Latest Breaking News

Javaman

(62,517 posts)

36. While I understand your point, what you are talking about is responsibility, not trust.

Thu Apr 19, 2012, 11:37 PM

Apr 2012

to different things.

You could postulate that trust is nothing more than a person living responsibly in a group of people.

if that group deems that person to live responsibly, then they will trust them.

However, if that person gets into car wrecks often or gets speeding tickets, will that same person exhibit responsibility with watching my kid? I wouldn't take that chance, because I can't be sure that the person is a responsible person if they are unable to take personal responsibility for their actions. So therefore, I don't trust them.

See how it works?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

India Says It Successfully Tests Nuclear-Capable Missile [View all] alp227 Apr 2012 OP

Greeeaaaatt... DonCoquixote Apr 2012 #1

video Vehl Apr 2012 #2

Nuclear armed N. Korea tests and fails a 3 stage rocket and the world gets pissed... Javaman Apr 2012 #3

Well...to be fair, India's not an weird semi-cultish dictatorship. Phoonzang Apr 2012 #4

India does not have a history of selling nuclear and rocket technology to anyone with a checkbook. hack89 Apr 2012 #5

Anyone that has nukes is not to be completely trusted. nt Javaman Apr 2012 #6

Countries that deliberately ignore international law regarding nuclear proliferation hack89 Apr 2012 #11

Either you trust someone or you don't. Javaman Apr 2012 #12

Adherence to international treaties, laws and norms are good ways to build trust hack89 Apr 2012 #13

It's a logic question. Javaman Apr 2012 #15

But trust is constantly being earned or lost. hack89 Apr 2012 #16

This isn't about earning trust, you are now claiming that. Javaman Apr 2012 #28

Certainly there are shades of trust. hack89 Apr 2012 #29

Well naturally; but they never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, did they? closeupready Apr 2012 #33

They did sign but withdrew in 2003 hack89 Apr 2012 #34

So does that mean we should then trust them? Javaman Apr 2012 #35

That was my point, so we agree. closeupready Apr 2012 #39

While I understand your point, what you are talking about is responsibility, not trust. Javaman Apr 2012 #36

Degrees of responsibility lead to degrees of trust. nt hack89 Apr 2012 #37

It appears as if I didn't explain myself clearly, because your statement... Javaman Apr 2012 #38

Except for us, of course. smirkymonkey Apr 2012 #40

Who needs a checkbook when you have a fruit-tree? Nihil Apr 2012 #7

Pardon me? cosmicone Apr 2012 #8

LOL, good points. closeupready Apr 2012 #10

funny but not true obnoxiousdrunk Apr 2012 #14

In a democracy, everyone is entitled to their opinion. closeupready Apr 2012 #24

:D Vehl Apr 2012 #17

The first word was the desired one. Nihil Apr 2012 #20

my bad! Vehl Apr 2012 #21

+1 nt Vehl Apr 2012 #18

Oh good. Indians starve, and the state arms itself closeupready Apr 2012 #9

Lol, Indian DOD gets under 2.5% of the GDP while the US DOD gets about 20% Vehl Apr 2012 #19

How does India's karma figure in the following: closeupready Apr 2012 #22

China and Japan? Vehl Apr 2012 #25

China is just using Pakistan cosmicone Apr 2012 #27

Small correction Vehl Apr 2012 #32

That should be 4.7% of GDP and 19% of budgeted expenditures for the US DoD. hack89 Apr 2012 #30

I stand corrected. Vehl Apr 2012 #31

Careful with that mote there CBGLuthier Apr 2012 #41

Just like assumptions. closeupready Apr 2012 #42

This doesn't help the cause of nuclear non-proliferation! LongTomH Apr 2012 #23

Good for India samsingh Apr 2012 #26