The Golden Rule is the Path to Peace

[dav...@agent.com]

The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.

[Ernest Major]

In message <coaee71b96bq468du...@4ax.com>,
dav...@agent.com writes

>The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>

It was only a week ago that you were apparently (implicitly) arguing
against the Golden Rule. At least I don't see how promoting the
abandonment of influenza treatment and prophylaxis is to reconciled with
the Golden Rule.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Kermit]

On Dec 13, 4:25 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <coaee71b96bq468du4mkeo1j5jpl37t...@4ax.com>,

Not really; he was arguing that there would be less overall suffering
if the old were allowed to die of the flu. If the alternative is
watching children starve to death and the survivors be weakened,
stunted, and brain damaged, then I would rather go somewhat
prematurely (I'm now 60) if it saved the grandkids. In that case, if a
geneticist / microbiologist released a deadly flu virus, he would be
treating me as I wished to be treated.

I note that influenza usually leaves the survivors intact; war and
famine hurts everybody in awful ways for prolonged times. On the
surface you seem to agree on values ("Golden Rule is good"). Perhaps
the disagreement is in facts.

Are you saying that there is no *hypothetical situation wherein the
appearance of a bad influenza virus (e.g. human transmittable avian
flu) may be the best likely thing to happen to us?

Probably. however, prophylactic treatment and flu virus vaccines will
be available only in circumstances where there is enough food. I can
imagine, however, the microbiologist looking thoughtfully at the vial
of flu in her lab as civilization falls apart in some post-apocalyptic
catastrophic collapse scenario...

Kermit

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:39:46 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

>The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.

Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
Need the "others" be willing participants?

So many questions; so little time...
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[dav...@agent.com]

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com writes
>>The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>>If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>>to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>>

>Only a week ago you were apparently (implicitly) arguing

>against the Golden Rule. At least I don't see how promoting the
>abandonment of influenza treatment and prophylaxis is to

>be reconciled with the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule has to operate /across/ generations, too.
The people of the future are not less important than
we are, just because they can't speak or vote.
Why should they have to live in more crowded conditions?

[dav...@agent.com]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>
>>The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>>If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>>to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>
>Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
>to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
>Need the "others" be willing participants?

What % of the population are sado's, & what %
want freedom to speak/trade/travel?

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:39:46 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:
>
> >The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>
> Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
> to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
> Need the "others" be willing participants?
>
> So many questions; so little time...

No need to waste any.
The Golden Rule is simple:
'Who has the gold makes the rules.'
(The King)

Jan

[sbalneav]

On 11-12-13 04:39 AM, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.

> If you want freedom to speak& trade& travel, then you have

> to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.

One assumes that this will happen within reason. Should the entire
People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China decide
they wish to travel to our country, one hopes that we'll at least
check their passports and ask them to leave their guns and tanks
at the border.

Your principle's a good one on it's face, however, the devil's always
in the implementation details...

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:19:31 -0800 (PST), Kermit
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 13, 4:25 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <coaee71b96bq468du4mkeo1j5jpl37t...@4ax.com>,
>> dav...@agent.com writes>The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>>
>> It was only a week ago that you were apparently (implicitly) arguing
>> against the Golden Rule. At least I don't see how promoting the
>> abandonment of influenza treatment and prophylaxis is to reconciled with
>> the Golden Rule.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>Not really; he was arguing that there would be less overall suffering
>if the old were allowed to die of the flu.

Really? He was too subtle for me. Had I picked up on it, I would
have asked him on what basis he determined there would be less overall
suffering.

There is a specific and historical illustration of exactly Davidp's
argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu

I'm still missing how this event eased overall suffering in the world.

>If the alternative is
>watching children starve to death and the survivors be weakened,
>stunted, and brain damaged, then I would rather go somewhat
>prematurely (I'm now 60) if it saved the grandkids. In that case, if a
>geneticist / microbiologist released a deadly flu virus, he would be
>treating me as I wished to be treated.

The hypothetical you give above I know as The Lifeboat Scenario; there
exists an acute lack of resources which threatens the lives of
everyone on the boat. One way to mitigate the situation is to reduce
the number of people, by choice or by force. IIUC this relates to
your Triage argument you made earlier.

ISTM arguable whether or not the world is now in such an acute
situation. Either way, the expressed solution of sacrificing people
is just one of many. A typical stumbling block is those who suggest
this one often expect to avoid participating in it. Davidp's posts
illustrate exactly that problem.

