Gyroscopic Investing

Gosso wrote: I agree that the situation is pretty much hopeless.  All we can really do is weep and ask for forgiveness.  We have opened Pandora's Box.

I think if we're wealthier that would certainly help. People with more resources are more likely to use birth control and less likely to have this situation. They are more likely to marry also.

I don't have the numbers in front of me....but I'm 100% certain that girls who grow up with dad in the home are much much less likely to get pregnant before marriage.

So how does the population get wealthier, have marriage and self responsibility become virtues again?

I think it has to start with the end of the handouts. Does anyone still think the handouts stem the tide of poverty or instead turn it into a tidal wave?

Kshartle wrote: So how does the population get wealthier, have marriage and self responsibility become virtues again?

I think it has to start with the end of the handouts. Does anyone still think the handouts stem the tide of poverty or instead turn it into a tidal wave?

Oh, just more than half the population.

I know that for many of you, I appear to have Christian blinders on and I'm sure that that is true no matter how hard I try to be objective ... however:

It sure seems to me we are reaping on so many fronts the consequences of a culture that has largely abandoned Christian ethics (regardless of whether or not one is a believer).  For example the things that are now being viewed as acceptable, if not outright championed by increasing numbers: sex outside of marriage, sex with the same sex, killing the unborn, living on welfare, celebrity life styles, ridding buildings of religious symbols, belittling those who make a lot of money, not valuing old people, getting ahead of the family next door, and on, and on, and on.  Just look at the threads we have been discussing ... everything from abortion to assisted suicide to white welfare.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: I know that for many of you, I appear to have Christian blinders on and I'm sure that that is true no matter how hard I try to be objective ... however:

It sure seems to me we are reaping on so many fronts the consequences of a culture that has largely abandoned Christian ethics (regardless of whether or not one is a believer).  For example the things that are now being viewed as acceptable, if not outright championed by increasing numbers: sex outside of marriage, sex with the same sex, killing the unborn, living on welfare, celebrity life styles, ridding buildings of religious symbols, belittling those who make a lot of money, not valuing old people, getting ahead of the family next door, and on, and on, and on.  Just look at the threads we have been discussing ... everything from abortion to assisted suicide to white welfare.

... Mountaineer

Those who aren't believers in Christianity almost by definition don't care about Christian ethics.

As for me, I care a lot about the Golden Rule, which of course predates Christianity by centuries.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I know that for many of you, I appear to have Christian blinders on and I'm sure that that is true no matter how hard I try to be objective ... however:

It sure seems to me we are reaping on so many fronts the consequences of a culture that has largely abandoned Christian ethics (regardless of whether or not one is a believer).  For example the things that are now being viewed as acceptable, if not outright championed by increasing numbers: sex outside of marriage, sex with the same sex, killing the unborn, living on welfare, celebrity life styles, ridding buildings of religious symbols, belittling those who make a lot of money, not valuing old people, getting ahead of the family next door, and on, and on, and on.  Just look at the threads we have been discussing ... everything from abortion to assisted suicide to white welfare.

... Mountaineer

Those who aren't believers in Christianity almost by definition don't care about Christian ethics.

As for me, I care a lot about the Golden Rule, which of course predates Christianity by centuries.

My bad.  I should have said the teachings of Christian ethics, regardless of what one wishes to call them.  As you so adroitly point out, just the word "Christian" is another of those items many in our culture want abolished. 

On a humorous side, the golden rule is:  He who holds the gold makes the rules.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I know that for many of you, I appear to have Christian blinders on and I'm sure that that is true no matter how hard I try to be objective ... however:

It sure seems to me we are reaping on so many fronts the consequences of a culture that has largely abandoned Christian ethics (regardless of whether or not one is a believer).  For example the things that are now being viewed as acceptable, if not outright championed by increasing numbers: sex outside of marriage, sex with the same sex, killing the unborn, living on welfare, celebrity life styles, ridding buildings of religious symbols, belittling those who make a lot of money, not valuing old people, getting ahead of the family next door, and on, and on, and on.  Just look at the threads we have been discussing ... everything from abortion to assisted suicide to white welfare.

... Mountaineer

Those who aren't believers in Christianity almost by definition don't care about Christian ethics.

