08 Mar 04
Originally posted by ShallowBluehow about the 'learn from your mistakes' rule? Do unto others etc, but if they take advantage then don't go out of your way for them again. This is not the same as the 'tit for tat' rule, which advocates being activly mean to someone who is mean to you. For example, I will happily lend a friend, no matter how new, a small amount of money (eg. €20). If they don't give it back then I won't lend them money again & I'll know what their friendship is worth, but I won't actively seek to take money from them.
I admire you altruistic remarks belgianfreak and agree that only some people following the rule is still an improvement to the world.
But... If you follow the rule and you are taken advantage of, how do you then deal with the person who has done this to you. Do you continue to follow the rule should you come across their path again?
If you did, th ...[text shortened]... in to the 'Tit for Tat Rule' (see my previous post on various Rules.)
Kind regards,
Frank.
There should also be some space for giving people second chances, but each case on it's own merits.
08 Mar 04
Originally posted by belgianfreakAgreed.
how about the 'learn from your mistakes' rule? Do unto others etc, but if they take advantage then don't go out of your way for them again. This is not the same as the 'tit for tat' rule, which advocates being activly mean to someone who is mean to you. For example, I will happily lend a friend, no matter how new, a small amount of money (eg. S ...[text shortened]... e should also be some space for giving people second chances, but each case on it's own merits.
Because the reciprocation problem causes the Golden Rule to fail it requires adjustment to another form or another Rule completely in practical situations.
I wasn't advocating the Tit for Tat, or any of the other rules.
My point is that you are having to modify the Golden Rule because it doesn't work.
09 Mar 04
You sound like my dad crythias🙄. I have read all your posts and i belive in most of them. A few i don't. I agree that there are way to many sikos out there and that people should be treated like u want to be. The problem with that rule is people a inhairntly greedy. 🙁 I wish this wasn't true but it is. If someone had the possiblity to get rich but lose a freind most would chose get rich. They belive that with money comes freinds. Also, I agree that if you give money to a friend, you wont get the money back. Again "Greed". I would like everyone to keep this thread going and keep posting. If you like this thread there are more i plan to post.
Thank You,
Mst.ofDestruction
09 Mar 04
Originally posted by MstofDestruction2As you originally started the thread I expected you would have read it.😛
Also I forgot to ask what the "Tit for Tat" rule is🙄 I have no idea.
A rough outline of various rules have been posted previously.
Which do you prefer? Or do you have your own Rule for dealing with people. Perhaps you like belgianfreaks proposal of a 'Learn by your mistakes' Rule.🙂
09 Mar 04
Originally posted by ShallowBlueYou can interpret the Golden Rule in a more complicated way, with 'do' not referring to individual actions, but strategies (ie actions determined partly by the actions of others). Also, it should really be 'do unto others as you would, within reason, have them to do unto you', eg you can't reasonably expect them to give you all their money. So you might expect others to punish you for wrongdoing, and feel that this would be fair, so conversely you could punish others, as long as it was in a fair way. Of course this opens up a whole new can of worms, but it still makes the Golden Rule a reasonable rule of thumb.
Agreed.
Because the reciprocation problem causes the Golden Rule to fail it requires adjustment to another form or another Rule completely in practical situations.
I wasn't advocating the Tit for Tat, or any of the other rules.
My point is that you are having to modify the Golden Rule because it doesn't work.
10 Mar 04
Originally posted by crythiasIm sorry, was this rant aimed at me?? Actually i was trying to be light hearted, i mean, who really tries to sum up life in one line??
Hmm... the government will care for you, so don't feel like you need to be self responsible...
Without wanting to shake u up anymore but don't u think Mickey Mouse would do a better job than Bush? Kerry doesn't need to be intelligent, he just needs to have enouph going on upstairs to be able to dress himself in the morning to win, assuming the US public don't get swayed by free candy from a celebrity like in California 😲
10 Mar 04
Originally posted by AcolyteOnly if it's true that they are such.
If such people form the majority, does it mean the government should also be intolerant, homophobic, anti-semitic, Christian and hateful?
It is my humble opinion that societies in general are governed in the manner that the people have allowed, even dictatorships. The people may not like it or even WANT it, perhaps. But allow? Yes, even at the beginnings of dictatorship. Even militaristic dictatorship.
'Oh, but they couldn't defend themselves,' you may say. Doesn't matter. The hypothesis remains.
10 Mar 04
Originally posted by marinakatombThis line of thought scares me. Seriously. The leader of the United States being a puppet of the people? [NB: We're in a representative republic. The POTUS isn't just a figurehead, he's supposed to be a guiding leader of the country] It's enough to have the nations of the world laugh at an educated man being president. Do you think that they will respect more a man or mouse that was not voted because he would do a good job, but that they could beat an incumbent?
Im sorry, was this rant aimed at me?? Actually i was trying to be light hearted, i mean, who really tries to sum up life in one line??
Without wanting to shake u up anymore but don't u think Mickey Mouse would do a better job than Bush? Kerry doesn't need to be intelligent, he just needs to have enouph going on upstairs to be able to dress himself ...[text shortened]... n, assuming the US public don't get swayed by free candy from a celebrity like in California 😲
Heck, I've strongly considered John Edwards as a viable alternative. I just cringe that the most viable opposition's main party line is 'I'm not Bush.' Respectfully, also, 9/11 would have happened on Gore's watch just as easily as Bush's. No, we wouldn't have gone to Iraq. Iraq would still be under a sadistic dictatorship, Gore wouldn't be under any scrutiny, except for those viscious right wing conspirators, and we wouldn't have filibustering republicans keeping appointments from being filled by the President. And we'd still be waiting to see what the UN would do about 9/11/01 - TODAY.
I'm for leadership, not puppet, although you can make a reasonable cash-case for Bush, but please... the democrat's motto is "let the government help you, so you don't have to. Oh, and screw the military. We're in peace time, we don't need to defend our shores."
OH, and on topic: "Do unto others before they do unto you" :-)