There are historical examples where those in the boat survived by
sharing privation equally and working together toward a mutually
beneficial goal; Shackleton's Antarctic expedition comes to mind, as
does Captain Bligh's escape from the Bounty mutineers.

>I note that influenza usually leaves the survivors intact; war and
>famine hurts everybody in awful ways for prolonged times. On the
>surface you seem to agree on values ("Golden Rule is good"). Perhaps
>the disagreement is in facts.
>
>Are you saying that there is no *hypothetical situation wherein the
>appearance of a bad influenza virus (e.g. human transmittable avian
>flu) may be the best likely thing to happen to us?
>
>Probably. however, prophylactic treatment and flu virus vaccines will
>be available only in circumstances where there is enough food. I can
>imagine, however, the microbiologist looking thoughtfully at the vial
>of flu in her lab as civilization falls apart in some post-apocalyptic
>catastrophic collapse scenario...

There are negative consequences to the problems we now face. IIUC
solutions are those things we decide to do in order to
prevent/mitigate those negative consequences. I agree if we do
nothing, those negative consequences will soon visit us in force.

But even if it were true that letting people die of influenza helped
to reduce overall suffering, and neither you nor davidp have made any
effort to establish that, your argument is to let nature take it
course. This is not an effort to prevent/mitigate. ISTM instead a
repudiation of our social obligation to implement real solutions.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <jc2fe7580gi5vl98i...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:39:46 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:
>
> >The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>
> Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
> to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
> Need the "others" be willing participants?
>
> So many questions; so little time...

A sadist is a person who is kind to a masochist.

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Kermit]

On Dec 13, 12:04 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:19:31 -0800 (PST), Kermit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 13, 4:25 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <coaee71b96bq468du4mkeo1j5jpl37t...@4ax.com>,
> >> dav...@agent.com writes>The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
> >> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
> >> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>
> >> It was only a week ago that you were apparently (implicitly) arguing
> >> against the Golden Rule. At least I don't see how promoting the
> >> abandonment of influenza treatment and prophylaxis is to reconciled with
> >> the Golden Rule.
> >> --
> >> alias Ernest Major
>
> >Not really; he was arguing that there would be less overall suffering
> >if the old were allowed to die of the flu.
>
> Really?  He was too subtle for me.  Had I picked up on it, I would
> have asked him on what basis he determined there would be less overall
> suffering.

I was talking about to David's post last week that Ernest referred to.

Anyway., life and death decisions are nearly always based on
insufficient data, aren't they? I can imagine a scenario in which much
damage could be reduced, at the cost of some life. I am not sure that
the situation would ever be that clear. And I don't happen to have a
deadly flu virus on hand.

>
> There is a specific and historical illustration of exactly Davidp's
> argument:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>
> I'm still missing how this event eased overall suffering in the world.
>

There wasn't any particular problem in 1918 exacerbated by
overpopulation. I can imagine a near future in which a collapse of
infrastructure, including transportation and power; an increasing
global panic; high migration of desperate peoples into lands that are
starting to feel serious deprivation for the first time in
generations; overextended water rights, unpredictable and more extreme
weather; continuing reduction of arable a land and crop success; and a
collapse of the oceans ecosystem. Such a world is not conducive to
peaceful and disciplined behavior. It will very much be a lifeboat
scenario.

> >If the alternative is
> >watching children starve to death and the survivors be weakened,
> >stunted, and brain damaged, then I would rather go somewhat
> >prematurely (I'm now 60) if it saved the grandkids. In that case, if a
> >geneticist / microbiologist released a deadly flu virus, he would be
> >treating me as I wished to be treated.
>
> The hypothetical you give above I know as The Lifeboat Scenario; there
> exists an acute lack of resources which threatens the lives of
> everyone on the boat.  One way to mitigate the situation is to reduce
> the number of people, by choice or by force.  IIUC this relates to
> your Triage argument you made earlier.

Sadly, yes.

I believe that Lovelock has forecast a 90% population reduction.

>
> ISTM arguable whether or not the world is now in such an acute
> situation.  Either way, the expressed solution of sacrificing people
> is just one of many.  A typical stumbling block is those who suggest
> this one often expect to avoid participating in it.   Davidp's posts
> illustrate exactly that problem.

No we are not there. but I expect to see this in my extreme old age,
should I live another 20 to 30 years.

