CDZ The Moral Philosophy Of Donald Trump

[Liminal]

Empty remarks seem well matched with all the insipid twaddle about the Golden Rule.

If that's honestly what you think of the Golden Rule and applying it, then I suggest you denounce Christianity, Islam, Judaism and every other culture, belief system and philosophy that espouses and promotes living by the Golden Rule. Then you can present the case for what makes applying it an insipid act. I would gladly respect, perhaps even accede to, that sort of reply. Empty remarks are, however, just that, devoid of merit thus unconvincing.

All wonderfully esoteric I'm sure. Unfortunately you might have some difficulty in pointing to historic examples of any nations ever using any kind of Golden Rule to guide their actions.

I wasn't trying to make the point that anyone ever has used it nor is there a need to show that any nation ever has unfailingly applied it. It is a principle that people apply to their actions. Insofar as people run nations, it takes only that the people running nations apply it in making their choices about what the nation should or shouldn't do. At the the end of the day, the burden for "doing the right thing" falls not on nations, but on people, both the governors and the governed.

One point I was making is that regardless of what's transpired in the past, we should and can begin to use it now and going forward. Unlike so many other principles and policy decision making approaches, it's one that can be implemented immediately and with zero preparation.

I see, so you're hoping that the aggregate of individuals with good intentions will somehow translate into an overall pragmatic realpolitik.

That too is not what I wrote or implied. It is, seeing as you wrote it, what you have determined I have said. I didn't write anything that's complex. Instead, what I wrote is quite simple to understand and apply. Why you arrived at what you've posited as being what I did say is beyond me.

Beyond you would seem to be the case with a whole wide world of reality.

 

[320 Years of History]

I wouldn't ascribe any uniqueness to it. It's certainly been heard before:

"He who wants to live asserts himself. He who cannot assert himself does not deserve to live. He will perish. This is an iron, yet also a just principle. The earth is not there for cowardly peoples, not for weak ones, not for lazy ones. The earth is there for him who takes it and who industriously labors upon it and thereby fashions his life. That is the will of Providence."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Sportpalast Berlin (May 3, 1940)

"If once popular support, power and the authority of tradition are united in one, that authority may be considered to be unshakable."
-- from 'Mein Kampf'

"I also have the conviction and the certain feeling that nothing can happen to me, for I know that Providence has chosen me to fulfill my task."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech in Munich (September 4, 1932)

"There will probably never again in the future be a man with more authority than I have. My existence is therefore a fact of great value."
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to his generals (August 22, 1939)

Trump's appeal has a lot in common with Hitler's style of communicating. It isn't designed to provoke any kind of thought, only to exploit emotions.

Yep. Aimed squarely at the reptilian brain. Nothing there for the neocortex.

That is genuinely funny. TY for the laugh.

Donald Trump and you share one thing in common, a complete lack of any thought or consideration given to the consequences of a withdrawal of American power from global influence. Your position is immoral because it is thoughtless and irresponsible for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history to not be the leader in maintaining some level of security and stability. If this nation did withdraw from it's global responsibilities, who would you like to see doing that job instead? China? Russia? Maybe China and Russia together? Who would you like to see fill the resulting power vacuum? Someone will. It won't be no one, history tells us that much.

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

 

[Liminal]

Trump's appeal has a lot in common with Hitler's style of communicating. It isn't designed to provoke any kind of thought, only to exploit emotions.

Yep. Aimed squarely at the reptilian brain. Nothing there for the neocortex.

That is genuinely funny. TY for the laugh.

Donald Trump and you share one thing in common, a complete lack of any thought or consideration given to the consequences of a withdrawal of American power from global influence. Your position is immoral because it is thoughtless and irresponsible for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history to not be the leader in maintaining some level of security and stability. If this nation did withdraw from it's global responsibilities, who would you like to see doing that job instead? China? Russia? Maybe China and Russia together? Who would you like to see fill the resulting power vacuum? Someone will. It won't be no one, history tells us that much.

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

 

[Liminal]

Trump was asked about Gorbachev — who was nearing the end of his time in power. Trump said, “Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.”

His interviewer asked, “You mean firm hand as in China?”


Trump answered, “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world –”


Trump’s admiration of Putin is no surprise, in light of this. We conservatives like to mock Thomas L. Friedman for his occasional favorable words about the regime in Beijing — his longing for a bit of that here, to accomplish things without the snags of democracy.


