CDZ The Moral Philosophy Of Donald Trump

[Liminal]

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.

Again, that's your job.

 

[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.

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.

And now you are reduced to just lying.

And you are the one trying to set himself up as a Judge of some one else's morality?

LOL!!

Here, to add some substance to your propaganda thread.

 

[Correll]

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.

Again, that's your job.

And still unable or unwilling to support his claim.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Again, that's your job.

And still unable or unwilling to support his claim.

What claim was that? Do you even know? No doubt you can substantiate what ever he thinks he's talking about. Why don't you be the better man and make his point for him. That way you can help one of your fellow scholars while finally attaining that glorious victory you've been dreaming of.

 

[Liminal]

One thing is for sure about the Golden Rule........Donald Trump never heard of it.

 

[Correll]

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.

Again, that's your job.

And still unable or unwilling to support his claim.

What claim was that? Do you even know? No doubt you can substantiate what ever he thinks he's talking about. Why don't you be the better man and make his point for him. That way you can help one of your fellow scholars while finally attaining that glorious victory you've been dreaming of.

Here is YOUR claim, little leftist.


"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."


I suggested that you pick an historical example to prove your case. You claimed that asking for an example was the "opposite of logic".

 

[Correll]

One thing is for sure about the Golden Rule........Donald Trump never heard of it.

Bullshit.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Again, that's your job.

And still unable or unwilling to support his claim.

What claim was that? Do you even know? No doubt you can substantiate what ever he thinks he's talking about. Why don't you be the better man and make his point for him. That way you can help one of your fellow scholars while finally attaining that glorious victory you've been dreaming of.

Here is YOUR claim, little leftist.


"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."


I suggested that you pick an historical example to prove your case. You claimed that asking for an example was the "opposite of logic".

Your suggestions don't matter. Your fellow scholar never established anything to refute. He only makes vaguely associated generic characterizations, which evidently stretches the full extent of your reasoning.

 

[320 Years of History]

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

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy

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.

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

That's your job, only with even less.

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

Well, now I see why you struggle so with the premise of the Golden Rule. Assuming one who applies the rationale of the Golden Rule were to read the remarks above, they'd infer, given the aspersive nature of your comments, that you want to be the object of calumny.

Of course, I doubt that is so, but perhaps I am mistaken. Am I? Consequently, it stands to reason that you may have difficulty grasping the merit of what I've been saying because you aren't able to apply it in your own dealings, much less understand it as a modality by which others might behave. Why might that be? I can't say for sure, nor can I say there's only one driver, but I can posit some ideas as to why:

• Dunning-Kruger effect
  
• Ultimate attribution error
• System justification
• Projection bias
• Status quo bias

 

[320 Years of History]

??? 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.

If you feel that it was, I guess for you, it was. You are the first person with whom I've ever conversed and who struggled to grasp the Golden Rule and grasp its value in using it to guide all their choices about what to do or not do.

 

[Correll]

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.

Again, that's your job.

And still unable or unwilling to support his claim.

What claim was that? Do you even know? No doubt you can substantiate what ever he thinks he's talking about. Why don't you be the better man and make his point for him. That way you can help one of your fellow scholars while finally attaining that glorious victory you've been dreaming of.

Here is YOUR claim, little leftist.


"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."


I suggested that you pick an historical example to prove your case. You claimed that asking for an example was the "opposite of logic".

Your suggestions don't matter. Your fellow scholar never established anything to refute. He only makes vaguely associated generic characterizations, which evidently stretches the full extent of your reasoning.

Standard dishonest leftist attempt at distraction, and not very well executed.

We both know that you made a claim and are completely unable or unwilling to support it in any fashion to any extent.

And, of course, you lack the intellectual honestly, or basic decency to admit that, and instead employ various propaganda techniques to try to hide that fact.

I cannot understand what your self imagine must be like when you have to be so dishonest to defend your beliefs.

How can it not bother you that you have to be a liar and a jerk to sort of hide the fact that you are actively supporting policies that you KNOW are bad for people?

 

[Liminal]

Again, that's your job.

And still unable or unwilling to support his claim.

What claim was that? Do you even know? No doubt you can substantiate what ever he thinks he's talking about. Why don't you be the better man and make his point for him. That way you can help one of your fellow scholars while finally attaining that glorious victory you've been dreaming of.

Here is YOUR claim, little leftist.


"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."


I suggested that you pick an historical example to prove your case. You claimed that asking for an example was the "opposite of logic".

Your suggestions don't matter. Your fellow scholar never established anything to refute. He only makes vaguely associated generic characterizations, which evidently stretches the full extent of your reasoning.

Standard dishonest leftist attempt at distraction, and not very well executed.

