Quote Discussion, Current quote: “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.” page 7

815 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

If your mechanic charges double, then you can expect a crapload of people to no longer accept your product, and move to another mechanic. If they don’t, then apparently the price is right. Again, this is completely irregardless of corruption.

Unless the mechanic is a good liar and people think he did work that he didn’t do. Then they happily pay for a tune-up that wasn’t needed and didn’t occur.

If corruption doubles the price, and everyone in the country still happily agrees on your price, then what is wrong? The corruption has only an effect on the price, not on the result.

The price is part of the result. The amount of money (or goats or whatever is being traded) you have at the end of the transaction is part of the result of the transaction. If the price is the result of lies, that is called fraud. Most places make attempts to prevent fraud because, aside from moral issues, it is recognized as being detrimental to an economy.

So, again, you’re missing the point I’m trying to make. Is it really corruption if everybody agrees on your prices?

Yes, in the majority of the given situations it was, by definition, corruption. In the situation of milk costing a billion dollars, if the price is the result of lying (which was not explicitly stated but could be reasonably said to be implied due to context) then yes, it is by definition corruption. I think you don’t know what the word corruption means and are persisting in asserting your own private definition while telling me I’m confused because I use something closer to what the dictionary states. If you want to make your own definitions that’s fine, but it’s not really reasonable to assume that other people use your private definitions in their normal conversations. I am not confused, you are just not using the words correctly and redefining them as you go along. A certain amount of divergence from strict dictionary literalism should be expected and too strict an adherence to dictionary literalism is a vice in and of itself. But you are trying to redefine corruption while accusing me of being confused for not having the foresight to have guessed your definition before you revealed it.

Dishonest. Lying is an explicit example of dishonesty. Corrupt is explicitly the use of dishonest practices. Lying to make more money is explicitly corrupt. To say that it’s not is to toss out the definition of corrupt and replace it with your own, it’s not just a slight interpretation. It is a wholesale replacement. This is not semantics and nit picking, it is reasonably proper use of a word. Bubblegum is a type of vegetable usually steamed and served with a cream sauce. This is false, unless you want to redefine the word bubblegum. Until you get it redefined don’t expect to get vegetables when you buy a pack of bubblegum or try to blame the store. You are at fault, because you have invented a definition that bears only a slight resemblance to the actual definition.

If you are a non-native english speaker, please just read the definition and let the matter drop. No reasonable person thinks less of a non-native english speaker for getting their definitions wrong sometimes. It’s to be expected.

What I’d like to point out is that I’ve never agreed there is something good about corruption. You seem to be implying I do, a lot.

No, you didn’t explicitly state that corruption is good. You just explicitly stated that it was not possible to be less obviously corrupt, which is false. You followed it up by explicitly stating that less awareness of corruption means less actual corruption, which is false. You then presented two situations which, taken out of context of the conversation, didn’t have enough information to determine whether they were corrupt or not. In context they were type mismatches which also assumed that value is completely 100% subjective, which is false. You then asserted that it doesn’t matter if lies were told as long as they agreed to pay, which is sometimes called fraud. Then you redefined corruption. Next you gave a two sentence class on supply and demand which seemed to have the underlying premise of an ideal market. You followed this with, in context, a no limits fallacy that is also false if the demands of the real world are to be acknowledged in any way. You then expressed the idea that different people are willing to pay different prices. You then gave an example of a mechanic that assumed an ideal market. This was followed by, when taken in context, an assertion that whatever a person pays is fair, which assumed an ideal market. You then restated your previous false no limits fallacy. You then expressed the idea that rampant inflation due to corruption is fine if people are happy. You then, in context, tried to remove money as a consideration in an exchange involving money. Next you made a statement that, when taken out of context, didn’t have enough information. In context it was a type mismatch. You then expressed the idea that an expensive product that is expensive for unspecified reasons is no different than one that is expensive due to dishonest practices, which is only true in a broad physics sense in a limited number of situations.

If you honestly and genuinely hold the opinions you’ve expressed I genuinely and honestly don’t ever want to do business with you, because I can’t trust you even a little bit in a transaction. Trade requires trust, the less trust the less efficiency. Fraud is not discouraged just because of sunshine, rainbows and utopian delusions nor is it discouraged just because of hurt feelings.