Is the GOP now the party of authoritarianism?



"Get your people in line, Bernie," Trump said...

"I'm going to ask that you arrest them," Trump said to the police. "I'll file whatever charges you want. If they want to do this ... we're going to go strongly for your arrests."

Trump said arresting protesters would "ruin the rest of their lives" by giving them a "big arrest mark."

"Once that starts happening, we're not going to have any more protesters, folks," Trump said.






"We don't want to use our military, honestly. We don't want to use our military. But we're being scoffed at right now and we never fight to win."

“We're going to win so much. You're going to get tired of winning. you’re going to say, ‘Please Mr. President, I have a headache. Please, don't win so much. This is getting terrible.’ And I'm going to say, ‘No, we have to make America great again.’ You're gonna say, ‘Please.’ I said, ‘Nope, nope. We're gonna keep winning.’

1. He was right. Gorbachev failed and his nation fell apart.

2. The agitators trying to disrupt Trump's events are trying to use force to decide the election. THey deserve to be fucked.

3. Wanting to win is not the mark of a would be tyrant.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yep. Aimed squarely at the reptilian brain. Nothing there for the neocortex.

That is genuinely funny. TY for the laugh.

Donald Trump and you share one thing in common, a complete lack of any thought or consideration given to the consequences of a withdrawal of American power from global influence. Your position is immoral because it is thoughtless and irresponsible for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history to not be the leader in maintaining some level of security and stability. If this nation did withdraw from it's global responsibilities, who would you like to see doing that job instead? China? Russia? Maybe China and Russia together? Who would you like to see fill the resulting power vacuum? Someone will. It won't be no one, history tells us that much.

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

 

[JimH52]

I honestly do not think Phrump knows the definition of the word morality. Look at all those people he took with Phrump University. He cares little about the man who lost his life savings to his distortion. The man has no conscious, as far as I can tell.

 

[Liminal]

That is genuinely funny. TY for the laugh.

Donald Trump and you share one thing in common, a complete lack of any thought or consideration given to the consequences of a withdrawal of American power from global influence. Your position is immoral because it is thoughtless and irresponsible for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history to not be the leader in maintaining some level of security and stability. If this nation did withdraw from it's global responsibilities, who would you like to see doing that job instead? China? Russia? Maybe China and Russia together? Who would you like to see fill the resulting power vacuum? Someone will. It won't be no one, history tells us that much.

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

 

[Correll]

That is genuinely funny. TY for the laugh.

Donald Trump and you share one thing in common, a complete lack of any thought or consideration given to the consequences of a withdrawal of American power from global influence. Your position is immoral because it is thoughtless and irresponsible for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history to not be the leader in maintaining some level of security and stability. If this nation did withdraw from it's global responsibilities, who would you like to see doing that job instead? China? Russia? Maybe China and Russia together? Who would you like to see fill the resulting power vacuum? Someone will. It won't be no one, history tells us that much.

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

You know the obvious step here to prove that?

Pick any policy action in history that would show how his method would not work.

Course, that type of honest and serious reply would run counter to your entire concept of this thread as dishonest propaganda.

 

[Liminal]

Donald Trump and you share one thing in common, a complete lack of any thought or consideration given to the consequences of a withdrawal of American power from global influence. Your position is immoral because it is thoughtless and irresponsible for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history to not be the leader in maintaining some level of security and stability. If this nation did withdraw from it's global responsibilities, who would you like to see doing that job instead? China? Russia? Maybe China and Russia together? Who would you like to see fill the resulting power vacuum? Someone will. It won't be no one, history tells us that much.

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

You know the obvious step here to prove that?

Pick any policy action in history that would show how his method would not work.

Course, that type of honest and serious reply would run counter to your entire concept of this thread as dishonest propaganda.

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy.

 

[Correll]

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

You know the obvious step here to prove that?

Pick any policy action in history that would show how his method would not work.

Course, that type of honest and serious reply would run counter to your entire concept of this thread as dishonest propaganda.

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy.

You made the claim that it could not be used in determining foreign policy. And you did nothing to support that claim other than to make an unsupported statement.

I suggest you pick an historical example to prove your case.

And you claim that that is the "opposite of logic".


Have I mentioned that your dishonest and partisan behavior on this thread completely proves my point about this thread being nothing but propaganda and you being a liar?

