Leave us alone

[Youkilledkenny]

Big proponent here of 'live and let live'. So long as your actions don't directly impact me & my family in a negative way, I don't much care how you live your life.
If you want to talk to burning bushes, have at it.
If you want to shop only on Sunday, go for it.
Mary and Beth that lives on the other side of the country wants to get married? Better you than me so enjoy.
Want to smoke 172 packs of cigs a day? Gross but ok - just don't blow the smoke on me.
If you wasn't to stand on your roof on one leg in a purple dress waiting for the cashmul equinox knock yourself out.
Why is it that Christians find the need to make society that we all share (muslim, jew, agnostic, atheists, satanists, scientologists, worshippers of the blood diamond - whatever) try to fit their paradigm?
Is it arrogance in thinking your way is the only right way?
Are you trying to make the world a 'better place'?
Do you just like forcing your beliefs on others thinking it will but you into God's good graces and eventually heaven?
Or are you hiding behind a belief in order to be a jerk?

Why can't you, the Christian, live and answer for your life while allowing everyone else to do the same?
What makes your life and belief so special that it supersedes everyone else's?

[tam]

[Replying to post 44 by tam]

Did you read my whole post, Blastcat?

Nope.. I stopped there.
Lets deal with one thing at a time.

I sometimes reply to EACH and every utterance from my interlocutor.
I've begun to realize that not everyone replies to MY replies and so on.

So, I'm experimenting with a new technique.
And that is, as SOON as I find a snag.. I stop right there.


I am TRYING to reduce the awful LENGTH of my posts.

Then there is nothing for me to respond to in your post right now.


You don't have to respond to each and every point, Blastcat, in order to reduce the length of your own posts. But you might consider READING the entire post first, to make sure you have not missed the point.

Read my entire post and you will understand.


Peace again to you!

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 51 by tam]

Then there is nothing for me to respond to in your post right now.

And yet you respond.

I can dig it if you have nothing to say, tam.
I'm quite used to that.

[tam]

[Replying to post 40 by Blastcat]

Nothing is odd, because the platinum rule has a very big weakness.

"I want to be treated with respect and awe. I want you to treat me as though I am perfect, and I want you to obey my every command; I want you to never argue with me and always agree with me. When I ask you for something, I want you to get it for me.

That is how I want to be treated.

I want to be on a debate forum and I want everyone to treat me as though I am right all the time; in fact I want to be treated as though I am the expert in everything."

(Ok, so I would absolutely HATE to be treated like that... but there are some people out there who DO want to be treated like that. According to the platinum rule, you have to do that for them)

The golden rule is not surpassed by the platinum rule.

Not at all. The Platinum rule does not say we MUST treat a person the way they want to be treated. Neither is the golden rule saying we MUST do unto others as we would have them do unto us. It's simply a guideline.

Then what is the problem?

We are not expected to violate our own principles or hurt ourselves to follow any of those two rules.

We are not expected to violate our own (or others') principles or hurt ourselves (or others) to follow the golden rule.


Yes?


So then what is the problem?

Your logic would also apply to the golden rule.

And so how does the platinum rule then surpass the golden rule? Because that was the claim. If both rules can (and probably are/will be) exploited by people, then how is one surpassing the other?


How is it weakness in the rule, rather than a weakness in the people doing the exploiting.


Because I understand the spirit of the platinum rule, and have no problem with the rule itself; though I think the golden rule covers it. But people see a way for others to exploit the golden rule, and all of a sudden it is a problem with the golden rule (or rather, a problem with the person who gave the golden rule).

"I want to be treated with respect and awe. I want you to treat me as though I am perfect, and I want you to obey my every command; I want you to never argue with me and always agree with me. When I ask you for something, I want you to get it for me."

Thus if we apply the golden rule then we should treat everyone else with respect and awe (what if they are a despicable person?), we should obey everyone elses commands (really should we even if they want us to sin?) We should never argue with anyone (seriously? Even when their actions would be harmful to others?), we should always agree with everyone (what if they are blatantly wrong?) We should give everyone everything they ask for? (Are you serious? What if they want you to have sex with them?)

These are problems of the platinum rule. Ridiculous I agree, because such things are abuse/exploitation.

Just as some will abuse/exploit the golden rule.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...

Treating others with respect is not an issue. Treating someone with respect does not mean that you agree with them or that you allow them to harm you or have their way with you.

so the golden rule fails in exactly the same way you claim the platinum rule fails.