>
> There are historical examples where those in the boat survived by
> sharing privation equally and working together toward a mutually
> beneficial goal;  Shackleton's Antarctic expedition comes to mind, as
> does Captain Bligh's escape from the Bounty mutineers.

Yes.

Cooperating to do what must be done could probably save civilization.
Will we do this before total collapse? Stay tuned. Maybe we will only
end up dealing with a tolerable impoverishment.

>
> >I note that influenza usually leaves the survivors intact; war and
> >famine hurts everybody in awful ways for prolonged times. On the
> >surface you seem to agree on values ("Golden Rule is good"). Perhaps
> >the disagreement is in facts.
>
> >Are you saying that there is no *hypothetical situation wherein the
> >appearance of a bad influenza virus (e.g. human transmittable avian
> >flu) may be the best likely thing to happen to us?
>
> >Probably. however, prophylactic treatment and flu virus vaccines will
> >be available only in circumstances where there is enough food. I can
> >imagine, however, the microbiologist looking thoughtfully at the vial
> >of flu in her lab as civilization falls apart in some post-apocalyptic
> >catastrophic collapse scenario...
>
> There are negative consequences to the problems we now face.  IIUC
> solutions are those things we decide to do in order to
> prevent/mitigate those negative consequences.  I agree if we do
> nothing, those negative consequences will soon visit us in force.
>
> But even if it were true that letting people die of influenza helped
> to reduce overall suffering, and neither you nor davidp have made any
> effort to establish that, your argument is to let nature take it
> course.

This is part of the insufficient data I mentioned above. Not only are
we unsure of the current situation, but we can never be sure of the
consequences of our acts. And a drastic act like this can have
catastrophic results. One such I can imagine is that it reduces the
stress on the survivors, who... go back to business as usual, and the
whole situation recurs 25 years later.

> This is not an effort to prevent/mitigate.

I do not consider the lifeboat scenario to be a preventative measure.
Neither is the triage I was taught in the army, and which civilians
use for plane crashes and such. They are mitigating steps to deal with
a disaster.

>  ISTM instead a
> repudiation of our social obligation to implement real solutions.

Designing and building and stocking life boats, and training medical
personnel in triage, do not prevent *also working on real solutions.
However, if I may observe, it is usually not these engineers and
medics and doctors who make the decisions that sometimes require these
mitigating measures.

Kermit

[J. J. Lodder]

If you allow the US of A to invade
whenever they don't like the ruler's face somewhere
they must allow everybody else with a similar dislike
to invade the US of A?

Jan

[jillery]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:33:10 -0800 (PST), Kermit
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 13, 12:04 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:19:31 -0800 (PST), Kermit
>>
>> <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 13, 4:25 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message <coaee71b96bq468du4mkeo1j5jpl37t...@4ax.com>,
>> >> dav...@agent.com writes>The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>> >> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>> >> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>>
>> >> It was only a week ago that you were apparently (implicitly) arguing
>> >> against the Golden Rule. At least I don't see how promoting the
>> >> abandonment of influenza treatment and prophylaxis is to reconciled with
>> >> the Golden Rule.
>> >> --
>> >> alias Ernest Major
>>
>> >Not really; he was arguing that there would be less overall suffering
>> >if the old were allowed to die of the flu.
>>
>> Really?  He was too subtle for me.  Had I picked up on it, I would
>> have asked him on what basis he determined there would be less overall
>> suffering.
>
>I was talking about to David's post last week that Ernest referred to.

Yes. I inferred that. IIUC I replied to the very posts to which
Ernest referred. I thought you knew that. Why do you think I don't
understand this?

>Anyway., life and death decisions are nearly always based on
>insufficient data, aren't they? I can imagine a scenario in which much
>damage could be reduced, at the cost of some life. I am not sure that
>the situation would ever be that clear. And I don't happen to have a
>deadly flu virus on hand.

ISTM lucky for us that you don't. Although I assume there are people
who do have deadly flu on hand, and worse, ready to go.

>> There is a specific and historical illustration of exactly Davidp's
>> argument:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>>
>> I'm still missing how this event eased overall suffering in the world.
>>
>
>There wasn't any particular problem in 1918 exacerbated by
>overpopulation.

Really? There was no overcrowding? No starvation? No disease? No
poverty? No shortage of resources? Or wars to control them? Wow,
what a utopia Earth must have been back then. I need to go back and
reread my history books.

