Do liberals really believe the “golden rule”

[Revoltingest]

It all becomes clear now; was he a member of the Bildeberg Group too?

No.
Libertarians are never members of any "elite" group.
(Note that we don't want to be....just not invited.)

 

[Politesse]

Libertarian? Mr I'm healing everyone for free? Not seeing it.

 

[Akivah]

Liberals always say they treat others like they would want to be treated more than conservatives do. Then comes their famous quote “I don’t tolerate intolerenace”(course most of it isn’t intolerance. It’s liberals putting their moralities as true morality and anything even slightly below is automatic bigotry, but I digress). Is this hypocrisy?

I don't think political identity determines hypocrisy. There are tolerant and intolerant people in both parties.

 

[Scott C.]

It's about claiming victimhood. When called out for being a bigot, the bigot gets to claim "you're bigoted against bigots! Therefore I am the REAL victim here!" It's ridiculous and stupid, but you'll see this tactic all the time.

But at times bigotry itself leads one to mislabel another as a bigot.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Look a little closer, and you'll see that you have simply supported what I wrote. You seem to be having trouble with positive and negative formulations. Let me try to show you.

Let's begin with "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If that is the Golden Rule that I followed, then I can think of quite a few things that I would have that attractive man do unto me -- and therefore that version of the GR suggests that I should therefore go right ahead and do those things "unto him."

My version says, "do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself." I would not want that attractive man to hit me, or steal from me, or a whole bunch of others things. But while the things I would like him to do to me remain unchanged, my version of the GR does not grant me any rights in respect of doing them to him.

Sorry, but you're completely misreading what the Golden Rule says. It's not about what YOU want, it's about being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes and realizing what THEY would want. The GR states that IF I wouldn't want someone that I have no sexual attraction for to try and push themselves on me sexually THEN I should never try and push myself sexually onto someone who is not sexually attracted to me. You're trying to find a loophole in the rule that doesn't exist.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

But at times bigotry itself leads one to mislabel another as a bigot.

Sure. Not what we're talking about here, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

Libertarian? Mr I'm healing everyone for free? Not seeing it.

But he healed people without government assistance.
Btw, Satan was a Libertarian too.

 

[Politesse]

But he healed people without government assistance.
Btw, Satan was a Libertarian too.

He was the King of Judah, divinely appointed. At least according to his followers.

"The hands of the king are the hands of a healer."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sorry, but you're completely misreading what the Golden Rule says. It's not about what YOU want, it's about being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes and realizing what THEY would want. The GR states that IF I wouldn't want someone that I have no sexual attraction for to try and push themselves on me sexually THEN I should never try and push myself sexually onto someone who is not sexually attracted to me. You're trying to find a loophole in the rule that doesn't exist.

Excuse me, but you seem unable to read what I wrote. I looked for no "loophole" whatever, and was very, very clear that I have zero right to push myself sexually on anyone -- whether they're not attracted to me or even if they are.

I have to be honest and say that I do resent you insinuation a bit, since I was at some pains to be clear. Perhaps you would be so kind as to go back and actually read what I wrote and then make the expected apology.

 

[Nakosis]

But isn't the golden rule a pretty reliable means of figuring out what the right thing to do is? After all, if you don't like the thought of someone steeling your stuff, then you probably shouldn't steel other people's stuff. If you don't like the thought of being raped by another person then you probably shouldn't rape other people. If you don't like the thought of another person murdering you then you probably shouldn't murder other people. Not sure what there is about such a philosophy to not be a fan of.

I don't steal people's stuff because I like to know I've earn what I possess. I don't care what they do.

My choice to not rape someone has nothing to do with a fear of being raped.

I do what I feel is right, regardless of what other people choose to or not to do.

My morality is not dependent on what other folks do. I don't expect their morals are dependent on my actions.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Excuse me, but you seem unable to read what I wrote. I looked for no "loophole" whatever, and was very, very clear that I have zero right to push myself sexually on anyone -- whether they're not attracted to me or even if they are.

I have to be honest and say that I do resent you insinuation a bit, since I was at some pains to be clear. Perhaps you would be so kind as to go back and actually read what I wrote and then make the expected apology.

I did reread your post... and it STILL misrepresents what the GR says.

" If that is the Golden Rule that I followed, then I can think of quite a few things that I would have that attractive man do unto me -- and therefore that version of the GR suggests that I should therefore go right ahead and do those things "unto him.""

But of course it does NOT say you should go ahead and do those things unto him, since you would be pushing your unwanted sexual advances onto someone else, and you've already agreed that you have zero right to do so.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't steal people's stuff because I like to know I've earn what I possess. I don't care what they do.

My choice to not rape someone has nothing to do with a fear of being raped.

I do what I feel is right, regardless of what other people choose to or not to do.

