Don't go around saying the world...

"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first."
- Mark Twain

There is no point in claiming that the world owes you something because the odds of it delivering what you want without any effort from you are slim. So, I agree that the world owes nothing to anyone, but not because it was here first. If what's here first never owes anything to what comes after then we might as well not expect parents to support their children, we shouldn't expect world leaders to give a damn about anybody born after them, and we should ignore the needs of future generations...all because those came after.

Yes, the world owes you nothing. No, the reason is not that it was here first.

An eye for an eye only ends...

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."
- Gandhi

If an eye for an eye mode of punishment was applied to the whole world then not everyone would become blind because not everyone is poking out other people's eyes. What that means is not every person is doing bad things to others. With an eye for an eye mode of punishment a person who commits homicide would be killed, a person who steals a sofa would have a sofa taken from them, a person who blackmails would be blackmailed. But not everyone is stealing sofas, murdering, or blackmailing!

Someone could argue that since nobody is perfect everyone would be punished to some degree. But not all bad doings can be mirrored on the doer and still be considered punishment. Let's say you insult someone, then your punishment is to be insulted...not much of a punishment or deterrence from insulting again.

And that brings up deterrence. An eye for an eye would convince many (not all) people that they shouldn't do something bad; they've been deterred before committing the crime. Those people will not be "left blind."

Not many people, myself included, would want an eye for an eye. However, current crime punishment is obviously insufficient due to many factors. People should remember that punishment should be a deterrence not a slap on the wrist. Gandhi probably would have said that it would be better to forgive the criminal than punish them, and people are entitled to that opinion, but not many people would find it morally viable to forgive a person for killing a loved one. And forgiveness wouldn't solve the problem that there's a killer on the loose anyway.

The greatness of a nation can be judged...

"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
- Gandhi

First of all, most nations cannot be judged as a whole because of the diversity among their people. Disregarding that, it makes sense that a nation that immorally treats animals is very likely to show immorality regarding other things as well...but that is not an absolute.

A nation could love animals, treat them well, even worship them but still be a horrible society. For example, they could be treating animals highly but look on women as nothing more than slaves. Or they could worship animals but actively partake in bloody human sacrifices.
The opposite could also be true: a society that treats animals horribly but is perfect in all other ways.

What this boils down to is that improper animal treatment can reflect evil within a society but a society's greatness cannot be judged entirely on how it treats animals.

A mistake is simply another way...

"A mistake is simply another way of doing things."
- Katharine Graham

I disagree. Imagine someone is driving down the freeway looking out for a specific exit but they make a mistake and take the wrong exit. They did not do the thing that they wanted to do, so, the mistake wasn't another way of doing it.

I will say that mistakes can be valuable lessons. I will also say that mistakes may accomplish something, although it will always be different than intended, whether it be somehow rewarding or somehow impeding. But nevertheless, a mistake is not an alternative method for accomplishing your goal.

A good decision is based on...

"A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers."
- Plato


You would hope that when a person makes a decision they actually have knowledge about what they are deciding; most people would agree that's ideal.

Let's just say two hungry people are walking down the street where they are confronted with two choices: fast food or health food. The first person pulls out their Blackberry and promptly searches the internet for data comparing fast food to health food (prices, health differences, etc.). They find that health food can be more expensive but has a health difference far greater than the price difference, and so they choose health food. The next day his/her friend is surprised they chose health food and asks why he/she made that decision. "I can't remember, but I looked it up."
The second person must also decide fast food or health food. This person walks right into the health food store without much contemplation. Why? Because the second person knew why health food is a better choice.

One person made a decision based on numbers and the other based on knowledge. The result was the same (and will always be the same), so, although it may not be ideal, a decision based on numbers can be as good as one based on knowledge.

Every government is a parliament of whores...

"Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy, the whores are us."
- P.J. O'Rourke

Well, I would agree that many problems in government are a result of voters electing bad people. But we use a representative democracy (republic, actually, but for the sake of argument just pretend we are a true democracy) so we do not have direct control over our government, we elect people who say they will represent us then they control the government. If we had a direct democracy, in which we vote on everything, then the whores would always be us but since we don't, the government can be a whore too. If our representatives do a poor job of representing then the government is the whore.

Bad politicians are sent to Washington...

"Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote."
- William E. Simon

In an election, it does not matter if the voter is good or bad unless one nominee is inherently evil and the other good, the evil citizens voting evilly and the good citizens voting goodly. In reality, the nominees aren't rival characters, one good, one evil, in a mass paperback fantasy novel.
You could look at it this way: bad people who don't vote are as much to blame as good people who don't vote... But lack of voting is not the problem. The problem is either that all politicians are bad (at least to somebody) or that idiots vote.

These new and revised quotes: (pick one)

1. Bad politicians are sent to Washington by idiots who vote.
2. All politicians are sent to Washington by idiots who vote.