>I can imagine a near future in which a collapse of
>infrastructure, including transportation and power; an increasing
>global panic; high migration of desperate peoples into lands that are
>starting to feel serious deprivation for the first time in
>generations; overextended water rights, unpredictable and more extreme
>weather; continuing reduction of arable a land and crop success; and a
>collapse of the oceans ecosystem. Such a world is not conducive to
>peaceful and disciplined behavior. It will very much be a lifeboat
>scenario.

If or when that future comes, then it will be an acute situation like
you describe below, and the time for draconian solutions. But not
before.

>> >If the alternative is
>> >watching children starve to death and the survivors be weakened,
>> >stunted, and brain damaged, then I would rather go somewhat
>> >prematurely (I'm now 60) if it saved the grandkids. In that case, if a
>> >geneticist / microbiologist released a deadly flu virus, he would be
>> >treating me as I wished to be treated.
>>
>> The hypothetical you give above I know as The Lifeboat Scenario; there
>> exists an acute lack of resources which threatens the lives of
>> everyone on the boat.  One way to mitigate the situation is to reduce
>> the number of people, by choice or by force.  IIUC this relates to
>> your Triage argument you made earlier.
>
>Sadly, yes.
>
>I believe that Lovelock has forecast a 90% population reduction.
>
>>
>> ISTM arguable whether or not the world is now in such an acute
>> situation.  Either way, the expressed solution of sacrificing people
>> is just one of many.  A typical stumbling block is those who suggest
>> this one often expect to avoid participating in it.   Davidp's posts
>> illustrate exactly that problem.
>
>No we are not there. but I expect to see this in my extreme old age,
>should I live another 20 to 30 years.

Since you seem somewhat unfamiliar with the thread to which Ernest
earlier referred, you should know, according to his posts, that davidp
will likely celebrate your death as contributing to the comfort of
future generations. But of course, not his own death.

>> There are historical examples where those in the boat survived by
>> sharing privation equally and working together toward a mutually
>> beneficial goal;  Shackleton's Antarctic expedition comes to mind, as
>> does Captain Bligh's escape from the Bounty mutineers.
>
>Yes.
>
>Cooperating to do what must be done could probably save civilization.
>Will we do this before total collapse? Stay tuned. Maybe we will only
>end up dealing with a tolerable impoverishment.

The examples I gave are of people cooperating in order to survive
acute situations, ISTM of the kind you describe above. It's why I
mentioned them.

I missed where you describe *how* it reduces the stress on the
survivors. Perhaps you are also too subtle for me.

>> This is not an effort to prevent/mitigate.
>
>I do not consider the lifeboat scenario to be a preventative measure.
>Neither is the triage I was taught in the army, and which civilians
>use for plane crashes and such. They are mitigating steps to deal with
>a disaster.

ISTM you continue to conflate two different situations. The Lifeboat
Scenario and Triage describe acute events, and imminent death is
faced, and it's necessary to take immediate action based on what is at
hand. You are right that is *not* the time to worry about preventive
measures. But IIUC what you wrote above, you agree that the world is
not yet in that kind of situation. There is time for prevention until
the moment that it is.

>>  ISTM instead a
>> repudiation of our social obligation to implement real solutions.
>
>Designing and building and stocking life boats, and training medical
>personnel in triage, do not prevent *also working on real solutions.

They distract and deflect resources from real solutions, and thereby
make more likely a Lifeboat Scenario.

>However, if I may observe, it is usually not these engineers and
>medics and doctors who make the decisions that sometimes require these
>mitigating measures.

I don't understand what you mean. To which decisions do you refer?

[jillery]

Come on, admit it, Hussein was butt ugly :)

[dav...@agent.com]

sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>> If you want freedom to speak& trade& travel, then you have
>> to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>
>One assumes that this will happen within reason. Should the entire
>People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China decide
>they wish to travel to our country, one hopes that we'll at least
>check their passports and ask them to leave their guns and tanks
>at the border.

What about the cases in which a dictator or oligarchy oppressively
restricts speech, trade & travel within his/its own domain?

[J. J. Lodder]

Sure, cowboy logic required his removal.
No doubt about it.

But ... ,

Jan

[sbalneav]

> restricts speech, trade& travel within his/its own domain?