I’m not quite sure why you don’t understand being shocked at someone excusing fraud and possible price gouging.

 
Flag Post

I’m in a discussion, not a slinging contest about who can pester the other the most about definitions. I’m trying to get your opinion on prices, corruption, and results, but you seemingly don’t want to share them. That gets a little frustrating, because all you do is immediately stating “you’re so wrong, because you didn’t use the definition perfectly right”. I’m not here to supposedly get “taught” about definitions, but get in a discussion about something, and if anything is unclear I can clarify that. Some people, like you, quickly hook onto something a person said and even after the initial statement that wasn’t exactly what was meant, it is still being brought up in an attempt to prove the other “wrong”.

So, let’s start all over again, let’s assume we have a country with such dumb people, such a dumb government, not a single critic, and not a single news reporter trying to get information about corruption. Except for the business people. Those are smart and corrupt. They’ll charge you for stuff they didn’t do, and charge you much more in costs than what you would reasonably expect to form “profits”. This supposed form of “corruption” is not known, you agree with me on this. But there is no factual information on this supposed “corruption”. So how can it be called corruption? Because it isn’t corruption unless you know it’s there. You keep forgetting that issue, assuming that it doesn’t matter whether we know it’s there or not, it’ll still be corruption. But perhaps you’re really just into different assumptions, I wouldn’t know.

So, let’s move to a country that isn’t as dumb as a nut. There are actually suspicious people, a suspicious government, and suspicious critics. These compare prices to other countries. These dig into stuff. They find out your corruption, and they deal with it (when possible). If not possible, they’ll reveal it to the public. This, then, becomes “obvious corruption”.

We’re then left with your supposed “not obvious corruption”. Prove it. Prove there is “not obvious corruption” somewhere when we can’t claim this until it has become obvious. I remember the initial post which triggered this discussion, so I’m going to bring this up again. You were claiming that a government could possibly be corrupt while being really good at hiding it. This is truth for nothing but them. Corruption cannot be claimed until it is made known, made factual. I might get a twist from your definitions, but then we might get into a scientific discussion. Mainly, when can something be claimed? When it is objectively observed, and can be verified. Corruption that is supposedly “hidden” or “not obvious” in such a way that it cannot yet be claimed that it is true simply cannot be called corruption for that very reason.

Before you go on to your post, please let me remind you that I’m not looking for being supposedly “corrected” on all kind of definitions, but rather get into a carefree discussion about something, and if anything is unclear we can discuss that part. I’ve stated it before, it gets frustrating to see a discussion come to a halt simply because we need to listen to a lecture about semantics.

Reading the rest of the post, it does seem you’re largely just misunderstanding me, making claims about myself and my supposed future business. I’m going to ignore these, as these are false any way.

 
Flag Post

Time for a new quote:

“I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love.”

-Mother Teresa

She even outright states that it is a paradox. What I think about it is that a person who is very loving will not feel the pain even if something unfortunate happens.
What do you think of this paradox?

 
Flag Post

Perhaps you took my statement

…but you are incorrect about corruption.

as an insult and things spiraled away from there. Please take a look at what you have written as well though, I am not the only one guilty of making statements that could be seen as insulting and condescending.

I am not pestering you about definitions. I am a human. As a human I do not have the ability to know what is going on in your mind except as far as you communicate it. When someone uses a word I have to go by what the dictionary says while making reasonable allowances for fuzziness. Nowhere in the definition of corrupt is the idea of awareness even implied. You seem to be trying to say that the difference in definitions is trivial. I am trying to say that it’s not and that the addition of awareness to the idea of corruption changes it’s meaning very significantly.

Do you understand why it might be frustrating to have someone dismiss what you see as a significant difference as trivial and petty?

Furthermore, you did not reveal this definition until the conversation was well underway. Do you understand how someone introducing a new meaning to a word that is central to the discussion part way through the discussion and then dismissing objections to the change might be frustrating and seen as weasly?

You might say that I should let this go, and I would have if you hadn’t brought it back up


I’m in a discussion, not a slinging contest about who can pester the other the most about definitions.

and if it weren’t for the fact that the definition of corruption is central to this discussion. The definition of corruption is not a side bar to this discussion it is an essential component. We can’t come to any meaningful conclusions if we aren’t talking about the same central ideas.

