Subject:
|
Re: Customs question...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:31:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
815 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > I think the problem here is the definition of "honest". It doesn't only cover
> > truth (and lies). Check out the dictionary.com definition:
>
> 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.
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 that you are then incapable of being the same back to them. See
former reply.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Customs question...
|
| (...) 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)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
