4 ms·

That's honesty, not integrity.

coldtea 5y ago
You'd be surprised. Dictionary to the rescue: "Integrity: 1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles."
- Miner49er 5y ago
  Yeah, exactly, honestly is just a part of it. He failed hard on the other part by saying his own team was worse then some other team. Integrity is standing up for the people you lead, it falls under the moral principles part.
  - vaidhy 5y ago
    If you always standup for the team you lead, then where is the moral principles and honesty? My (fill in the blanks) is always right means you have no integrity. Integrity is having a set of moral principles and evaluating against them honestly. You will see your beauty, warts and all.
    - xeromal 5y ago
      I think you could consider looking out of the people under you as mouths to feed as moral. It's impossible to calculate the moral implications of the entire world for every decision you make, but taking care of your own is a pretty easy start.
      - coldtea 5y ago
        >I think you could consider looking out of the people under you as mouths to feed as moral. That's a quality a mafia boss might also have (taking care of its own team/employees/famiglia). Doesn't mean they have integrity (heck, it's not even moral - not every quality that results to the good of some people is moral).
        xeromal 5y ago
        I guess that depends on what you consider morals? Local or Universal.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  Your response is (intentionally?) incomplete. Talking about integrity... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity Definition of integrity 1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY 2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS 3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS
  - coldtea 5y ago
    My response is about integrity as it pertains to the discussion - as a property of a person. Note that (2) and (3) are not about people. We don't say that someone who is not impaired (in "an unimpaired condition") has "integrity". We call them able and other things. We don't say that someone who is "complete or undivided" has integrity either (we use the term "complete" for humans, but there it means something like satisfied or fulfilled). (2) and (3) are not about integrity as in "X has integrity". It's about integrity as a property of things, in usages like "structural integrity", "mechanical Integrity" (the same sense used when we talk about "integrals" and so on). And you made it sound like I did something nefarious. Talking about integrity (1).
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      > Note that (2) and (3) are not about people. False. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity > (2) and (3) are not about integrity as in "X has integrity" False. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity > And you made it sound like I did something nefarious. You did. In a discussion about whether a word's meaning was narrow or broad, you argued it was narrow by citing its definition -- but left out every part of its definition that didn't align with your argument.

You'd be surprised. Dictionary to the rescue: "Integrity: 1. the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles."

Miner49er 5y ago
Yeah, exactly, honestly is just a part of it. He failed hard on the other part by saying his own team was worse then some other team. Integrity is standing up for the people you lead, it falls under the moral principles part.
- vaidhy 5y ago
  If you always standup for the team you lead, then where is the moral principles and honesty? My (fill in the blanks) is always right means you have no integrity. Integrity is having a set of moral principles and evaluating against them honestly. You will see your beauty, warts and all.
  - xeromal 5y ago
    I think you could consider looking out of the people under you as mouths to feed as moral. It's impossible to calculate the moral implications of the entire world for every decision you make, but taking care of your own is a pretty easy start.
    - coldtea 5y ago
      >I think you could consider looking out of the people under you as mouths to feed as moral. That's a quality a mafia boss might also have (taking care of its own team/employees/famiglia). Doesn't mean they have integrity (heck, it's not even moral - not every quality that results to the good of some people is moral).
      - xeromal 5y ago
        I guess that depends on what you consider morals? Local or Universal.
torstenvl 5y ago
Your response is (intentionally?) incomplete. Talking about integrity... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity Definition of integrity 1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY 2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS 3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS
- coldtea 5y ago
  My response is about integrity as it pertains to the discussion - as a property of a person. Note that (2) and (3) are not about people. We don't say that someone who is not impaired (in "an unimpaired condition") has "integrity". We call them able and other things. We don't say that someone who is "complete or undivided" has integrity either (we use the term "complete" for humans, but there it means something like satisfied or fulfilled). (2) and (3) are not about integrity as in "X has integrity". It's about integrity as a property of things, in usages like "structural integrity", "mechanical Integrity" (the same sense used when we talk about "integrals" and so on). And you made it sound like I did something nefarious. Talking about integrity (1).
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    > Note that (2) and (3) are not about people. False. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity > (2) and (3) are not about integrity as in "X has integrity" False. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity > And you made it sound like I did something nefarious. You did. In a discussion about whether a word's meaning was narrow or broad, you argued it was narrow by citing its definition -- but left out every part of its definition that didn't align with your argument.