SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (82310)6/20/2000 6:40:00 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 108807
 
Well, I said that we all know what fairness is, not that we all agree on what fairness is. My point was that our definitions of fairness are visceral and case-specific, rather than rational and general. When definitions disagree, we resort to law, but then we aren't discussing fairness anymore, although laws - good ones at least - are often based on visceral perceptions of fairness.

A bit circular, yes, but what isn't?



To: The Philosopher who wrote (82310)6/20/2000 6:45:00 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 108807
 
<<I don't think there is a universal standard of fairness.>> Yes there is and I defined it for you yesterday. The fact that you are not Omnipotent enough to apply it does not erase it as a standard.

<<I can come up with dozens of issues where we do NOT all know what fairness is.>> This is not true either. Fair is measured by whether or not you are following the rules. Your issue is more with rules than fairness.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News