The platinum rule is way superior.

If the platinum rule can be exploited by someone, and you say the golden rule has the same weakness, how exactly does that make one rule superior to the other rule?

It gets us to think about the differences in others. It gets us to realise that not everyone thinks like we do.

Do you want people to assume that you think like they do?


Then don't assume others think like you do.



Covered by the golden rule.

THINKING gets me to understand that according to the golden rule, if I do not want to be forced into eating or doing or believing or saying something, then I cannot force someone else into eating or doing or believing or saying something. If I want to be shown respect when discussing my faith, then I must show respect to others when discussing their faith.

The golden rule only gets you to think about whats important to you and then impose your values onto others. It presumes everyone is like you.

Disagree, for reasons already stated.

If I would like to be shown respect in general (which does not mean agreement), I must show respect to others also.

And exactly what forms of respect should we be employing here? You will find that what is respect to one person is not considered respect to another. How do we apply the golden rule so that we don't unintentionally disrespect someone?

Learn about others.


Indeed, that is a sign of respect; that you bothered enough TO learn about them, rather than just assume that they should conform to what you say is the norm; or what is respectful, etc.

For instance, we might come from a culture where it is disrespectful to burp at a table after having eaten a wonderful meal. However in another culture it would be disrespectful NOT to burp after a wonderful meal.

Therefore, one should learn.

But people cannot learn everything and will find themselves in situations where they do things that would be considered disrespectful. People will often make exceptions for those who do not know (perhaps hoping that exceptions would be made for them if the situation was reversed - again golden rule). Love covers these things as well.

Hopefully someone will realize (especially if the blunder is big enough) that the person showing unintentional disrespect should be informed of their error. Not in a mean way, but in a respectful way so that the person can choose to be respectful from then on.


Some people will be offended by being corrected, but that is on them. Especially if the correcting is done in a respectful manner.

If we apply the golden rule in this situation, we've just offended our hosts. If we apply the platinum rule, we have respected our hosts.

No.

If you want your cultural norms to be respected in your house, then respect the cultural norms of others when you are in their house.

Again, covered by the golden rule.

With the platinum rule we have it sussed. We understand that other people want to be respected and we look at THEIR values. We look and we see what they would consider respect and we change our own behaviour to suit.

And what if you are in a situation where you do not know the culture of another person?

The golden rule does not preclude learning others' cultures, including what is and is not respectful in that culture.

It's the platinum rule that allows us to fit in with other cultures. If we applied the golden rule, we wouldn't fit into other cultures quite so well.
When we impose the golden rule on other cultures we often end up violated other cultures.

Who said anything about imposing a rule upon another culture? Would you want another culture to impose their rules upon you?


(to the extent that others not harm us, yes, I imagine we all expect others to live by that rule - spoken or unspoken)

THINKING shows me immediately the error in your platinum rule. Because some people want to be treated in a way that will infringe upon mine and others' rights and well being.

Thinking should show you that the error you see in the platinum rule is ten times more of a problem when it comes to the golden rule. With the golden rule you are forcing your values onto others. That is why we have seen religions like Christianity crush many other religions, because they think everyone should think the way they do.

Christianity does not do that because they are following the golden rule ... indeed they are IGNORING the golden rule when they do that, because they would not want others to crush their religion or force them to think the way other cultures might think.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 53 by tam]



[center]Not seeing any problem[/center]

Then what is the problem?

Some people don't WANT to be treated the way that others want.

Some people want to be preached to.
A LOT.


[center]SOME people want to be left ALONE.[/center]

[tam]

[Replying to post 53 by tam]



[center]Not seeing any problem[/center]

Then what is the problem?

Some people don't WANT to be treated the way that others want.

Some people want to be preached to.
A LOT.


[center]SOME people want to be left ALONE.[/center]

When you read my post, Blastcat - the one that you did not read all the way - then we will have something to talk about on this topic.


Until then, we do not. Because you have NO IDEA what I said in response to the "platinum rule is superior and was thought up by someone smarter than [Jesus]" claim.




Peace again.

[otseng]

I can dig it if you have nothing to say, tam.
I'm quite used to that.

Moderator Final Warning

Please avoid the personal attacks.

I read through the chain and by your own admission, you did not read through tam's post. You do not have to respond to everything in a post, but you should attempt to get the full context and not quote mine.