As for me, I care a lot about the Golden Rule, which of course predates Christianity by centuries.

My bad.  I should have said the teachings of Christian ethics, regardless of what one wishes to call them.  As you so adroitly point out, just the word "Christian" is another of those items many in our culture want abolished. 

On a humorous side, the golden rule is:  He who holds the gold makes the rules.

... Mountaineer

The Golden Rule is just too vague.  What if I'm a masochist?  What if I have different values?  What if someone is not deserving of what I expect to be done onto me (does a mass-murderer deserve to be treated by his victims' families as those people would "want" to be treated)?

It's a good place to start, as it attempts to short-circuit crude selfishness, which is the feeling we're most likely to possess in tough situations... but it's just too damn vague in many pressing issues that involve a moral decision to be made.

moda0306 wrote: The Golden Rule is just too vague.  What if I'm a masochist?  What if I have different values?  What if someone is not deserving of what I expect to be done onto me (does a mass-murderer deserve to be treated by his victims' families as those people would "want" to be treated)?

It's a good place to start, as it attempts to short-circuit crude selfishness, which is the feeling we're most likely to possess in tough situations... but it's just too damn vague in many pressing issues that involve a moral decision to be made.

I think you're splitting hairs a little bit. The intent of the Golden Rule clearly isn't to treat everyone else like they are identical copies of ourselves. The Golden Rule implores us simply to step outside of ourselves in an honest attempt to see things from the other person's point of view before we act. It asks us to treat other people like other human beings similar to ourselves, not like worthless animals or lower-than-scum outsiders.

The Golden Rule isn't a concrete, step-by-step guide to doing the right thing in every possible situation. Similarly, a compass doesn't give a hiker step-by-step directions for finding his way out of a forest. Think of the Golden Rule as a type of moral compass.

Tortoise wrote:

moda0306 wrote: The Golden Rule is just too vague.  What if I'm a masochist?  What if I have different values?  What if someone is not deserving of what I expect to be done onto me (does a mass-murderer deserve to be treated by his victims' families as those people would "want" to be treated)?

It's a good place to start, as it attempts to short-circuit crude selfishness, which is the feeling we're most likely to possess in tough situations... but it's just too damn vague in many pressing issues that involve a moral decision to be made.

I think you're splitting hairs a little bit. The intent of the Golden Rule clearly isn't to treat everyone else like they are identical copies of ourselves. The Golden Rule implores us simply to step outside of ourselves in an honest attempt to see things from the other person's point of view before we act. It asks us to treat other people like other human beings similar to ourselves, not like worthless animals or lower-than-scum outsiders.

The Golden Rule isn't a concrete, step-by-step guide to doing the right thing in every possible situation. Similarly, a compass doesn't give a hiker step-by-step directions for finding his way out of a forest. Think of the Golden Rule as a type of moral compass.

That's pretty perfectly put.

However, I think there is a ton of moral debate to continue to have after we've established that one guiding principal.  Some here seem to think that this is all we need to guide our actions around individual freedom and property.  It's a good place to start, but at some point we have to move beyond it into areas that beg more questions.

Louis C.K. - If Murder Was Legal (3:25)

I agree with Louis, it seems a lot of us need help to be able to follow the Golden Rule or Moral Law.  I think the reason is because it is so easy to rationally explain the problem away and only focus on ourselves.  We are extremely self-centered creatures.  Zeus help us.

More pure gold from Louis CK on Selfishness (10 minutes).

Pointedstick wrote:

dualstow wrote: If it's legal, then why call it murder?

Maybe it's like how some people think Trayvon Martin was murdered. What the law actually says is secondary to what they feel the law should say.

I've been thinking about this more, PS.  I think the difference is that folks who say Trayvon Martin was murdered are reacting reflexively without looking at the facts.  Or, they believe something different from what the jury believed, in terms of who feared for his life when, what the motivations were, etc, which would in fact make the situation meet the legal definition of murder.

Folks saying that abortion is murder are arguing for a change in the law.  I don't think anybody in the Trayvon situation is arguing that it shouldn't be legal to defend yourself against deadly force.

Xan wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

dualstow wrote: If it's legal, then why call it murder?

Maybe it's like how some people think Trayvon Martin was murdered. What the law actually says is secondary to what they feel the law should say.

I've been thinking about this more, PS.  I think the difference is that folks who say Trayvon Martin was murdered are reacting reflexively without looking at the facts.  Or, they believe something different from what the jury believed, in terms of who feared for his life when, what the motivations were, etc, which would in fact make the situation meet the legal definition of murder.

Folks saying that abortion is murder are arguing for a change in the law.  I don't think anybody in the Trayvon situation is arguing that it shouldn't be legal to defend yourself against deadly force.

Maybe not (although you might be surprised), but they are arguing that Trayvon Martin wasn't presenting deadly force, or at least wasn't the one to initiate it. They jury came to a different conclusion, but what if they were wrong? It's not like there was a video, and it was raining. It's definitely one of those "beyond a reasonable doubt" situations much more than a "duh, next case bailiff!" ones.

I think there are a lot of parallels to abortion, in fact. As with the Martin situation, there are disputes about a crucial fact (who started it, when life begins) upon which the moral legitimacy of the act completely rests. And as with the Martin situation, none of us can actually know those facts so most of us reach our own conclusion based on our own gut feelings (Martin was a thug, a blastocyst doesn't look like a human, etc).

Gosso wrote: Louis C.K. - If Murder Was Legal (3:25)

I agree with Louis, it seems a lot of us need help to be able to follow the Golden Rule or Moral Law.  I think the reason is because it is so easy to rationally explain the problem away and only focus on ourselves.  We are extremely self-centered creatures.  Zeus help us.

I may disagree with you on religion, but on base human nature, I agree 100%.  It would be like The Walking Dead.  In fact we have evidence of this... Pre-civilization mankind.

Gosso wrote: Louis C.K. - If Murder Was Legal (3:25)

I like Louis so much, I made him my avatar earlier in the week. :-)

dualstow wrote:

Gosso wrote: Louis C.K. - If Murder Was Legal (3:25)

I like Louis so much, I made him my avatar earlier in the week. :-)

Ha!  I just noticed that.  The thing I admire most about Louis is that he admits that he does and thinks horrible things.  He then turns this into humor which forces us to confront our own horribleness.

moda0306 wrote:

Gosso wrote: Louis C.K. - If Murder Was Legal (3:25)

I agree with Louis, it seems a lot of us need help to be able to follow the Golden Rule or Moral Law.  I think the reason is because it is so easy to rationally explain the problem away and only focus on ourselves.  We are extremely self-centered creatures.  Zeus help us.

I may disagree with you on religion, but on base human nature, I agree 100%.  It would be like The Walking Dead.  In fact we have evidence of this... Pre-civilization mankind.

But weren't per-civilization mankind also deeply religious; they completely believed there were Gods watching over them (they had the fear of God).  I personally think that the Moral Law or Golden Rule is one of the strangest mysteries in the Universe.  Here is a quote from Immanuel Kant:

Immanuel Kant wrote:“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence."

Why does every single human being seem to be aware of some form of the Golden Rule?  I agree some people have polished their moral compass more than others, but there is no doubt something pushing down on every human to "be good".  But an even stranger thing is that almost nobody is "good", or if they are it is mostly superficial, only to satisfy themselves.  The Golden Rule pushes against our natural evolutionary instinct to think only for ourselves.  It is a constant war inside of our own minds. 

We admire saints and hate tyrants.  The saint has placed the Golden Rule at the center of their life, while the tyrant has placed their enormous ego at the center of their life.

For me this is one of strongest clues to their being a purpose or meaning behind the Universe.  IMO we should fear and love the Golden Rule, not just think it is a lovely concept that is impossible to follow.  But this requires a partial or complete sacrifice of the ego, which is not easy, maybe even impossible in today's culture.

Gosso wrote: Why does every single human being seem to be aware of some form of the Golden Rule?  I agree some people have polished their moral compass more than others, but there is no doubt something pushing down on every human to "be good".  But an even stranger thing is that almost nobody is "good", or if they are it is mostly superficial, only to satisfy themselves.  The Golden Rule pushes against our natural evolutionary instinct to think only for ourselves.  It is a constant war inside of our own minds. 

We admire saints and hate tyrants.  The saint has placed the Golden Rule at the center of their life, while the tyrant has placed their enormous ego at the center of their life.

For me this is one of strongest clues to their being a purpose or meaning behind the Universe.  IMO we should fear and love the Golden Rule, not just think it is a lovely concept that is impossible to follow.  But this requires a partial or complete sacrifice of the ego, which is not easy, maybe even impossible in today's culture.

This is pretty fascinating, gosso. It's a lot to think about.

Gosso wrote: But weren't per-civilization mankind also deeply religious; they completely believed there were Gods watching over them (they had the fear of God).  I personally think that the Moral Law or Golden Rule is one of the strangest mysteries in the Universe.  Here is a quote from Immanuel Kant:

Immanuel Kant wrote:“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence."

Why does every single human being seem to be aware of some form of the Golden Rule?  I agree some people have polished their moral compass more than others, but there is no doubt something pushing down on every human to "be good".  But an even stranger thing is that almost nobody is "good", or if they are it is mostly superficial, only to satisfy themselves.  The Golden Rule pushes against our natural evolutionary instinct to think only for ourselves.  It is a constant war inside of our own minds. 

We admire saints and hate tyrants.  The saint has placed the Golden Rule at the center of their life, while the tyrant has placed their enormous ego at the center of their life.

For me this is one of strongest clues to their being a purpose or meaning behind the Universe.  IMO we should fear and love the Golden Rule, not just think it is a lovely concept that is impossible to follow.  But this requires a partial or complete sacrifice of the ego, which is not easy, maybe even impossible in today's culture.

I actually don't find it that hard to follow the Golden Rule, because I believe that what you do is what will be done to you, as a law of nature, although sometimes there is a time lag. Thus, being mean or vicious, or even merely disregarding the effects of my actions on others, will harm me.

My real question is why others don't see this. I want to say, "Look around you and see who is happy. Is it the liars, cheaters and thieves, or the honest people? So then why would you want to violate the Golden Rule?"

Libertarian666 wrote:

Gosso wrote: But weren't per-civilization mankind also deeply religious; they completely believed there were Gods watching over them (they had the fear of God).  I personally think that the Moral Law or Golden Rule is one of the strangest mysteries in the Universe.  Here is a quote from Immanuel Kant:

Immanuel Kant wrote:“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence."

Why does every single human being seem to be aware of some form of the Golden Rule?  I agree some people have polished their moral compass more than others, but there is no doubt something pushing down on every human to "be good".  But an even stranger thing is that almost nobody is "good", or if they are it is mostly superficial, only to satisfy themselves.  The Golden Rule pushes against our natural evolutionary instinct to think only for ourselves.  It is a constant war inside of our own minds. 

We admire saints and hate tyrants.  The saint has placed the Golden Rule at the center of their life, while the tyrant has placed their enormous ego at the center of their life.

For me this is one of strongest clues to their being a purpose or meaning behind the Universe.  IMO we should fear and love the Golden Rule, not just think it is a lovely concept that is impossible to follow.  But this requires a partial or complete sacrifice of the ego, which is not easy, maybe even impossible in today's culture.

I actually don't find it that hard to follow the Golden Rule, because I believe that what you are is what you see around you. Thus, being mean or vicious, or even merely disregarding the effects of my actions on others, will harm me.

My real question is why others don't see this. I want to say, "Look around you and see who is happy. Is it the liars, cheaters and thieves, or the honest people? So then why would you want to violate the Golden Rule?"

You're just acting in your own self-interest in a rationale way.

I'm not a fan of the golden rule as a moral code or standard, for some of the reasons Moda brought up which I agree with. I'm a fan of rationale self-interest and a respect for the rights of others (property and personal).

Kshartle wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

Gosso wrote: But weren't per-civilization mankind also deeply religious; they completely believed there were Gods watching over them (they had the fear of God).  I personally think that the Moral Law or Golden Rule is one of the strangest mysteries in the Universe.  Here is a quote from Immanuel Kant:
Why does every single human being seem to be aware of some form of the Golden Rule?  I agree some people have polished their moral compass more than others, but there is no doubt something pushing down on every human to "be good".  But an even stranger thing is that almost nobody is "good", or if they are it is mostly superficial, only to satisfy themselves.  The Golden Rule pushes against our natural evolutionary instinct to think only for ourselves.  It is a constant war inside of our own minds. 

