Anyone who doesn't want to deal with cheaters. Like a teacher. Do you know how much paperwork is involved in punishing someone for cheating?
So we make a parabole to discourage it
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
350 points (100.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
33301 readers
962 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Parable
Probable
Potable
Potato
Porta Potti
Portia De Rossi
Parabolic hyperbole
My favorite response to “why do bad things happen to good people?” is “what makes you think they were good?”
I don't understand. I think bad things (e.g. cancer) can happen to everyone (e.g. small childrens/babies, selfless people...). Is your argument that no one is really good?
It's easier for religious people to believe in original sin than to accept that one day they're going to die and they won't get to meet Space Santa.
Damn, Space Santa sounds so cool. Where can I meet him? Does he have buildings dedicated to him that I can go to?
I should make a religion out of that.
The argument is that you cannot really know. You don't know everything a person did. You don't know the motivations with which they act. You cannot look into their heart.
That is why you should refrain from judgement over a human in his entirety. You can and sometimes should judge individual acts that you have witnessed or are proven.
This is explicit the Bible i.e. Matthew 7:1 and the Qur'an i.e. 1:4. I don't know how it is written in the Torah, but generally in the abrahamic religions the final judgement is reserved to Allah, as He is the only one to truly know a human.
But also outside religion, why is it that anyone should rise to judgement of whether someone is "good" or "bad" in face of serious illness or injury? Saying someone is good so he doesn't deserve cancer implies that there is people who deserve cancer.
I know the statement is usally meant to signal compassion. The compassion should be unconditional though, as it is a fellow human that is suffering.
The most common, if subconscious, response is: "bad things happened to them so they must be a bad person".
They were unconditionally good in a Kant kind of way you know
They were kind of a Kant
I like this, but having skimmed it I didn't find a description I connected with.
For whatever reason, I feel the world isn't "just", but I personally will have a better life if I do good things. It's rooted in selfishness rather than celestial balance.
The world isn't just. The universe isn't just. Both of those have no concept of just.
Society is better when people try and act like good people. So I do that.
Sure you can alter circumstances to an extent and that's probably the best way to live life. But all the good in the world doesn't stop a freak car crash killing you or being struck by lightning. And while being struck by lightning is used synonymously with an act of god, I don't think it actually means you deserved it. That's the issue with the just-cause fallacy. It takes a huge spoonful of selection bias to only notice the people who did deserve it.
In my opinion the idea of karma is a convenient crowd control mechanism to prevent people from taking action to fix their situation when they have faith that the universe will magically balance itself out.
The intent of the proverb isn't that bad people don't get good things, it's that a person who is cheating doesn't get value out of the activity.
If you go through life cutting corners, you don't actually get to learn and build a strong foundation.
You can still be rewarded with jobs, money, and sycophants, but that's not what really matters.
This heavily relies on the premise that there is always something deeper than winning that's valuable.
It's all about knowing when and where to cheat. Cheat as often as you can on meaningless stuff.
Cheat as often as you can on meaningless stuff.
My ex-wife would probably disagree.
tl;dr - "Winning" and "prospering" are two different things
You can still be rewarded with jobs, money, and sycophants, but that’s not what really matters.
I respectfully disagree.
Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
It strikes me as pure Christian please-slap-the-other-cheek-then-too and you-should-be-grateful-they’re-even-playing-with-you-at-all-even-if-they’re-cheating propaganda to satisfy the worldview of the powerless and disenfranchised
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#Zero-determinant_strategies
Actually, mathematically speaking, in the long run they tend to eventually fail.
I don’t think that PD (or any of its variants) is a good proxy for cheating, because cheating involves deception or rule breaking, while “defect” is just a legal move.
A better proxy might be something like nuptial gifts in some spider species. So in some species, the male will present a female with whom he wishes to mate a nuptial gift - an insect wrapped in webbing. But the “cheat” move is when either the insect has already been sucked dry or when it’s snatched back too quickly for the female to feed.
We can estimate the degree to which cheaters prosper by looking at how common these and similar behaviors are in their respective populations - let evolution do the calculations. Animal behavior is replete with deceptive and manipulative communication, and because so much of it is genetically determined we can be reasonably confident that we have an objective metric.
Everyone always lies.
I don't believe you
politicians? clergy?
Just the cheaters that are caught, the ones never caught are living the life.
Long term losses > short term gains