Your post by itself was not an egregious violation of the rules, but you have accumulated quite a history of warnings. This serves as your final warning.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[bluethread]

So, we are going to use the reasonable man standard. You are aware that is a judgement call and not a statutory standard?

Why is that a problem, the courts appeal to judgement calls all the time.

Well, the reasonable man standard is a standard for determining negligence in criminal law and expectation in contract law. It is not used with regard to what products and services must be provided, but the qualitative standards that should be applied IF a particular product or service is provided. None the less, let's proceed.

Well, I know of no one who refused to sell what they make to anyone.

The law is for those instances where they don't.

However, that is not what is being argued. They baker's were being required to alter their products and services for no reason other than customer preference.

What I have heard about is people requiring someone to alter what one makes in a way that is equivalent to asking a Glatt Kosher deli to serve cheeseburgers, if not pulled pork sandwiches, at an voodoo ritual.

Why would pulled pork be on the menu at a Kosher deli? What makes cheeseburgers non Glatt Kosher?

If a Glatt Kosher deli happens to serve cheeseburgers and pulled pork sandwiches, they are legally obligated to sell it to people who intent to eat it at an voodoo ritual.

That is the point. Glatt Kosher does not mix meat and dairy together, not because they do not have meat and dairy products. They just do not serve them together as a matter of conscience. Also, I did not say sell, I said serve, which is what was being required of the baker's. Some one is free to go into a Glatt deli buy a cheese burger and buy cheese separately and then put the cheese on the hamburger themselves. Now, I have explained Glatt so that the analogy could be understood. So, please explain what makes a wedding cake "gay", so we can properly examine the argument you are making.

I am a free market person, so I think people should not be required to sell anything to anybody. However, if the Mission district of San Francisco were to pass such an ordinance, that would make much more sense than a federal mandate. The first recognizes the culture of the community, the latter is just draconian oppression.

Are all federal mandates automatically draconian? There are some 20,000 federal legislations, including many that deals with human rights.

No, not all federal mandates are draconian. We are not talking about those other 20,000 some laws. We are talking about requiring all bakers to provide a particular product. That is draconian. If the federal government required all bakeries to make matzah, would that not be draconian?

Well, in these United States, the government must have a compelling national interest. What is the compelling national interest in this case.

The rights of its citizens.

What rights? The right to force people to do things they do not usually do, in the way I want them done? Where is that a right?

In other words, as the OP puts it, why can't they just leave us alone?

Because they have a mandate and duty to protect the rights of its citizen. They will leave you alone if you are not threaten the rights of its citizen.

How is not doing something threatening someone rights?

However, the latter is a good that the vendor does not make, presuming a "gay" cake is any different from any other cake.

Why would you make that presumption?

Because those were the facts of the actual case that brought this issue to the fore.

Why can't the customer just buy a regular wedding cake and make it "gay"?

It is a regular cake. The problem is certain bakers won't sell cake to customers knowing what purpose the customer had in mind.

Example please? If that is the case, I agree. However, if there was anything required beyond handing someone a generic wedding cake, that is not the case.

By the way, what makes a cake "gay"?

The occasion where the cake is consumed.

How is that the vendor knows where the cake is being consumed?

[Bust Nak]

However, that is not what is being argued. They baker's were being required to alter their products and services for no reason other than customer preference.

I am not sure where you are getting that impression from. The whole issue is about a baker not providing an existing service to a gay couple because of their sexuality (or the expression thereof.)

That is the point. Glatt Kosher does not mix meat and dairy together, not because they do not have meat and dairy products. They just do not serve them together as a matter of conscience. Also, I did not say sell, I said serve, which is what was being required of the baker's. Some one is free to go into a Glatt deli buy a cheese burger and buy cheese separately and then put the cheese on the hamburger themselves.

Had that was the case there would be no law suits, let alone ones ended in defeat for the companies sued.

No, not all federal mandates are draconian. We are not talking about those other 20,000 some laws. We are talking about requiring all bakers to provide a particular product.

No we are not. We are talking about requiring all bakers to provide existing product without discrimination.

If the federal government required all bakeries to make matzah, would that not be draconian?

Sure, but that's moot since that's not what we are talking about.

What rights? The right to force people to do things they do not usually do, in the way I want them done? Where is that a right?

Depends on what these "things" are exact. The right I am referring to, is the right to be free from discriminate on a range of grounds including gender, race, sexuality, religion, and other protected status.

