Timeline for How to idiomatically express the idea "if you can cheat without being caught, do it"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2019 at 12:38 | comment | added | rajah9 | @RosieF While you might believe that this phrase doesn't fit, please note that the OP provided the rationale (in comments, above) for how it does fit. | |
| Jul 1, 2019 at 12:35 | comment | added | rajah9 | Yes, of course, @DanDascalescu, JosephRogers, there's one born every minute. | |
| Jul 1, 2019 at 10:57 | comment | added | Joseph Rogers | Ah, a quote from St Francis of Assisi himself I believe | |
| Jun 30, 2019 at 15:44 | comment | added | Rosie F | This doesn't fit. It doesn't express the notion of doing something only if you can get away with it -- taking your intended victim for a sucker isn't the same thing. And it applies only to people intent on picking on other people as victims, whereas the OP's idea also applies to running a red light at an empty junction, or putting your recyclables into the wrong bin. | |
| Jun 30, 2019 at 5:08 | comment | added | Dan Dascalescu | Never heard that phrase in my life. I've lived in California for 14 years and I'm an accredited Romanian -> English translator. | |
| S Jun 29, 2019 at 20:15 | history | edited | rajah9 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
made source not blend with actual quote/better formatting. Added the sense of gullible.
|
| S Jun 29, 2019 at 20:15 | history | suggested | Voldemort's Wrath | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
made source not blend with actual quote/better formatting
|
| Jun 29, 2019 at 19:59 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 29, 2019 at 20:15 | |||||
| Jun 29, 2019 at 3:28 | comment | added | rajah9 | @Barmar, Mitsuko did stipulate that the cheater would not suffer reputational or financial damage from cheating. If one could cheat on his taxes without being detected, what would bar them from cheating? And yes, the government would be the sucker in this scenario. | |
| Jun 29, 2019 at 1:43 | comment | added | Mitsuko | @Barmar : I am just a young student, but my humble opinion is this: a government should make only those laws and procedures that it can and will enforce, as otherwise cheaters will get advantage over fair people. In particular, all tax procedures should be such that people cannot cheat on their taxes without a real risk of getting caught. If my government lets a big number of people substantially cheat on their taxes, then it thereby gives them advantage at my expense. Isn't such a government a sucker? | |
| Jun 28, 2019 at 23:52 | comment | added | Barmar | @Mitsuko Suppose the context is cheating on your taxes? Are you saying that the government that can't catch you is the sucker? | |
| Jun 28, 2019 at 13:23 | comment | added | Mitsuko | @Zack : My first impression is that the phrase perfectly fits, because if you CAN trick someone, he is a sucker by definition. That is, I see it like this: 能骗就骗 → If you can trick, then trick → If he can be tricked, then trick him → If he is a sucker, then trick him → Never give a sucker an even break. The logic seems to be fully preserved. | |
| Jun 28, 2019 at 13:14 | comment | added | Zack | My problem with this phrase is that it seems more specific than what the OP is requesting: OP is not talking about one being unfair to just suckers, but however one can. | |
| Jun 28, 2019 at 12:39 | comment | added | user339660 | Seems like the best fit to me. In the same neighbourhood are what he doesn't know won't hurt him and it's not illegal unless you get caught. | |
| Jun 28, 2019 at 11:55 | history | answered | rajah9 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |