We come from a culture that teaches that we should treat others as you
would like to be treated.

Anyone see the flaws in that recommendation?

BOfL

On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes. It's too subjective.

But on the whole it makes sense as a romantic idealization of the self
into a fortune type cookie bite (heh) of wisdom.

Of course once we apply the bit of wisdom onto ourselves it becomes
almost meaningless; as just one example the way in which we treat
ourselves is not always beneficial.

Remember that when you apply logic to our own stories that might not
work well for somebody else's stories.

What motivates you might not motivate others.

On Jul 24, 8:35 pm, "bigflet...@gmail.com" gmail.com>
wrote:

Sure, the recommendation has flaws. But it's still a good one. It's
simple enough for kids to learn and it can make huge improvements in
behaviour. For every masochist who shouldn't follow it, you have
plenty of people who should.

More sophisticated folk can apply it in a more sophisticated way;
since WE wish to be treated in a way WE would like, we should treat
OTHERS in a way that OTHERS would like.

That's similar to the Rhinocerous Party promising that, if elected,
they would govern the country as you would fry a small fish. (*)

(*) Very carefully.

On Jul 25, 12:14 pm, Pop Fly gmail.com> wrote:

Depending on the age of the kids, altruism doesnt feature.Their
behaviour is more to do with defence

On Jul 25, 10:55 am, turtoni fastmail.net> wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:35:46 -0700, bigfletch8@gmail.com wrote:

The point isn't in the flaw but in the common sense of the statement.

Every 'saying' has a flaw given the infinite amount of circumstances that
can be thrown at it.

On Jul 25, 8:54 pm, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

Many circumstances, but not to many interpretations, which is why I
brought the subject up.

I personally have a lot of experience of having given what I would
have liked to recieve, in the material sense, only to have it 'blow up
in my face".

Most are familiar with the consequence of 'negative' inteference, but
not the positive variety.

BOfL

Yes I wouldn't want to come up against a masochist, in that case.

Good point.
All generalizations are false.

I've read that 'security' AND...'Freedom' are the two general pursuits of
humans. Agreed, both can be states of mind. But there is a concrete
measure of either in the number of CHOICES any one of us have. If human 'A'
has a thousand choices, and human 'B' has only one choice, though if either
choose the same thing [given that 'B's only choice is the same that 'A'
chooses], it remains that 'A' was the freer human. Look at choices like
doors perhaps...a thousand more open to 'A' than 'B'. Or a thousand more
'closed' to 'B' than 'A'.