[SolarCross]

I am not much of a theologian but would it be a faithful application of the Golden Rule for free people to put totalitarians, socialists and commies into death camps? It is what they want to do to us shouldn't we do it to them?

[Sivad]

the golden rule isn't lex talionis. The golden rule is treating others as you would want them to treat you.

[SolarCross]

the golden rule isn't lex talionis. The golden rule is treating others as you would want them to treat you.

Oh yeah I had a feeling I had it a bit wrong. Actually the golden rule seems pretty flawed then. See what if I was a masochist who actually liked being punched in the face, by the golden rule I should go around punching people in the face then but most of those people I am punching wouldn't actually like that. Wouldn't the Golden Rule be improved by making it:

Do unto others as they want to do to you.

Or

Do unto others as they want you to do to them.

[Sivad]

I think the rule assumes sound mind, so obviously it doesn't apply to pathological masochists. The rule is just meant to convey the general idea, it doesn't come with a full litany of caveats and provisos to cover every conceivable circumstance.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, the Golden Rule is flawed.

A better one is “each to their abilities, each to their needs”.

[Sivad]

Fuck that collectivist shit, the golden rule is way better.

[Victoribus Spolia]

“each to their abilities, each to their needs”.

As stated those sound like potential contraries, as what one needs and what one has earned by ability are often divergent.

Isn't the original phrase: "From each according to their abilities, To each according to their needs." anyway??

[SolarCross]

I think the rule assumes sound mind, so obviously it doesn't apply to pathological masochists. The rule is just meant to convey the general idea, it doesn't come with a full litany of caveats and provisos to cover every conceivable circumstance.

What it assumes is that everyone is the same and that everyone enjoys the same thing, thus if you know what you want then automagically you know what someone else wants too. I think that is of debatable value as a guide to human interaction, it's a bit autistic. See it isn't just wrong for the "crazy" person who likes a punch up, it is also wrong for the person who loves listening to bad poetry, such a person guided by the golden rule will go forth and torment the world with "an ode to a piece of putty I found in my armpit one morning". When the Vogon chief read poetry to Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect he was in full compliance with the Golden Rule.

[Sivad]

When the Vogon chief read poetry to Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect he was in full compliance with the Golden Rule.

Not really, the rule extends to being considerate of other's tastes and preferences as you would want others to be considerate of yours.

[Pants-of-dog]

As stated those sound like potential contraries, as what one needs and what one has earned by ability are often divergent.

Isn't the original phrase: "From each according to their abilities, To each according to their needs." anyway??

It seems pretty clear.

If a person needs food, feed them.

If a person needs a home, shelter them.

If a person needs medical care, heal them.

If you are able to feed people, feed them.

If you are able to shelter people, shelter them.

If you can heal people, heal them.

It means that each person should be given what they need to be the people they want to be, and each person should hive whatdver they are able so that others can get what they need.

As someone who supposedly follows the teachings of Jesus, this should not be that much of a stretch, since it is very close to what he said in the mythos.

[Sivad]

As stated those sound like potential contraries, as what one needs and what one has earned by ability are often divergent.

The biggest problem with that principle he's mistating is that it gives the collective way too much power over the individual. That little dictum will lead us all straight into hell.

[SolarCross]

It seems pretty clear.

If a person needs food, feed them.

If a person needs a home, shelter them.

If a person needs medical care, heal them.

If you are able to feed people, feed them.

If you are able to shelter people, shelter them.

If you can heal people, heal them.

It means that each person should be given what they need to be the people they want to be, and each person should hive whatdver they are able so that others can get what they need.

As someone who supposedly follows the teachings of Jesus, this should not be that much of a stretch, since it is very close to what he said in the mythos.

I am pretty sure "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" was plagiarised from the bible anyway. However the caveat is that communists pervert Christianity, so the spirit does not follow the letter. The letter is from Christianity but in practice what the communists actually do is not use their abilities to help the needful as a Christian does with charity, which is the spirit. Instead the communists enslave people into gulag "from each according to his ability" and then starve them with shit food, beat, brainwash and torture them then kill them and dump their body in a mass grave "to each according to their need". Death camps are a commie perversion of charity.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Sivad

So far, it has led us to universal health care, paid parental leave, free post secondary education, the removal of imperialist parasites, and a path to economic equality.

@SolarCross

Please provide evidence for your claims. Thanks.

[Victoribus Spolia]

As someone who supposedly follows the teachings of Jesus, this should not be that much of a stretch, since it is very close to what he said in the mythos.

Well as a follower, I do believe in helping the poor and via the means of individual obedience to God's commands to do so and I do not see this as advocating the civil magistrate to coerce individuals at gun point to redistribute their wealth and have their property abolished.

Which is exactly where the principle of communism and the Golden Rule part ways.

I will say no more on this because I am going to be having an upcoming theological debate on this topic and do not want to give too much away in regards to my thinking.

[Sivad]

@Sivad

So far, it has led us to universal health care, paid parental leave, free post secondary education, the removal of imperialist parasites, and a path to economic equality.

It's not the basis or justification for any of those things. You're confused.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well as a follower, I do believe in helping the poor and via the means of individual obedience to God's commands to do so and I do not see this as advocating the civil magistrate to coerce individuals at gun point to redistribute their wealth and have their property abolished.

Which is exactly where the principle of communism and the Golden Rule part ways.

I will say no more on this because I am going to be having an upcoming theological debate on this topic and do not want to give too much away in regards to my thinking.

If your only objection is some stupid stereotype about communists that sounds like something @SolarCross came up with, then you have no real argument.

@Sivad

I am fairly certain you are incorrect when you claim that these are not socialist policies.

[Victoribus Spolia]

then you have no real argument.

We'll see.

[B0ycey]

I am not much of a theologian but would it be a faithful application of the Golden Rule for free people to put totalitarians, socialists and commies into death camps? It is what they want to do to us shouldn't we do it to them?

Concentration Camps was a British invention to starve Boers. By your logic perhaps it is the capitalists who should be sent to them. After all, doesn't imperialists want to invade and bomb the shit out of every nation who disagrees with them?

And btw Stalin was not a communist. He was a dictator who cloaked himself in Socialist clothing.

[Sivad]

I am fairly certain you are incorrect when you claim that these are not socialist policies.

They're socialist policies all right, you're just confused about the basis of socialism. Socialism is not collectivism, there's a big difference. The basis for socialism is voluntary mutual aid, not obligatory service.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have no idea why you think I was arguing that the basis for socialism is obligatory service.

This seems more like a conservative strawman about socialism.