Yes, what about it? You snipped the part where I said "The principle's
a good one on it's face." I'm all for freedom, but freedom has to be
tempered with responsibility.

As the old saying goes, the freedom to swing your fist wherever you want
ends at my face. There are very few freedoms which, if carried to their
logical (or illogical) conclusion, don't end up harming other people.

As an example: do you feel it's an infringement on your freedom of
speech to not be allowed to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater?

As a supplementary question, would you feel it's an infringement on
your rights if the brother of the woman who was trampled to death
in the theater beat the everloving crap out of you?

You need to answer both.

[jillery]

What about them?

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:06:58 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 23:53:29 +0100, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> ><dav...@agent.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>> >> If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>> >> to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>> >
>> >If you allow the US of A to invade
>> >whenever they don't like the ruler's face somewhere
>> >they must allow everybody else with a similar dislike
>> >to invade the US of A?
>>
>>
>> Come on, admit it, Hussein was butt ugly :)
>
>Sure, cowboy logic required his removal.

ISTM more like "Project Runway" logic, but I digress.

[dav...@agent.com]

sbalneav <sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> sbalneav<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>
>>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>> The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>>>> If you want freedom to speak& trade& travel, then you have
>>>> to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>>>
>>> One assumes that this will happen within reason. Should the entire
>>> People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China decide
>>> they wish to travel to our country, one hopes that we'll at least
>>> check their passports and ask them to leave their guns and tanks
>>> at the border.
>>
>> What about the cases in which a dictator or oligarchy oppressively

>> restricts speech, trade & travel within his/its own domain?
>
>Do you feel it's an infringement on your freedom of speech

>to not be allowed to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater?

That one was settled ages ago! Jeez--diggin' up old dirt!

Here's one on CNN right now: People don't want other
drivers to be distracted by cell phone talking/texting,
but they don't want to curtail their own use!
Golden Rule, People!!

[sbalneav]

On 11-12-14 11:56 AM, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> sbalneav<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>
>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>> sbalneav<sbal...@alburg.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>>> The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>>>>> If you want freedom to speak& trade& travel, then you have
>>>>> to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>>>>
>>>> One assumes that this will happen within reason. Should the entire
>>>> People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China decide
>>>> they wish to travel to our country, one hopes that we'll at least
>>>> check their passports and ask them to leave their guns and tanks
>>>> at the border.
>>>
>>> What about the cases in which a dictator or oligarchy oppressively

>>> restricts speech, trade& travel within his/its own domain?

>>
>> Do you feel it's an infringement on your freedom of speech
>> to not be allowed to scream "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater?
>
> That one was settled ages ago! Jeez--diggin' up old dirt!

Evasion noted.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:24:22 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

What has this to do with my question? Are only majorities
supposed to follow the Golden Rule? If so, I'd contend this
is already the case, at least to a large extent, making your
point essentially superfluous.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:47:38 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

Pretty much, and essentially true at all times in all
places.

And don't forget...

"The peasants love me! Pull!

<BANG!>

Dropped like a stone."

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:25:30 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <jc2fe7580gi5vl98i...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:39:46 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:
>>
>> >The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>>
>> Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
>> to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
>> Need the "others" be willing participants?
>>
>> So many questions; so little time...
>
>A sadist is a person who is kind to a masochist.

Damn, never thought of it that way...

So how does a S-M treat himself to maximize enjoyment?

[dav...@agent.com]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>What about the cases in which a dictator or oligarchy oppressively
>>restricts speech, trade & travel within his/its own domain?
>
>What about them?

Q. Will it ever be possible to have peace in a country
whose leaders don't allow their people freedom to speak
(engage in public political discourse, publish newspapers),
trade (set up businesses, corporations, contracts, with
rule of law) & travel (go to & return from other countries
that allow entry)?

A. No, it will never be possible to have peace
in a situation like that!

[dav...@agent.com]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>>>>If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>>>>to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>>>
>>>Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
>>>to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
>>>Need the "others" be willing participants?
>>
>>What % of the population are sado's, & what %
>>want freedom to speak/trade/travel?
>
>What has this to do with my question? Are only majorities
>supposed to follow the Golden Rule? If so, I'd contend this
>is already the case, at least to a large extent, making your
>point essentially superfluous.

In the problem countries whose people are clamoring for
their freedoms, they're not clamoring for more sado-maso!

