 | | Re: Customs question... —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) So it's only being honest when the other person hasn't lied to you? What if you don't *know* that they've lied to you? Or that you don't know that they *haven't* lied to you? Nah, I completely disagree. If someone's been dishonest to you and (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Customs question... —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) I think the problem here is the definition of "honest". It doesn't only cover truth (and lies). Check out the dictionary.com definition: hon·est (adj). 1. Marked by or displaying integrity; upright: an honest lawyer. 2. Not deceptive or (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Customs question... —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Alright, I blame English. I've always thought of it as being truthful. I don't usually equate it with virtuous other than to say that I think honesty is generally virtuous. If that's how Larry's interpreting it, 'sok by me. I'll just have to (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Customs question... —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Actually, strike that. I still don't agree with Larry. Just because someone is dishonest (read 'lacking integrity' / 'deceptive' / 'unfair' / 'untruthful' / 'insincere' / 'unreputable' / 'with affectation' / 'unvirtouous') to you, doesn't mean (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