We admire saints and hate tyrants.  The saint has placed the Golden Rule at the center of their life, while the tyrant has placed their enormous ego at the center of their life.

For me this is one of strongest clues to their being a purpose or meaning behind the Universe.  IMO we should fear and love the Golden Rule, not just think it is a lovely concept that is impossible to follow.  But this requires a partial or complete sacrifice of the ego, which is not easy, maybe even impossible in today's culture.

I actually don't find it that hard to follow the Golden Rule, because I believe that what you are is what you see around you. Thus, being mean or vicious, or even merely disregarding the effects of my actions on others, will harm me.

My real question is why others don't see this. I want to say, "Look around you and see who is happy. Is it the liars, cheaters and thieves, or the honest people? So then why would you want to violate the Golden Rule?"

You're just acting in your own self-interest in a rationale way.

I'm not a fan of the golden rule as a moral code or standard, for some of the reasons Moda brought up which I agree with. I'm a fan of rationale self-interest and a respect for the rights of others (property and personal).

Sorry, I don't see Moda's posts, so I don't know what points he brought up that you agree with.

But how is rational self-interest, or respect for the rights of others in conflict with the Golden Rule? I don't see that either.

Libertarian666 wrote:
I actually don't find it that hard to follow the Golden Rule, because I believe that what you are is what you see around you. Thus, being mean or vicious, or even merely disregarding the effects of my actions on others, will harm me.

My real question is why others don't see this. I want to say, "Look around you and see who is happy. Is it the liars, cheaters and thieves, or the honest people? So then why would you want to violate the Golden Rule?"

I agree with you that it is reasonably easy to follow the Golden Rule IF I only focus on my outward behavior and the outward behavior of others.  Where it becomes more difficult for me is what is in my heart.  For example, I have to ask myself questions like these:

Have I been angry with that person?  Do I secretly wish I had his possessions?  Do I honor them to others or in my thoughts when they are not around, do I speak behind their back or cast suspicions upon them?  Do I build them up or tear them down in my mind?  Do I love them with zero expectation of them loving me first?  Do I feel that I am superior to that person because I "see the light" when they appear to be in darkness?  Do I feel my values are superior to theirs?  Have I ever in my mind cursed another?  Do I want to treat my neighbor with kindness even though he may be of a different religion, or have no religion other than himself?  Do I REALLY follow the Golden Rule?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:
I actually don't find it that hard to follow the Golden Rule, because I believe that what you are is what you see around you. Thus, being mean or vicious, or even merely disregarding the effects of my actions on others, will harm me.

My real question is why others don't see this. I want to say, "Look around you and see who is happy. Is it the liars, cheaters and thieves, or the honest people? So then why would you want to violate the Golden Rule?"

I agree with you that it is reasonably easy to follow the Golden Rule IF I only focus on my outward behavior and the outward behavior of others.  Where it becomes more difficult for me is what is in my heart.  For example, I have to ask myself questions like these:

Have I been angry with that person?  Do I secretly wish I had his possessions?  Do I honor them to others or in my thoughts when they are not around, do I speak behind their back or cast suspicions upon them?  Do I build them up or tear them down in my mind?  Do I love them with zero expectation of them loving me first?  Do I feel that I am superior to that person because I "see the light" when they appear to be in darkness?  Do I feel my values are superior to theirs?  Have I ever in my mind cursed another?  Do I want to treat my neighbor with kindness even though he may be of a different religion, or have no religion other than himself?  Do I REALLY follow the Golden Rule?

... Mountaineer

You are overcomplicating the application of the Golden Rule. It says that we should behave toward others the way we want them to behave towards us, not that we must feel a specific way about them.

Or as Rabbi Hillel said:
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder)

The only requirement is right action, so you can relax about your feelings. :-)

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:
I actually don't find it that hard to follow the Golden Rule, because I believe that what you are is what you see around you. Thus, being mean or vicious, or even merely disregarding the effects of my actions on others, will harm me.

My real question is why others don't see this. I want to say, "Look around you and see who is happy. Is it the liars, cheaters and thieves, or the honest people? So then why would you want to violate the Golden Rule?"