 

[320 Years of History]

That is genuinely funny. TY for the laugh.

Donald Trump and you share one thing in common, a complete lack of any thought or consideration given to the consequences of a withdrawal of American power from global influence. Your position is immoral because it is thoughtless and irresponsible for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history to not be the leader in maintaining some level of security and stability. If this nation did withdraw from it's global responsibilities, who would you like to see doing that job instead? China? Russia? Maybe China and Russia together? Who would you like to see fill the resulting power vacuum? Someone will. It won't be no one, history tells us that much.

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

And your rejection of it sounds to me like you want to make things be complicated when they really don't need to be. Don't worry, however, you're in good company. Literally hundreds of folks throughout history have made ever more complex that which is really quite simple. The story of the evolution of geocentrism is perhaps the most easily understood illustration of folks having done exactly that.

And what prohibited Medieval thinkers from moving to heliocentrism? The very same motivations that inhibit the espousal of the Golden Rule now as then: avarice and covetousness. Are you of a mind to assert that those are two demons we should feed?

 

[Liminal]

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

You know the obvious step here to prove that?

Pick any policy action in history that would show how his method would not work.

Course, that type of honest and serious reply would run counter to your entire concept of this thread as dishonest propaganda.

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy.

You made the claim that it could not be used in determining foreign policy. And you did nothing to support that claim other than to make an unsupported statement.

I suggest you pick an historical example to prove your case.

And you claim that that is the "opposite of logic".


Have I mentioned that your dishonest and partisan behavior on this thread completely proves my point about this thread being nothing but propaganda and you being a liar?

There's even less to you than I thought. It should be obvious even to someone of your limited abilities to comprehend that it is an unrelated concept with no application to the complexities of foreign relations and defense issues. There is nothing there to substantiate or refute.

 

[Correll]

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

You know the obvious step here to prove that?

Pick any policy action in history that would show how his method would not work.

Course, that type of honest and serious reply would run counter to your entire concept of this thread as dishonest propaganda.

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy.

You made the claim that it could not be used in determining foreign policy. And you did nothing to support that claim other than to make an unsupported statement.

I suggest you pick an historical example to prove your case.

And you claim that that is the "opposite of logic".


Have I mentioned that your dishonest and partisan behavior on this thread completely proves my point about this thread being nothing but propaganda and you being a liar?

There's even less to you than I thought. It should be obvious even to someone of your limited abilities to comprehend that it is an unrelated concept with no application to the complexities of foreign relations and defense issues. There is nothing there to substantiate or refute.

All you did there was restate your position and still without doing ANYTHING to support it.

 

[Liminal]

Donald Trump and you share one thing in common, a complete lack of any thought or consideration given to the consequences of a withdrawal of American power from global influence. Your position is immoral because it is thoughtless and irresponsible for the wealthiest and most powerful nation in history to not be the leader in maintaining some level of security and stability. If this nation did withdraw from it's global responsibilities, who would you like to see doing that job instead? China? Russia? Maybe China and Russia together? Who would you like to see fill the resulting power vacuum? Someone will. It won't be no one, history tells us that much.

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

And your rejection of it sounds to me like you want to make things be complicated when they really don't need to be. Don't worry, however, you're in good company. Literally hundreds of folks throughout history have made ever more complex that which is really quite simple. The story of the evolution of geocentrism is perhaps the most easily understood illustration of folks having done exactly that.

And what prohibited Medieval thinkers from moving to heliocentrism? The very same motivations that inhibit the espousal of the Golden Rule now as then: avarice and covetousness. Are you of a mind to assert that those are two demons we should feed?

No doubt simple and uncomplicated are the hallmarks of your understanding.

 

[Liminal]

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

You know the obvious step here to prove that?

Pick any policy action in history that would show how his method would not work.

Course, that type of honest and serious reply would run counter to your entire concept of this thread as dishonest propaganda.

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy.

You made the claim that it could not be used in determining foreign policy. And you did nothing to support that claim other than to make an unsupported statement.

I suggest you pick an historical example to prove your case.

And you claim that that is the "opposite of logic".


Have I mentioned that your dishonest and partisan behavior on this thread completely proves my point about this thread being nothing but propaganda and you being a liar?

There's even less to you than I thought. It should be obvious even to someone of your limited abilities to comprehend that it is an unrelated concept with no application to the complexities of foreign relations and defense issues. There is nothing there to substantiate or refute.