[jillery]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:05:13 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:47:38 +0100, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder):
>
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:39:46 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:
>>>
>>> >The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>>> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>>> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>>>
>>> Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
>>> to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
>>> Need the "others" be willing participants?
>>>
>>> So many questions; so little time...
>>
>>No need to waste any.
>>The Golden Rule is simple:
>>'Who has the gold makes the rules.'
>> (The King)
>
>Pretty much, and essentially true at all times in all
>places.
>
>And don't forget...
>
>"The peasants love me! Pull!
>
><BANG!>
>
>Dropped like a stone."

One of my favorite Mel Brooks moments.

[jillery]

That settles it then. Thanks for playing.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <onshe79v7fq8ss5io...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:47:38 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:39:46 -0500, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:
> >>
> >> >The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
> >> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
> >> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
> >>
> >> Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
> >> to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
> >> Need the "others" be willing participants?
> >>
> >> So many questions; so little time...
> >
> >No need to waste any.
> >The Golden Rule is simple:
> >'Who has the gold makes the rules.'
> > (The King)
>
> Pretty much, and essentially true at all times in all
> places.
>

Except when the men with the iron make the rules. Of course, they soon
end up with the gold.

> And don't forget...
>
> "The peasants love me! Pull!
>
> <BANG!>
>
> Dropped like a stone."

--

[Mike Lyle]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:47:51 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
wrote:

>In article <onshe79v7fq8ss5io...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:47:38 +0100, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:39:46 -0500, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:
>> >>
>> >> >The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>> >> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>> >> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>> >>
>> >> Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
>> >> to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
>> >> Need the "others" be willing participants?
>> >>
>> >> So many questions; so little time...
>> >
>> >No need to waste any.
>> >The Golden Rule is simple:
>> >'Who has the gold makes the rules.'
>> > (The King)
>>
>> Pretty much, and essentially true at all times in all
>> places.
>>
>
>Except when the men with the iron make the rules. Of course, they soon
>end up with the gold.
>

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of men all!
Iron out of Calvary is master of men all!"

[...]

--
Mike.

[Burkhard]

On Dec 14, 10:11 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:47:51 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >In article <onshe79v7fq8ss5ioouadv3oindtf2j...@4ax.com>,

yeah, "they don't like it up 'em!"

[dav...@agent.com]

>> Here's one on CNN right now: People don't want other
>> drivers to be distracted by cell phone talking/texting,
>> but they don't want to curtail their own use!
>> Golden Rule, People!!
>

>Evasion noted.

Here's some more: You don't like people zooming by you in the next
lane when you're stopped by the side of the road, or stopping someone
else by the side of the road (if you're a cop), then don't do that to
others. You don't like people tailgating you on the road, then don't
do it to them. You don't like people putting words in your mouth,
then don't do it to them. Follow the Rule & a more peaceful
world would result. Guaranteed.

[sbalneav]

> then don't do it to them. Follow the Rule& a more peaceful
> world would result. Guaranteed.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

[dav...@agent.com]

http://www.sepschool.org/edlib/v3n2/21ways.php

Twenty-one ways "public schools" harm your children
by R. C. Hoiles, c1957
[...]
4. The government schools dare not teach the meaning of the
Golden Rule. If they were successful in getting their pupils to
understand that they should not force other people to pay for
something they did not want, then they could see that it was a
violation of the Golden Rule to force others to pay for their
schooling. They, of course, dare not teach their pupils to
believe that if it is wicked and a violation of the Golden Rule
for one man to do a thing, it is still wicked and a violation of
the Golden Rule if 49 per cent or 99 per cent of the people do
the same thing. They, thus, dare not teach the youth that the
ideal government, the only kind of government that can be of
value to mankind, is one that is limited to the use of defensive
force and never has a right, under any circumstances, to initiate
force.
[...]
What we need above everything else is more people devoting more
time to seeing that the youth of the land are instilled with
belief in the great moral laws, the Golden Rule, and the
Declaration of Independence. Government schools cannot teach
successfully the will to learn. The best way to teach anything
is by example. But the superintendent and managers of the schools
themselves are not enough interested in the will to learn to be
willing to answer questions as they would before a court to
determine whether what they are doing is in harmony with what
they profess to believe. If there is anything a man of integrity
should want to learn, it is whether what he is doing is in harmony
and consistent with what he says.
========
============
http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm
A short essay on the golden rule
[...]
Let's consider an example of how the rule is used. President Kennedy
in 1963 appealed to the golden rule in an anti-segregation speech at
the time of the first black enrollment at the University of Alabama.
He asked whites to consider what it would be like to be treated as
second-class citizens because of skin color. Whites were to imagine
themselves being black -- and being told that they couldn't vote, or
go to the best public schools, or eat at most public restaurants, or
sit in the front of the bus. Would whites be content to be treated
that way? He was sure that they wouldn't -- and yet this is how they
treated others. He said the "heart of the question is ... whether we
are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated."
=====
==========
http://www.famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V08N1-ShouldSchoolsTeachValues.pdf
Should Schools Teach Values?
by Nathan Taylor