I’m trying to get your opinion on prices, corruption, and results, but you seemingly don’t want to share them.

You asked me what I thought corruption was


Is it really corruption if everybody in the country happily agrees to your prices?

Is it really corruption if everybody agrees on your prices?

And I answered you.


cor·rupt   [kuh-ruhpt] adjective
1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.
2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.

Not knowing that a judge is accepting bribes from serial murders does not change the murder rate. Whether you are aware of a link between what you are experiencing and it’s cause does not change the cause. Corruption does not imply awareness by standard definitions.

Yes, in the majority of the given situations it was, by definition, corruption. In the situation of milk costing a billion dollars, if the price is the result of lying (which was not explicitly stated but could be reasonably said to be implied due to context) then yes, it is by definition corruption.

You could reasonably have been said to have asked me my opinion on prices and results


The corruption has only an effect on the price, not on the result.

And I could reasonably have been said to have answered you


The price is part of the result. The amount of money (or goats or whatever is being traded) you have at the end of the transaction is part of the result of the transaction. If the price is the result of lies, that is called fraud.

Do you understand how it might be frustrating to answer someone’s questions but have those answers ignored and then asked again while being blamed for it?

For my own part, I tend towards bluntness. Sometimes I am cruelly blunt. If my bluntness has caused offense I apologize for it and ask you to forgive some of my bluntness. Did I put some unnecessary barbs in my posts? Yes. I ask you to review what you have written and honestly think about whether or not you did anything to provoke them. Either way, I will apologize for the barbs.

So, let’s start all over again.

This supposed form of “corruption” is not known, you agree with me on this. But there is no factual information on this supposed “corruption”. So how can it be called corruption?

Because awareness is not part of the idea of corruption unless you significantly alter the idea of corruption from it’s traditional definition.

You keep forgetting that issue, assuming that it doesn’t matter whether we know it’s there or not, it’ll still be corruption. But perhaps you’re really just into different assumptions, I wouldn’t know.

Yes I make that assumption, but I would say it is appropriate to make this assumption because the idea of corruption does not imply awareness. I am not forgetting that issue, I have both clearly stated and implied that corruption does not imply awareness from the start and throughout.

Maybe they’re just so good that they appear uncorrupt. ;)

The physical effects of your corruption will be felt whether you are linked to them or not. If your mechanic lies to you and charges you double for imaginary problems with your car, you’re still out the money even if you think he’s a saint.

Not knowing that a judge is accepting bribes from serial murders does not change the murder rate. Whether you are aware of a link between what you are experiencing and it’s cause does not change the cause. Corruption does not imply awareness by standard definitions.

Unless the mechanic is a good liar and people think he did work that he didn’t do. Then they happily pay for a tune-up that wasn’t needed and didn’t occur.

I would not term it an assumption, I would term it as the logical default position. My support for this position involves referencing dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other external reference materials. If I am guilty of making unwarrented assumptions then so are they. Do you see how the correct definition of corruption is central to this conversation?

As to the effects of the corruption I think that varies by the type, prevalence, and the environment.

So, let’s move to a country that isn’t as dumb as a nut. There are actually suspicious people, a suspicious government, and suspicious critics. These compare prices to other countries. These dig into stuff. They find out your corruption, and they deal with it (when possible). If not possible, they’ll reveal it to the public. This, then, becomes “obvious corruption”.

We’re then left with your supposed “not obvious corruption”. Prove it. Prove there is “not obvious corruption” somewhere when we can’t claim this until it has become obvious.

Prior to the corruption being revealed it was “not obvious”. It didn’t suddenly spring into existence just because someone looked for it. It was there and then someone found it and revealed it. By your own example, you have logically proven that “not obvious” corruption can exist. Just like finding a pencil in a drawer proves that pencils can be in drawers unless you think the pencil poped into existence when you opened the drawer. Your own wording implied it existed before being proven and that the proving only changed it from “not obvious” to “obvious”. If a single person has even once looked for and sucessfully revealed an instance of “dishonest practices” etc., then that is proof that at least one instance of hidden “dishonest practices” etc. existed.

This is truth for nothing but them.