All you did there was restate your position and still without doing ANYTHING to support it.

That's your job, only with even less.

 

[Correll]

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

And your rejection of it sounds to me like you want to make things be complicated when they really don't need to be. Don't worry, however, you're in good company. Literally hundreds of folks throughout history have made ever more complex that which is really quite simple. The story of the evolution of geocentrism is perhaps the most easily understood illustration of folks having done exactly that.

And what prohibited Medieval thinkers from moving to heliocentrism? The very same motivations that inhibit the espousal of the Golden Rule now as then: avarice and covetousness. Are you of a mind to assert that those are two demons we should feed?

No doubt simple and uncomplicated are the hallmarks of your understanding.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

 

[320 Years of History]

Really? You drew all that out of the fact that I found the meme -- one that had nothing to do with any of that -- to be funny? Really? Really???

Now I do understand how you came to the conclusion you offered in post #121.

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

And your rejection of it sounds to me like you want to make things be complicated when they really don't need to be. Don't worry, however, you're in good company. Literally hundreds of folks throughout history have made ever more complex that which is really quite simple. The story of the evolution of geocentrism is perhaps the most easily understood illustration of folks having done exactly that.

And what prohibited Medieval thinkers from moving to heliocentrism? The very same motivations that inhibit the espousal of the Golden Rule now as then: avarice and covetousness. Are you of a mind to assert that those are two demons we should feed?

No doubt simple and uncomplicated are the hallmarks of your understanding.

When there's genuinely no need to be complicated, they most certainly are.

 

[Liminal]

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

And your rejection of it sounds to me like you want to make things be complicated when they really don't need to be. Don't worry, however, you're in good company. Literally hundreds of folks throughout history have made ever more complex that which is really quite simple. The story of the evolution of geocentrism is perhaps the most easily understood illustration of folks having done exactly that.

And what prohibited Medieval thinkers from moving to heliocentrism? The very same motivations that inhibit the espousal of the Golden Rule now as then: avarice and covetousness. Are you of a mind to assert that those are two demons we should feed?

No doubt simple and uncomplicated are the hallmarks of your understanding.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

You've never posted anything of even that much significance.

 

[Correll]

You know the obvious step here to prove that?

Pick any policy action in history that would show how his method would not work.

Course, that type of honest and serious reply would run counter to your entire concept of this thread as dishonest propaganda.

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy.

You made the claim that it could not be used in determining foreign policy. And you did nothing to support that claim other than to make an unsupported statement.

I suggest you pick an historical example to prove your case.

And you claim that that is the "opposite of logic".


Have I mentioned that your dishonest and partisan behavior on this thread completely proves my point about this thread being nothing but propaganda and you being a liar?

There's even less to you than I thought. It should be obvious even to someone of your limited abilities to comprehend that it is an unrelated concept with no application to the complexities of foreign relations and defense issues. There is nothing there to substantiate or refute.

All you did there was restate your position and still without doing ANYTHING to support it.

That's your job, only with even less.

You have made a claim and refuse to support it in any fashion while spouting off nonsense about the opinions of others and insulting them.

 

[Liminal]

Feel free to explain how the Golden Rule is relevant to the complexities of a potential major foreign policy shift

??? Been there done that.

Pick any policy action or sequence thereof that suits you. Ask yourself whether you'd want another nation to perform the same action toward you were the situation reversed. If you would not, then don't perform the policy action. If you would, then perform it. It's really that easy to apply the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a rule no one would ever use in determining foreign policy since all nations always act in their own interests.....which is often at odds with the interests of others. The Golden Rule sounds like naive hopefulness for some alternate humanity to emerge.

And your rejection of it sounds to me like you want to make things be complicated when they really don't need to be. Don't worry, however, you're in good company. Literally hundreds of folks throughout history have made ever more complex that which is really quite simple. The story of the evolution of geocentrism is perhaps the most easily understood illustration of folks having done exactly that.

And what prohibited Medieval thinkers from moving to heliocentrism? The very same motivations that inhibit the espousal of the Golden Rule now as then: avarice and covetousness. Are you of a mind to assert that those are two demons we should feed?

No doubt simple and uncomplicated are the hallmarks of your understanding.

When there's genuinely no need to be complicated, they most certainly are.

Oh I see, so your whole little diatribe was nothing more than an academic exercise in simplicity.