This may be the most simplistic article I’ve ever published. It
deals with mutual respect and the Golden Rule – ideas that’ve been
around for thousands of years and are today dismissed as little
more than cliche’s. And yet, if you read between the lines, this
article is both profound and ironic. As you’ll see, our government
spent $9 million to discover the Golden Rule, used that discovery
to topple the Soviet Union, and then tried to conceal the discovery
from the American people. How many problems have you ever had that
can’t be finally traced to a lack of respect? He doesn’t respect
your person or your work; you don’t respect his person or authority.
Result? Conflict, shouting, divorce, fights, sometimes jail, some-
times war. “R-e-s-p-e-c-t! Find out what it means to me!” Who hasn’t
heard the song? But who has understood it? Perhaps more than love,
we truly need respect.
[...]
=========
=============
http://www.scarboromissions.ca/Golden_rule/school_curriculum.php

Golden Rule Curriculum #2
The Golden Rule–A Basis for Morality and Ethics
Compiled by Brant Abrahamson and Fred Smith

1. Introduction

It is likely that the most basic everyday guideline for human
behavior is to treat people as you would want to be treated if you
were in the other's position. In the United States, this guideline
has been known as the "Golden Rule" since the 1800s. Many human
troubles, conflicts and tragedies involve situations in which people
could have acted according to the Golden Rule but, to their sorrow,
they did not. Cultural examples of this in American history include
the treatment of African-Americans, Native Americans, other minority
groups, laborers, women. Most people can think of personal situations
that would have been less stressful if the Golden Rule had been used.

The material in this document conveys the universality of the Golden
Rule. The presentation here was developed primarily for high school
juniors and seniors (ages 16 to 18) to demonstrate that the Golden
Rule is more than a behavioral guide for small children. However,
many young people will be able to use it effectively prior to their
last years of high school depending on their reading ability.
[...]

[Earle Jones]

In article <coaee71b96bq468du...@4ax.com>,

dav...@agent.com wrote:

> The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.

> If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have

> to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.

*
"Do unto others before they do it unto you."

earle
*

[dav...@agent.com]

Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>
>> The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>> If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>> to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>

> "Do unto others before they do it unto you."

That's the best you can do? Repeat something that
we've all heard a million times before?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:36:38 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

So? You seem to have a minor talent for evasion. Try again
to address the point I made, which is that the Golden Rule
isn't 100% applicable *as stated*.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:47:22 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

Mine too. I also liked the "Hitler on Ice" segment from "The
Producers" (IIRC); I wonder how many people got the
reference?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:47:51 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

>In article <onshe79v7fq8ss5io...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:47:38 +0100, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:39:46 -0500, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:
>> >>
>> >> >The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>> >> >If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>> >> >to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>> >>
>> >> Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
>> >> to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
>> >> Need the "others" be willing participants?
>> >>
>> >> So many questions; so little time...
>> >
>> >No need to waste any.
>> >The Golden Rule is simple:
>> >'Who has the gold makes the rules.'
>> > (The King)
>>
>> Pretty much, and essentially true at all times in all
>> places.
>>
>
>Except when the men with the iron make the rules. Of course, they soon
>end up with the gold.

Well, it *is* an evolutionary process...

>> And don't forget...
>>
>> "The peasants love me! Pull!
>>
>> <BANG!>
>>
>> Dropped like a stone."
--

[dav...@agent.com]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>>>>>>If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>>>>>>to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does this also apply to sado-masochists, who are quite happy
>>>>>to "do unto others" as they would have others do unto them?
>>>>>Need the "others" be willing participants?
>>>>
>>>>What % of the population are sado's, & what %
>>>>want freedom to speak/trade/travel?
>>>
>>>What has this to do with my question? Are only majorities
>>>supposed to follow the Golden Rule? If so, I'd contend this
>>>is already the case, at least to a large extent, making your
>>>point essentially superfluous.
>>
>>In the problem countries whose people are clamoring for
>>their freedoms, they're not clamoring for more sado-maso!
>

>You seem to have a minor talent for evasion. Try again
>to address the point I made, which is that the Golden Rule
>isn't 100% applicable *as stated*.

