cite a well-known aphorism in the same Machiavellian vein.