Solipsism. <—- Factual description, not insult.

Corruption cannot be claimed until it is made known, made factual.

This is true only in a court of law. I am making the assumption, based on context, that you mean “widely known” or “obvious” when you say “known”. Perception and fact are not the same thing unless you wish to claim to be a form of solipsist. If you do claim to be a solipsist then we have a fundamental and irreconcilable difference in our worldviews such that nothing productive is likely to come out of our conversations. I believe in an external world that exists regardless of my awareness. This is one of the underlying premises of science. If my belief in an external world that obeys external rules is silly then science is guilty of being silly too.

If me claiming that something you have said is incorrect is insulting to you, I’m sorry. I have tried to explain why it is incorrect in a clear and concise way and not just claim you are wrong and move on without explaination. If you have found this insulting, please explain to me how I can say that you are in error without insulting you. If I am not allowed to dispute central claims then what’s the point?

 
Flag Post

Don’t make massive posts about the quote that we had two quotes ago. We have a new one now. Discuss the current quote. If you want, just do a short post to wrap up what you thought about the last one.

 
Flag Post

Sorry, I was asked a direct question and responded. You’re right, this is turning into a high jacking.

I think the paradox is that if you love enough, the pain doesn’t really feel like pain to you. The pain itself becomes part of the love. Pain transformed into love.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Dartval:

Time for a new quote:

“I have found the paradox, that if you love until it hurts, there can be no more hurt, only more love.”

-Mother Teresa


She even outright states that it is a paradox. What I think about it is that a person who is very loving will not feel the pain even if something unfortunate happens.
What do you think of this paradox?

Well taking the statement without considering the Author, i would say that people who are suffering from love-sickness commonly believe that no other pain can compare to that. Thus they might believe a certain point that only through more love can there be more pain.

But considering the Author i just think its a protective belief, allowing the believer to worship pain. Thus ignoring both their own and especially that of others, because pain is seen as a sign of love(It brings one closer to Jesus).

 
Flag Post

Well, I would understand the quote that if you love doing something that hurts you, you do not feel the pain as strong as the love, and that is why you do that.

 
Flag Post

It’s not really a paradox. You can both have love and be hurt.

 
Flag Post

Klatoo, I think the key point in our argument is “claiming the existence of corruption”. I agree that once you reveal corruption, you could potentially reveal how long it has been there, but I simply disagree you’re allowed to claim corruption if you do not have proof it is there (and I understand you’re not necessarily stating it). Your pencil and drawer example is excellent. The pencil didn’t “pop into existence” once you open the drawer, but the claim “there is a pencil in my drawer” is not proven to be true until you open that drawer. In other words, the pencil cannot be claimed to be there until you prove it (leaving aside for a moment you could have put it in there yourself, just imagine another house). You might say “the existence of the pencil does not depend on human observation”, which is only half-true. We do not make claims about existence, we make claims about scientific existence. Can it be reasonably proven to be true? Then it scientifically exists. It can’t? Then no matter if it really exists, it does not scientifically exist. At that point in time. If later proven to exist, and proven to have existed, then at that moment you can claim as such. A pencil is not scientifically there until the drawer is opened. Corruption is not scientifically there until observed.

This is my argument on why there is no “non-obvious” corruption, at least not in the scientific sense. I mean, just to be clear. Scientifically, aliens do not exist. But that does not mean there is not a high likelihood for their existence. And I certainly do believe they exist. We just don’t have the proof yet.

Also, thanks for your apology, I guess I make mine as well. No harsh feelings.

Dartval, I believe we should be able to discuss quotes regardless of there being a new one already, but I believe this discussion is nearing an end any way.

I do not fully understand the new quote, but for me love can hurt. But hurtful love only means you love that person more.

 
Flag Post

It’s been two days and barely any discussion. Time for a new quote:

“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

-Sun Tzu

What I get from this is that not everything can be solved by fighting. You have to know when to fight and when to stay calm and negotiate. Knowing when to fight and when not to takes skill and patience and that can be applied to many different things, not just fighting.

 
Flag Post

I agree with the quote and its pacifist idea 200%. :D

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

I agree with the quote and its pacifist idea 200%. :D

Think about the author. Sun Tzu was a great military commander. He wrote a book about war.

