Who else would try to convince others that Cheaters never succeed in profiting?
Everyone always lies.
I don’t believe you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_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.
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
Parable
Probable
Potable
Potato
Porta Potti
Portia De Rossi
Parabolic hyperbole
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
Long term losses > short term gains
My favorite response to “why do bad things happen to good people?” is “what makes you think they were good?”
They were unconditionally good in a Kant kind of way you know
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?
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.
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.
politicians? clergy?
Just the cheaters that are caught, the ones never caught are living the life.
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
Never forgive. Never forget.
what’s this from?
That’s Diego Maradona’s infamous Hand of God goal against England at the 1986 World Cup.
Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.