How is not doing something threatening someone rights?

That depends exactly on what that something they are not doing is.

Because those were the facts of the actual case that brought this issue to the fore.

That appears to be a falsehood.

Example please?

Here is the latest example I found off the internet.

If that is the case, I agree. However, if there was anything required beyond handing someone a generic wedding cake, that is not the case.

Does delivery to the venue crosses the line of handing over a generic wedding cake? Or perhaps writing the names of two chaps on it make it less than generic? Does sticking two male figurines on it crosses that line?

How is that the vendor knows where the cake is being consumed?

Don't know. Presumably the customer in question mentioned it.

[bluethread]

Example please?

Here is the latest example I found off the internet.

Based on the information in that article, I would say that it is illegal. However, since I believe in free markets, I do not think it is necessary.

If that is the case, I agree. However, if there was anything required beyond handing someone a generic wedding cake, that is not the case.

Does delivery to the venue crosses the line of handing over a generic wedding cake? Or perhaps writing the names of two chaps on it make it less than generic? Does sticking two male figurines on it crosses that line?

These are services that are not necessarily provided by the vendor. This also gets us close to creative license. Would it also be illegal discrimination for a song writer to refuse to write a song for a "gay" wedding? Can a singer be compelled to sing that song? Can a photographer be compelled to photograph the wedding? Can a painter be compelled to paint a portrait of the couple? Can a playwrite be compelled to write a play about the wedding? In any or all of these cases, can the professional be guilty of illegal discrimination, if the product is not specific to and/or supportive of the gender, race, sexuality, religion, and other protected status? Is a sculptor obligated to make and sell idols?

How is that the vendor knows where the cake is being consumed?

Don't know. Presumably the customer in question mentioned it.

Well, the customer could have been lying. As long as the customer is not confessing to doing something that is illegal, the vendor should have just blown it off and sold them the cake. That said, what about a customer that asks a clerk at a Catholic supply store to sell her a crucifix that she could use in preforming a sex act?

[OnceConvinced]

We are not expected to violate our own principles or hurt ourselves to follow any of those two rules.

We are not expected to violate our own (or others') principles or hurt ourselves (or others) to follow the golden rule.


Yes?

So then what is the problem?

The problem with the golden rule is that you could unwittingly hurt other people. It is imposing your values and your beliefs on others. You don't see that as a problem?

Your logic would also apply to the golden rule.

And so how does the platinum rule then surpass the golden rule? Because that was the claim. If both rules can (and probably are/will be) exploited by people, then how is one surpassing the other?


How is it weakness in the rule, rather than a weakness in the people doing the exploiting.

I have already explained my argument on this. The platinum rule surpasses the golden rule because it:

1) Gets us to consider other people and what they need or desire rather than what we think they should need or desire.
2) Prevents us from imposing our own belief systems and values onto others.
3) Prevents us from harming others unintentionally.
4) It does not presume that you are right.

Because I understand the spirit of the platinum rule, and have no problem with the rule itself; though I think the golden rule covers it.

The golden rule operates by what you think is right and moral. What you think others should want or have. The platinum rule gets you to examine what other people want. It gets you to look for the differences in others and gets you to alter your behaviour accordingly. The Platinum rule does not assume that you are right.

But people see a way for others to exploit the golden rule, and all of a sudden it is a problem with the golden rule (or rather, a problem with the person who gave the golden rule).

The problem was always there, it's just that nobody ever challenged it because it was a bible rule.

"I want to be treated with respect and awe. I want you to treat me as though I am perfect, and I want you to obey my every command; I want you to never argue with me and always agree with me. When I ask you for something, I want you to get it for me."

Thus if we apply the golden rule then we should treat everyone else with respect and awe (what if they are a despicable person?), we should obey everyone elses commands (really should we even if they want us to sin?) We should never argue with anyone (seriously? Even when their actions would be harmful to others?), we should always agree with everyone (what if they are blatantly wrong?) We should give everyone everything they ask for? (Are you serious? What if they want you to have sex with them?)

These are problems of the platinum rule. Ridiculous I agree, because such things are abuse/exploitation.

No, they are the problem of the GOLDEN rule. With the platinum rule you look for the needs and desires of others needs and desire and imposes those wants and needs and imposes them on others. It assumes that you what you believe and want is the benchmark for all other human beings.

This is one of the big problems with bible teachings. It assumes that everyone is the same, that everybody's desires and needs are the same. It makes no allowances for differences.

