Skip to main content

Do Unto Others as You Would Do

Golden Rule????

The first transgression one accuses another of is that same transgression one will commit.
It seems that the innocent will view the criminal of making against them what they would do personally.  This is a reversal or revision of the Golden Rule.  The new version is: "Accuse of others what you would do to them."

On major crimes, you and I cannot quite understand and are horrified by a charge of...
  • Murder, because you just could not do it.
  • Bank robbery,  because you would not do it.
  • Child molestation, because this is abhorrent.
  • Stock price manipulation, because it is wrong.
This is what makes these charges so interesting, so sensational, and so downright riveting on news broadcasts.  But  there are minor crimes you could do and see as possible, partly because you, yourself, could commit them. Crimes of rumor, gossip, and innuendo are a part of these. 

On  personal note... I am by no means innocent.  Over many years I have done things, never career threatening, but maybe a bit unkind.  Never have I been so charged with these specifics.  However, at times I've been accused of faults and actions I would never myself commit, but believe my accuser would - and has. 
We see such accusations (including murder and robbery) in the literature in many forms and many guises.  We see this in politics.  We see this in religion.  We see this in day-to-day interactions with co-workers.  Sadly, we see this within families.

In this note, we consider only "little" but legal crimes, but they do occur in vast numbers and can be as deadly as the big ones as they affect individual lives.  To the victim, they are unmistakably, irreversibly, irrevocably, and incontrovertibly big.

See: http://used-ideas.blogspot.com

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Human Simulation is Possible - by Humans

  Human Simulation: Agent-Based Modeling and the Computational Case for Our Reality   1.       Introduction In the essay, we introduce the notion that humanity could be a deliberate simulation based on an extremely simple single-celled organism, hardly anything more complex than that. This will allow an (apparently) new interpretation of the notion that humanity is simulated, but that there is no master engineer at a massive number of dials and switches, responsible for every twist and turn of our universe and lives. We begin with the notion that the universe exists and operates under its own laws. So, given the Earth [2] , when and where life first began, it was infused with a living agent, self-actualized, reproductive, and with other basic rules for its operations, interactions, and much of what single-celled organisms do today. The idea from this occurred some years back when writing code in ActionScript (formerly Flash), I was able to create...

Where is AI (Artificial Intelligence) Going?

  How to view Artificial Intelligence (AI).  Imagine you go to the store to buy a TV, but all they have are 1950s models, black and white, circular screens, picture rolls, and picture imperfect, no remote. You’d say no thanks. Back in the day, they sold wildly. The TV was a must-have for everyone with $250 to spend* (about $3000 today). Compared to where AI is today, this is more or less where TVs were 70 years ago. In only a few decades AI will be advanced beyond comprehension, just like TVs today are from the 50s viewpoint. Just like we could not imagine where the video concept was going back then, we cannot really imagine where AI is going. Buckle up. But it will be spectacular.    *Back then minimum wage was $0.75/hr. Thus, a TV cost more than eight weeks' wages. ------------------------- 

Infinity of Theories

I do love the Stock Markets, all of them.   Why?   Because of the abundance of theories.    Every day, no matter how the market moves there are dozens of pundits offering forth their theory as to why it went down – or up, where it’s going tomorrow or next week, and why it must crash soon or maybe elevate another couple thousand more points.   Ok, this is fine.   But the next day these same folks may expound theories postulating the opposite.   This proves market pundits have no essential understanding of economics as related to the market.   This proves pundits prefer expedience to understanding.   I am constantly besieged by brokerage firms telling me if I would only invest a million, they would help me reach my goals.   If I had this information, how to make a lot of money, I would borrow every cent I could and apply it to making a bunch of money.   I’d not tell a soul. So, why are they trying to help me?   Well, ...