4 ms·

That’s a common misconception. Salomon never intended to actually split anything. He could have said “if you don’t reach an agreement I’ll keep the baby myself”

That’s a common misconception. Salomon never intended to actually split anything. He could have said “if you don’t reach an agreement I’ll keep the baby myself” and it’d have worked alright since the mother would have cried (loudest).

pclmulqdq 4y ago
According to which source? I think the people quoting the "split the baby" story are quoting a bible story which is unambiguous. Most old testament stories are parables that got written down and edited to support the religion, so I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of Judaic parable (or a parable from another culture) said that Solomon had a less violent solution.
jobs_throwaway 4y ago
Not according to the Bible's (translated) telling: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%203%3A16-28&version=CEV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%203%3... >They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, 23 until finally he said, “Both of you say this live baby is yours. 24 Someone bring me a sword.” >A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, 25 “Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.” >26 “Please don't kill my son,” the baby's mother screamed. “Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don't kill him.”
- rascul 4y ago
  > The other woman shouted, “Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby.” > 27 Solomon said, “Don't kill the baby.” Then he pointed to the first woman, “She is his real mother. Give the baby to her.” Maybe it was a ploy to see who cared more.
archduck 4y ago
That's how I understand it. All I was saying was, state that the diamond is to be split, and whoever refuses and bows out first gets to keep the entire thing, as they would have demonstrated genuine concern for its welfare. The scenario is obviously not the same - that's the joke. (Which apparently did not land.) The critical difference is: It's better to get part of the diamond than nothing at all. Thus, when any party is presented with the option to take part of it, their only sensible action is to take it. Either it's going to be split anyway, and no one would want to give away their share to the other scoundrels, or all parties are going to come together and refuse to allow it to be split - which leaves us back at the beginning. The same cannot be said for babies. Who wants part of a baby? Not me
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  Right. It was a game of chicken. With a diamond, the actual owner would never say “don’t split it just give it to him”. He’d settle for a half.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

According to which source? I think the people quoting the "split the baby" story are quoting a bible story which is unambiguous. Most old testament stories are parables that got written down and edited to support the religion, so I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of Judaic parable (or a parable from another culture) said that Solomon had a less violent solution.

jobs_throwaway 4y ago

Not according to the Bible's (translated) telling: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%203%3A16-28&version=CEV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%203%3... >They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, 23 until finally he said, “Both of you say this live baby is yours. 24 Someone bring me a sword.” >A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, 25 “Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.” >26 “Please don't kill my son,” the baby's mother screamed. “Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don't kill him.”

rascul 4y ago
> The other woman shouted, “Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby.” > 27 Solomon said, “Don't kill the baby.” Then he pointed to the first woman, “She is his real mother. Give the baby to her.” Maybe it was a ploy to see who cared more.

archduck 4y ago

That's how I understand it. All I was saying was, state that the diamond is to be split, and whoever refuses and bows out first gets to keep the entire thing, as they would have demonstrated genuine concern for its welfare. The scenario is obviously not the same - that's the joke. (Which apparently did not land.) The critical difference is: It's better to get part of the diamond than nothing at all. Thus, when any party is presented with the option to take part of it, their only sensible action is to take it. Either it's going to be split anyway, and no one would want to give away their share to the other scoundrels, or all parties are going to come together and refuse to allow it to be split - which leaves us back at the beginning. The same cannot be said for babies. Who wants part of a baby? Not me

SnowHill9902 4y ago
Right. It was a game of chicken. With a diamond, the actual owner would never say “don’t split it just give it to him”. He’d settle for a half.