Treating others with respect is not an issue. Treating someone with respect does not mean that you agree with them or that you allow them to harm you or have their way with you.

Treating others with respect involves examining what it is that others require when it comes to respect. It does not just presume that you are right and that your ideas of respect are what should be applied to everyone else.

If the platinum rule can be exploited by someone,

How can it be exploited? If you follow it, then you are considering the feelings and desires of others. You are treating them in the way THEY want to be treated. If you don't follow the platinum rule, then fine, but it's not about exploitation.

and you say the golden rule has the same weakness, how exactly does that make one rule superior to the other rule?

I have explained the weakness of the golden rule, as have others. The strengths of the platinum rule have also been explained to you.

It gets us to think about the differences in others. It gets us to realise that not everyone thinks like we do.

Do you want people to assume that you think like they do?

Do you want to assume that people think like YOU do?

Then don't assume others think like you do.

The golden rule does not allow for this. The golden rule is assuming that others think like you.

If I would like to be shown respect in general (which does not mean agreement), I must show respect to others also.

And exactly what forms of respect should we be employing here? You will find that what is respect to one person is not considered respect to another. How do we apply the golden rule so that we don't unintentionally disrespect someone?

Learn about others.

Indeed, that is a sign of respect; that you bothered enough TO learn about them, rather than just assume that they should conform to what you say is the norm; or what is respectful, etc.

That is why the Platinum rule should be applied. The golden rule has you only thinking about what you would want and then has you applying that rule to others.

For instance, we might come from a culture where it is disrespectful to burp at a table after having eaten a wonderful meal. However in another culture it would be disrespectful NOT to burp after a wonderful meal.

Therefore, one should learn.

But people cannot learn everything and will find themselves in situations where they do things that would be considered disrespectful. People will often make exceptions for those who do not know (perhaps hoping that exceptions would be made for them if the situation was reversed - again golden rule). Love covers these things as well.

I would agree that if we do not have enough information to follow the platinum rule then the golden rule would be the next one to consider.

If we apply the golden rule in this situation, we've just offended our hosts. If we apply the platinum rule, we have respected our hosts.

No.

If you want your cultural norms to be respected in your house, then respect the cultural norms of others when you are in their house.

No, you go to someone else's turf you go by their culture. You don't try to impose your own on them.

With the platinum rule we have it sussed. We understand that other people want to be respected and we look at THEIR values. We look and we see what they would consider respect and we change our own behaviour to suit.

And what if you are in a situation where you do not know the culture of another person?

The golden rule does not preclude learning others' cultures, including what is and is not respectful in that culture.

Perhaps one should ask rather than just apply the golden rule? But I would agree that if you don't know enough to follow the platinum rule, then follow the golden one. However the Platinum rule should come first if possible.

It's the platinum rule that allows us to fit in with other cultures. If we applied the golden rule, we wouldn't fit into other cultures quite so well.
When we impose the golden rule on other cultures we often end up violated other cultures.

Who said anything about imposing a rule upon another culture?

That's what the golden rule would have you doing, even if unwittingly.

Would you want another culture to impose their rules upon you?

No, that's why I would not recommend the golden rule. It assumes that your culture is the right one.

THINKING shows me immediately the error in your platinum rule. Because some people want to be treated in a way that will infringe upon mine and others' rights and well being.

Thinking should show you that the error you see in the platinum rule is ten times more of a problem when it comes to the golden rule. With the golden rule you are forcing your values onto others. That is why we have seen religions like Christianity crush many other religions, because they think everyone should think the way they do.

Christianity does not do that because they are following the golden rule ... indeed they are IGNORING the golden rule when they do that, because they would not want others to crush their religion or force them to think the way other cultures might think.

Would a Christian not want to be corrected if they were heading on the fast path to Hell? So the golden rule would be applied in that manner. You would say "I would not want to make a mistake and follow the wrong God, so thus I would not want others to follow the wrong God."

So thus, the Christian imposes their values onto other cultures and crushes them, because they believe those cultures are wrong and sinful. The Golden rules tells them that they would not be wanting to be in that situation following a false god.

Yes, whether the Christian is right or wrong, they are following the golden rule in that case and it is unintentionally hurting others.

Christians think they are doing other cultures a favour when they destroy the idols and practises of competing religions. If they applied the Platinum rule they would stop and consider their actions first before crushing other religions as they have done so often in the past.