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

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view