I agree with you that it is reasonably easy to follow the Golden Rule IF I only focus on my outward behavior and the outward behavior of others.  Where it becomes more difficult for me is what is in my heart.  For example, I have to ask myself questions like these:

Have I been angry with that person?  Do I secretly wish I had his possessions?  Do I honor them to others or in my thoughts when they are not around, do I speak behind their back or cast suspicions upon them?  Do I build them up or tear them down in my mind?  Do I love them with zero expectation of them loving me first?  Do I feel that I am superior to that person because I "see the light" when they appear to be in darkness?  Do I feel my values are superior to theirs?  Have I ever in my mind cursed another?  Do I want to treat my neighbor with kindness even though he may be of a different religion, or have no religion other than himself?  Do I REALLY follow the Golden Rule?

... Mountaineer

You are overcomplicating the application of the Golden Rule. It says that we should behave toward others the way we want them to behave towards us, not that we must feel a specific way about them.

Or as Rabbi Hillel said:
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder)

The only requirement is right action, so you can relax about your feelings. :-)

I respect your opinion as applied to you.  For me, that is why I worded my comments as applying to only me - I see the intent of the Golden Rule as expressed in Luke 6:31 which does not limit the saying to action only.  I care very much as to what is in my heart as that is what leads to my actions.  And, for what it is worth, I do not see Rabbi Hillel's statement as limiting the rule to action only (I interpret the word "do" as applying to ones mind, heart - not just hands).

... Mountaineer

Pointedstick wrote:

Gosso wrote: Why does every single human being seem to be aware of some form of the Golden Rule?  I agree some people have polished their moral compass more than others, but there is no doubt something pushing down on every human to "be good".  But an even stranger thing is that almost nobody is "good", or if they are it is mostly superficial, only to satisfy themselves.  The Golden Rule pushes against our natural evolutionary instinct to think only for ourselves.  It is a constant war inside of our own minds. 

We admire saints and hate tyrants.  The saint has placed the Golden Rule at the center of their life, while the tyrant has placed their enormous ego at the center of their life.

For me this is one of strongest clues to their being a purpose or meaning behind the Universe.  IMO we should fear and love the Golden Rule, not just think it is a lovely concept that is impossible to follow.  But this requires a partial or complete sacrifice of the ego, which is not easy, maybe even impossible in today's culture.

This is pretty fascinating, gosso. It's a lot to think about.

That was essentially a summary of the first 32 pages of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.  Don't let the word Christianity throw you off, this is not Glenn Beck's or Bill O'Reilly's Christianity (I know I shouldn't judge, but I'm new at this).  This is for the thinking person interested in discovering the depths of meaning in the Universe and their own life.

Reading C.S. Lewis’s Christian apologetics is like joining a fight club and having the shit kicked out of you, yet it somehow feels right.

Libertarian666 wrote: But how is rational self-interest, or respect for the rights of others in conflict with the Golden Rule? I don't see that either.

In the case of people who like to be treated badly.

For instance...My office is next a woman with an Obama poster up (swear to God). She has told me she loves authority, rules, the government etc. She said if one kid has two cookies and the other kid has none she thinks its our duty to take from one and give to the other. (swear to God).

This is her mentality and how she likes things......

She thinks the government is the parent and we are all kids and our money is our cookie(s). She likes to be treated like a child who is told what to do by her father Obama and she insists that we all be treated that way.

That's why the "golden rule" to me is not fully consistent with respect for the rights of others. She doesn't have a moral code. She justifies the means by pointing to the ends, like many do, and what she likes (communisim basically) she insists is good for everyone else.

The "golden rule" is subjective. For you and me I think it's fine. There are plenty of people though I don't want treating me the way they like to be treated.

Moda mentioned masochists which is extreme but I think illustrates the point that personal preference as a basis for a moral code or code of behavior is insufficient.

Desert wrote:

Gosso wrote: That was essentially a summary of the first 32 pages of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.  Don't let the word Christianity throw you off, this is not Glenn Beck's or Bill O'Reilly's Christianity (I know I shouldn't judge, but I'm new at this).  This is for the thinking person interested in discovering the depths of meaning in the Universe and their own life.

Reading C.S. Lewis’s Christian apologetics is like joining a fight club and having the shit kicked out of you, yet it somehow feels right.

  I like that!

Me too.  Have either of you read the Screwtape Letters?  Good insightful read.

.... Mountaineer