We're looking for /progress/, not /perfection/, stoopid!

[jillery]

And your post? Do you really think you're the first one to mention
the Golden Rule?

[dav...@agent.com]

Hey everybody, look!! It's A STUPID QUESTION !!

[jillery]

Too deep for you?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:06:58 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by dav...@agent.com:

Apparently you have no idea what the Golden Rule actually
states. Or you don't understand a simple question. OK.

[Mike Lyle]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:25:41 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>On Dec 14, 10:11 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:47:51 -0500, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <onshe79v7fq8ss5ioouadv3oindtf2j...@4ax.com>,
>> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:47:38 +0100, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >> Lodder):

[...]

>>
>> >> >No need to waste any.
>> >> >The Golden Rule is simple:
>> >> >'Who has the gold makes the rules.'
>> >> >                           (The King)
>>
>> >> Pretty much, and essentially true at all times in all
>> >> places.
>>
>> >Except when the men with the iron make the rules. Of course, they soon
>> >end up with the gold.
>>
>> "But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of men all!
>> Iron out of Calvary is master of men all!"
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> --
>> Mike.
>
>yeah, "they don't like it up 'em!"

"But the things that are honoured of Zion
Are most of them made from wood."

--
Mike.

[dav...@agent.com]

Well, the "Do unto others before they do it unto you" rule
isn't giving us consistently successful diplomacy, especially
between non-democratic regimes & their people.
We keep getting the usual breakdowns.
Maybe we should try something else.

[Earle Jones]

In article <u39je7pe3eqi4tstc...@4ax.com>,

*
No successful religion was ever build on the Golden Rule. It's too
obvious. Sure we should be good to our neighbors, don't kill and don't
steal.

To be successful (wrote Robert Ornstein, Prof. of Psychology, U Cal) a
religion must have a set of patently impossible events as the core of
its belief system. Virgin birth, life after death, and such stuff that
according to all of the laws of nature, logic and science, is impossible.

This is necessary to "test the faith". Anyone can believe in the Golden
Rule. But to believe that Jesus was born from a virgin and rose from
the dead, or that Joseph Smith found some golden tablets, or that
Mohammed did what he did, the Messiah has come on earth, or perhaps he
is still on the way, while Vishnu rules the roost--that takes faith. The
wackiest religion of all is Scientology. Have you read their belief
system? Are you Thetans here on Teegeeack getting rid of your engrams?

Mormonism is pretty wacky, but not as wacky as Scientology.

Me, I'll take science.

earle
*

[dav...@agent.com]

Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > dav...@agent.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> The Golden Rule, or Principle of Reciprocity, is the path to peace.
>> >> If you want freedom to speak & trade & travel, then you have
>> >> to allow others the same freedom, in order to have peace.
>> >
>> > "Do unto others before they do it unto you."
>>
>> That's the best you can do? Repeat something that
>> we've all heard a million times before?
>

>No successful religion was ever build on the Golden Rule. It's too

>obvious. Sure we should be good to our neighbors, don't kill & don't
>steal. To be successful (wrote Rob't Ornstein, Prof. of Psych, U Cal)

>a religion must have a set of patently impossible events as the core of
>its belief system. Virgin birth, life after death, and such stuff that
>according to all of the laws of nature, logic and science, is impossible.

The religions have had plenty of time to be tested. They have
all failed. Your "who has the gold, rules" idea has had it's turn,
too, and doesn't work. Of course, you gave up on finding a
solution right out of high school, just like everyone else.
You don't have a dog in this fight. You're just a kibitzer,
clowning around.

[dav...@agent.com]

Well, that shut HER up!

[dav...@agent.com]

Well, that shut HIM up!

[Boikat]

On Dec 22, 6:46 am, dav...@agent.com wrote:
> dav...@agent.com wrote:

> >Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> dav...@agent.com wrote:

> Well, that shut HIM up!-

Maybe they do not think you are worth replying to. Nah, that can't be
it.

Boikat