My morality is not dependent on what other folks do. I don't expect their morals are dependent on my actions.

"I don't steal people's stuff because I like to know I've earn what I possess. I don't care what they do."

So apparently if you work hard at steeling other people's stuff, it's okay, because then you've 'earned' it? And somehow I seriously doubt that you 'don't care' if other people steel your stuff.

"My choice to not rape someone has nothing to do with a fear of being raped."

I never said you shouldn't rape others because you fear being rape. I said you shouldn't rape others because chances are that you wouldn't like someone else to rape you.

"My morality is not dependent on what other folks do. I don't expect their morals are dependent on my actions."

My morality isn't dependent upon what other people do either. It's based upon how I would want other people to treat me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Liberals always say they treat others like they would want to be treated more than conservatives do. Then comes their famous quote “I don’t tolerate intolerenace”(course most of it isn’t intolerance. It’s liberals putting their moralities as true morality and anything even slightly below is automatic bigotry, but I digress). Is this hypocrisy?

I prefer the version of the Golden Rule that states 'Don't do unto others as you don't want done to you.'
Less hypocrisy in that, I find.

But, semantics aside, I always find the use of the term 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' as completely overstated. It seems to make more sense in the light of US politics than elsewhere, but somehow we start framing all sorts of questions based on it.
The boxes are at once too broad, and too rigid.

Some 'liberals' simply aren't (liberal), no matter what they might self-proclaim. Nothing unique in that. I see the same thing with almost all identifiers used.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Some 'liberals' simply aren't (liberal), no matter what they might self-proclaim.

That is certainly true, and I say it as a self-acknowledge liberal. So-called liberals who seek to curtail the free speech of others for the sake of political correctness drive me crazy. I believe strongly in the right to freely express your opinion, stopping only at the right to incite others to do harm. I`m gay, and if somebody wants to say that they think being gay is some sort of sin -- well, though I certainly disagree with them, I still defend their right to say it.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I don't believe in the golden rule because it places an illusive wall between self and other

This is actually why the golden rule falls short of perfection. Don't speak of self doing to 'other' and you will act with the universal mind of inter-connectedness. Out of that mind, among other reasons- I am a liberal.

Conservatives on the other hand try to say in all kinds of ways that the suffering of others doesn't matter OR isn't on them, when it is. If you kept letting people suffer when you could have done better- you chose suffering. Not to mention perpetuating a political ideology that creates even more suffering.

Arguing for the goodness of greed and selfishness is actually where conservatism stands today and as a Buddhist- it has become that I cannot be a conservative. Because greed is a chief defilement/poison that leads to others. It isn't good.

An ideology that tells people they bear no responsibility to suffering and can keep having more while people die, or if they want to hurt others with oppressive laws and justify it with God it's okay- that is wrong. It's against everything the Buddha taught about cultivation of loving-kindness. That kind of ideology throws the world into hell.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I don't believe in the golden rule because it places an illusive wall between self and other

This is actually why the golden rule falls short of perfection. Don't speak of self doing to 'other' and you will act with the universal mind of inter-connectedness. Out of that mind, among other reasons- I am a liberal.

Conservatives on the other hand try to say in all kinds of ways that the suffering of others doesn't matter OR isn't on them, when it is. If you kept letting people suffer when you could have done better- you chose suffering. Not to mention perpetuating a political ideology that creates even more suffering.

Arguing for the goodness of greed and selfishness is actually where conservatism stands today and as a Buddhist- it has become that I cannot be a conservative. Because greed is a chief defilement/poison that leads to others. It isn't good.

An ideology that tells people they bear no responsibility to suffering and can keep having more while people die, or if they want to hurt others with oppressive laws and justify it with God it's okay- that is wrong. It's against everything the Buddha taught about cultivation of loving-kindness. That kind of ideology throws the world into hell.

Look when people in other countries suffer, and their own Government will not do anything to help their own people, Is that our place to do everything? No it's not ok

Which you make no common sense at all, not when you have people in your own country could use the help in bettering their lives. So therefore in helping the needy , you are doing what is right and good.

 

[metis]

To not do our best to help others violates the Golden Rule that Jesus taught. To say "Let someone else do it first" is not what Jesus taught. Christians risked their own lives to help others in the early church, and I wouldn't suggest that they just sat around saying "Let someone else do it first". The Sermon On the Mount teaches that a true believer in Jesus doesn't look for excuses not to help those truly in need.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Look when people in other countries suffer, and their own Government will not do anything to help their own people, Is that our place to do everything?

Won't or can't?

 

[Akivah]

"The hands of the king are the hands of a healer."

No, that was King Aragorn.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No.
Libertarians are never members of any "elite" group.
(Note that we don't want to be....just not invited.)

The silicon valley tech bro industry are self identifyng libertarians, wealthy elite, and also vile and cruel. Nobody's hands are clean.