|
|
#21
10-18-2005, 05:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: More On the Definition of Wronging Someone
This is simply the "definition" that I think we should all use for simplicities sake so we can all be on the same page when we have debates. I don't claim that my definition is the "right" one. (Feel better now Not Ready?)
|
|
#23
10-18-2005, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More On the Definition of Wronging Someone
I agree with this stance and also agree that this is the way people should be judged.
Despite my disbelief in the Bible, I think the golden rule is pretty solid if the golden rule means what Sklansky describes. If it takes it a step further and says that I should give half of my money to my neighbor who is broke, then I think that's too much to expect.
|
|
#24
10-18-2005, 11:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More On the Definition of Wronging Someone
[ QUOTE ]
Despite my disbelief in the Bible, I think the golden rule is pretty solid if the golden rule means what Sklansky describes. [/ QUOTE ] Sklansky's version (and lots of other great thinkers as well) is actually better than the Bible version (in my humble opinion). The Bible says: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." DS's version is: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."
|
|
#25
10-19-2005, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: More On the Definition of Wronging Someone
this is even worse: a 'definition' of 'wronging' someone. i would like sir sklansky to agree that i was conducting a high-level poker discussion w/ him when i said: 'i know you talk about odds and stuff all the time but just think of what i did as a pretty good bet". now we will define a 'pretty good bet', and get everyone's input. all, of course, taking it quite seriously. any naked emperors around...............b
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
