The Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland which crosses the Patapsco River has reportedly Collapsed

[Rand]

I never noticed the golden rule in such. Talmudic Judaism views all non-jews as animals to be cheated, lied to, discarded, and eventually enslaved or exterminated. The golden rule promotes selflessness, going out of your way to help others, while the silver rule does not discourage it, it does not encourage it either. Like I said, there are subtleties between many religions that appear to promote the same as the Golden rule, but they aren't as such.

As for applying such teachings, I would say that Christianity has more than shown such an adherence to that philosophy as the US and other like countries have a long history of its "people" (not the governments) being extremely generous and selfless in their help to others (which is why it is often abused and manipulated easily with scams, false flag events, etc...) and this concept is easily seen among small town traditional communities of the past (it is why they try to spread the city trash out into small towns, to corrupt them and break them down).

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
— Babylonian Talmud
There are more examples. Of course, this is all in ancient judaism...

Silver rule.

It is the "Do no harm" principal, not the Golden Rule, which is proactive in that it pushes people to do good.

There is a distinct difference between "doing no harm" (ie don't do bad) and "doing good".

An example... walking by an old lady who is slow, having difficulties crossing the street. The Golden Rule suggests you stop, and provide aid to the woman in helping her cross the street. The silver rule simply means, do not do her harm, do not do bad, ie you can walk on by because you are not the cause of her problems.

We seem to be talking about different things, maybe?
This is pretty accurate to my understanding:

The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them. It is sometimes called an ethics of reciprocity, meaning that you should reciprocate to others how you would like them to treat you (not necessarily how they actually treat you).

[Xenich]

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
— Babylonian Talmud
There are more examples. Of course, this is all in ancient judaism...

Silver rule.

It is the "Do no harm" principal, not the Golden Rule, which is proactive in that it pushes people to do good.

There is a distinct difference between "doing no harm" (ie don't do bad) and "doing good".

An example... walking by an old lady who is slow, having difficulties crossing the street. The Golden Rule suggests you stop, and provide aid to the woman in helping her cross the street. The silver rule simply means, do not do her harm, do not do bad, ie you can walk on by because you are not the cause of her problems.

We seem to be talking about different things, maybe?
This is pretty accurate to my understanding:

The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them. It is sometimes called an ethics of reciprocity, meaning that you should reciprocate to others how you would like them to treat you (not necessarily how they actually treat you).

Yes, that is the golden rule. Talmudic Judaism does not follow the Golden Rule, it has more in common with Luciferins. (ie do no harm unless they are your enemy, then destroy them).

Let me be clear, they do not follow the Tora, they claim they do, but they do not as the Tora (5 books of Moses) conflicts with the Talmud.

This should explain a lot of the things in the Talmud.
https://archive.org/details/the-talmud- ... 3/mode/2up

Notice this:



The topics speak for themselves, you can turn to the chapter and see the details if you like, but they are very much like Islam in that their "rules" and "conditions" in terms of respect to others, etc... is only specific to those the belief concerns, everyone else is lesser beings that do not deserve such treatment.

[Acrux]

I don't think any serious and mentally healthy person actually believes that Russia and/or China (both HIGHLY corrupt and poor btw) could ever match or replace the US in terms of global influence.

And no, neither Rusgolia nor the Communist Usurper Republic of Chinkonia are "based and trad", Russia has the single highest rate of AIDS in Europe, their women are known globally for being whores and the majority of the population is not religious. China has actively destroyed its own culture and has committed autogenocide, not to mention the fact that they're literal communists.




-Humbaba

That is naïve. History alone shows that empires rise and fall and the thinking that one power can never replace an initial power is often the reason why that initial power eventually collapses.

Many clever men like you have trusted to civilization. Many clever Babylonians, many clever Egyptians, many clever men at the end of Rome. Can you tell me, in a world that is flagrant with the failures of civilisation, what there is particularly immortal about yours?

[Nammu Archag]

Silver rule.

It is the "Do no harm" principal, not the Golden Rule, which is proactive in that it pushes people to do good.

There is a distinct difference between "doing no harm" (ie don't do bad) and "doing good".

An example... walking by an old lady who is slow, having difficulties crossing the street. The Golden Rule suggests you stop, and provide aid to the woman in helping her cross the street. The silver rule simply means, do not do her harm, do not do bad, ie you can walk on by because you are not the cause of her problems.

The silver rule is not a real concept, it was coined by an Arab liberal, Nassim Nicholas Taleb and then retroactively applied by libs and evangelicals to the rest of the world and history. Nobody held the retroactive "silver rule" on the same level that Christians held the golden rule, despite you applying it so.

The Silver Rule is from Confucianism developed by Confucius (551–479 BCE) a Chinese philosopher, it is an eastern religion and its principal is found throughout a lot of eastern countries.