We both know that you made a claim and are completely unable or unwilling to support it in any fashion to any extent.

And, of course, you lack the intellectual honestly, or basic decency to admit that, and instead employ various propaganda techniques to try to hide that fact.

I cannot understand what your self imagine must be like when you have to be so dishonest to defend your beliefs.

How can it not bother you that you have to be a liar and a jerk to sort of hide the fact that you are actively supporting policies that you KNOW are bad for people?

I think your anger is misguided and deceptive. It's become clear to me what your problem is......you love me.

 

[Liminal]

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

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy

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.

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

That's your job, only with even less.

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

Well, now I see why you struggle so with the premise of the Golden Rule. Assuming one who applies the rationale of the Golden Rule were to read the remarks above, they'd infer, given the aspersive nature of your comments, that you want to be the object of calumny.

Of course, I doubt that is so, but perhaps I am mistaken. Am I? Consequently, it stands to reason that you may have difficulty grasping the merit of what I've been saying because you aren't able to apply it in your own dealings, much less understand it as a modality by which others might behave. Why might that be? I can't say for sure, nor can I say there's only one driver, but I can posit some ideas as to why:

• Dunning-Kruger effect
  
• Ultimate attribution error
• System justification
• Projection bias
• Status quo bias

I have no doubt that you are making a good faith effort to establish your point.......it just isn't working.

 

[320 Years of History]

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

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy

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.

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

That's your job, only with even less.

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

Well, now I see why you struggle so with the premise of the Golden Rule. Assuming one who applies the rationale of the Golden Rule were to read the remarks above, they'd infer, given the aspersive nature of your comments, that you want to be the object of calumny.

Of course, I doubt that is so, but perhaps I am mistaken. Am I? Consequently, it stands to reason that you may have difficulty grasping the merit of what I've been saying because you aren't able to apply it in your own dealings, much less understand it as a modality by which others might behave. Why might that be? I can't say for sure, nor can I say there's only one driver, but I can posit some ideas as to why:

• Dunning-Kruger effect
  
• Ultimate attribution error
• System justification
• Projection bias
• Status quo bias

I have no doubt that you are making a good faith effort to establish your point.......it just isn't working.

I know that, which is why as of this post, you have joined others on my ignore list. Stop responding to my posts.

 

[Liminal]

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

Opposite of logic from the backwards brained boy

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.

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

That's your job, only with even less.

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

Well, now I see why you struggle so with the premise of the Golden Rule. Assuming one who applies the rationale of the Golden Rule were to read the remarks above, they'd infer, given the aspersive nature of your comments, that you want to be the object of calumny.

Of course, I doubt that is so, but perhaps I am mistaken. Am I? Consequently, it stands to reason that you may have difficulty grasping the merit of what I've been saying because you aren't able to apply it in your own dealings, much less understand it as a modality by which others might behave. Why might that be? I can't say for sure, nor can I say there's only one driver, but I can posit some ideas as to why:

• Dunning-Kruger effect
  
• Ultimate attribution error
• System justification
• Projection bias
• Status quo bias

I have no doubt that you are making a good faith effort to establish your point.......it just isn't working.

I know that, which is why as of this post, you have joined others on my ignore list. Stop responding to my posts.

If that's supposed to be a consequence I don't think you quite get the concept.......it seems a lot more like a reward.

 

[Correll]

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.

If you feel that it was, I guess for you, it was. You are the first person with whom I've ever conversed and who struggled to grasp the Golden Rule and grasp its value in using it to guide all their choices about what to do or not do.

He is lying.

He refuses to address your point, because he is hostile to you and to many others.

He knows that the Golden Rule, if honestly applied would reveal his enmity to his fellow man.

 

[Liminal]

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.

If you feel that it was, I guess for you, it was. You are the first person with whom I've ever conversed and who struggled to grasp the Golden Rule and grasp its value in using it to guide all their choices about what to do or not do.

He is lying.

He refuses to address your point, because he is hostile to you and to many others.

He knows that the Golden Rule, if honestly applied would reveal his enmity to his fellow man.

 

[ABikerSailor]

One thing is for sure about the Golden Rule........Donald Trump never heard of it.

Actually, he follows the "golden rule" for rich people.................

He who has the gold, makes the rules.

 

[Liminal]

One thing is for sure about the Golden Rule........Donald Trump never heard of it.

Actually, he follows the "golden rule" for rich people.................

He who has the gold, makes the rules.

As close to an ethical principle of moral reciprocity as Donald Trump is ever going to come.

 

[Liminal]

Of course we can't discuss the moral philosophy(or lack thereof) of Donald Trump without examining his repeated exhortations to his followers to commit acts of violence. What is the moral justification for this kind of action?