[wredcoll]

You'll noticed I already addressed that. There are a number of virtuous actions you can perform. One of those is "emitting the right tokens" in the right context. Can we argue that other things are more virtuous? Easily. Does the existence of more virtuous actions make these actions nonvirtuous? Of course not.

Saying the right thing is a good start.

[ryandv]

    ⁵And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the
    hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the
    synagogues and in the corners of the streets,
    that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you,
    They have their reward. [...] ⁷But when ye pray, use
    not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think
    that they shall be heard for their much speaking. [0]

> Does the existence of more virtuous actions make these actions nonvirtuous? Of course not.

It's less to do with there being more virtuous actions than "vain repetitions" and the parroting of empty words, more to do with the fact that such signaling in the "corners of the streets" is already completely devoid of any virtue other than the immediate (and only) "reward" of merely being seen as virtuous.

> Saying the right thing is a good start.

So this is an argument in favor of calling one's self a "deep thinker" or "a good person" or "authentic" as mentioned in TFA? I mean, these are probably among the "right things" one can say about themselves, so why not start there?

[0] Matthew 6:5,7 KJV

[wredcoll]

No, calling yourself a "deep thinker" obviously has no virtue. Expressing sympathy, empathy or respect often is. The point is that words are actions just as much as bodily movements and there are good ones and bad ones.

Beyond that however, how we act is, to some degree, dependent on how we think we should behave, and consistently using certain types of self definition will affect that. Someone who consistently identifies themself in a certain way is, at least ever so slightly, more likely to behave that way.

[ryandv]

> Someone who consistently identifies themself in a certain way is, at least ever so slightly, more likely to behave that way.

Do you ever extend such benefit of the doubt to bible thumping creationists? Because the typical progressive characterization of such types is that they play up just how much they walk in Christ's footsteps while simultaneously being utterly bereft of virtue; yet based on what you've said I would think identification with Christ should have imbued them with a moral compass.

That is, in fact, essentially the assertion made by the comment that started this entire thread [0]:

> Some of the worst behavior ive seen in my life has been done by devout catholics. who themselves cant see the consequences of their actions. and im not knocking religion, i just had to live alot of life to start being alarmed by outspoken moralists.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44264434