And yet, he could think with pacifist ideas as well. He wasn’t just a soldier, he knew when to fight and when not to.

 
Flag Post

Sometimes it takes a fighter to discover pacifist truths.
At least he did it. :D
Most fighters enjoy their fights…
Or rather, to see others fight their wars…

 
Flag Post

“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.”

It’s another way of saying “The tongue is mightier than the sword.”

 
Flag Post

In my day….we had the Strategic Air Command SAC
It’s logo showed the armored gauntlet holding force & an olive branch (of peace)…which ever the “enemy” so chose.

It’s the same as what Roosevelt meant when he said: Speak softly…but, carry a big stick.

 
Flag Post

the acme of skill is resolving any differences without any subdueing to be involved.

 
Flag Post

“There was never a good war or a bad peace.” – Benjamin Franklin, 1783

If only there were non-violent means by which to resolve differences….so much could be gained that so little would then have a value worth fighting for. Ideology is something else. BUT, the “ideology” of respect, tolerance, acceptance, etc. of those things//people that are different is the true skill of peace. Zach 2012.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

the acme of skill is resolving any differences without any subdueing to be involved.

And that would actually be pacifist unlike the Quote assigned to Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu wrote a lot about how one can militarily subdue an enemy without directly fighting (significant) battles.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

the acme of skill is resolving any differences without any subdueing to be involved.

And that would actually be pacifist unlike the Quote assigned to Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu wrote a lot about how one can militarily subdue an enemy without directly fighting (significant) battles.

Johnny, are ya speaking of sword-rattling?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

the acme of skill is resolving any differences without any subdueing to be involved.

And that would actually be pacifist unlike the Quote assigned to Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu wrote a lot about how one can militarily subdue an enemy without directly fighting (significant) battles.

Johnny, are ya speaking of sword-rattling?

Partially yes, Sun Tzu book of War is very general covering basically all(or at least most) aspects surrounding military conflict. Saber-rattling is one method, Sun Tzu even talks (a lot) about the possibility of using deceit to feign strength when needed. But he also covers in general how to defeat an enemy army while avoiding a direct confrontation(attacking the enemies supplies and logistic, moral and leadership, maneuvering the enemy out of the way and etc.).

 
Flag Post

Given the author of the quote, I think it has to do with efficiency. Winning a war in 99 battles is more skillful than winning it in 100. The ultimate skill would be to win in zero battles, the least number of moves possible. I think it’s also a reminder that the purpose is not to win battles, but to subdue the enemy. Have some perspective and remember your true goals, don’t fight just to fight.

 
Flag Post

well my interpatation of this quote is as follows
simple-you can use force to win all you want but to win without raising your weapon is skill
simpler-to be strong is not skill to be smart is
my apologies for grammar

 
Flag Post

If anyone has a suggestion for a quote, message me. I’m kind of running out of ideas.

 
Flag Post

Frankly, I think he was talking about psychological warfare. Sun Tzu’s book The Art of War talks a lot about military commanders winning through psychological warfare.

Example:Commander from state X sends his troops out to fight state Y. A second commander, whom we shall call “Dude”, is left behind to defend state X with a meagre number of soldiers. Suddenly, state Z attacks state X with overwhelming force. Dude knows he cannot win and so he flings open the gates and opens the door of his palace, as easy as anything for the enemy to walk in.

The army from state Z is suspicious; Dude has a reputation for setting booby traps. So they linger outside the gates, debating what to do. In the meantime, the victorious army comes back from state Y and scares off the army from state Z.

Dude did not use a single soldier to fend off state Z’s attack. This is what Sun Tzu meant by winning without fighting.

Another thing he says is this:“It is best to attack the enemy’s strategies; next best to attack his alliances; next best to attack his armies; last of all to lay siege to his walled fortifications” or something along those lines. His point was that it was useless to attack walled fortifications, but note how he says it is best to attack the enemy’s strategies. This essentially is the point of the winning without fighting quote.

Dude attacked state Z’s strategy. State Z’s strategy was to storm into state X and kill everyone there. Dude’s attacked it by psychologically scaring them into NOT storming into state X and killing everyone there. Thus, we can say that state Z’s strategy failed, while Dude’s strategy(to wait for reinforcements) succeeded.