Since you want to wrongly attribute this to Confucius, let's start there. Firstly, Confucius is likely not the first to state this specific line, the Greeks had broached the concept 50-100 years earlier, including Thales, Sextus, and Plato. As for Confucius himself, according to Lunyu XV. 24:

The great principle of reciprocity is the rule of life.
Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

The "silver rule" you are referring to is actually just one word, Shu 恕, the most basic translation of which just means "to forgive." In this passage, the one word to live by according to Confucius, is forgiveness. That doesn't quite sound like what you're describing, and in many ways sounds more similar to the Christian concept of the Golden Rule. Additionally, unlike Christianity, this isn't elevated to the status of the Christian Golden Rule, it's just one of countless things Confucius said and holds the same merit or less as others. Concepts like filial piety occupy a much higher slot on the moral totem pole.

Furthermore, in Lunyu XII. 21:

Fan Ch'ih was in attendance during an outing to the Rain Altar. He said, 'May I ask about the exaltation of virtue, the reformation of the depraved and the recognition of misguided judgement?' The Master said, 'What a splendid question! To put service before the reward you get for it, is that not exaltation of virtue? To attack evil as evil and not as evil of a particular man, is that not the way to reform the depraved? To let a sudden fit of anger make you forget the safety of your own person or even that of your parents, is that not misguided judgement?

Add to that the next passage in XII. 22:

Fan Ch'ih asked about benevolence. The Master said, 'Love your fellow men.'
He asked about wisdom. The Master said, 'Know your fellow men.' Fan Ch'ih failed to grasp his meaning. The Master said, 'Raise the straight and set them over the crooked.9 This can make the crooked straight.'

These passages do not sound like the silver rule at all, instead, they exalt man to go out of their way to help others, to love their fellow man, and and to set the crooked straight. Adding on to that, here is a list of virtues by in Lunyu XVII. 6:

Five things the practice of which constitutes perfect virtue.
Tsze-chang asked Confucius about perfect virtue. Confucius said, "To be able to practice five things everywhere under heaven constitutes perfect virtue." He begged to ask what they were, and was told, "Gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness. If you are grave, you will not be treated with disrespect. If you are generous, you will win all. If you are sincere, people will repose trust in you. If you are earnest, you will accomplish much. If you are kind, this will enable you to employ the services of others.

Confucian values are not just derived from Confucius himself, but also from his students and followers. To further illustrate, in The Mencius, one of the Four Books considered the core to orthodox Confucianism, and arguably the most important after Analects itself, it makes the following statement:

2A:6 Mencius said: "All people have a heart which cannot stand to see the suffering of others. The ancient kings had this heart which could not stand to see the suffering of others, and, with this, operated a government which could not stand to see the suffering of the people. If, in this state of mind, you ran a government which could not endure people's suffering, you could govern the realm as if you were turning it in the palm of your hand."


"Why do I say all human beings have a heart which cannot stand to see the suffering of others? Even nowadays, if an infant were about to fall into a well, anyone would be upset and concerned. This concern would not be due to the fact that the person wanted to get in good with the baby's parents, or because s/he wanted to improve his/her reputation among the community or among his/her circle of friends. Nor would it be because he/she was afraid of the criticism that might result from a show of non-concern."


"From this point of view, we can say that if you did lack concern for the infant, you would not be human. Also, to lack a sense of shame and disgust would not be human; to lack a feeling of humility and deference is to be "in-human" and to lack a sense of right and wrong is to be inhuman."
"The sense of concern for others is the starting point of jen. The feeling of shame and disgust is the starting point of Righteousness. The sense of humility and deference is the starting point of Propriety and the sense of right and wrong is the starting point of Wisdom."


"People's having these four basic senses is like their having four limbs. Having these four basic senses and yet claiming inability to act on them is to cheat yourself. To say that the ruler doesn't have them is to cheat the ruler. Since all people have these four basic senses within themselves, they should all understand how to enhance and develop them. It is like when a fire just starts, or a spring first bubbles out of the ground. If you are able to develop these four basic senses, you will be able to take care of everybody within the four seas. If you do not develop them, you won't even be able to take care of your own parents."

This directly addresses and refutes your notion of the silver rule and oriental societies. In ancient, post-Confucius China, someone who did not help a child in harm was considered inhuman and people were expected to help their fellow man, or in your case, an old lady cross the street. I do not see the point in lying about other worldviews and faiths just to justify your own.

[Xenich]

Silver rule.

It is the "Do no harm" principal, not the Golden Rule, which is proactive in that it pushes people to do good.

There is a distinct difference between "doing no harm" (ie don't do bad) and "doing good".

An example... walking by an old lady who is slow, having difficulties crossing the street. The Golden Rule suggests you stop, and provide aid to the woman in helping her cross the street. The silver rule simply means, do not do her harm, do not do bad, ie you can walk on by because you are not the cause of her problems.

The silver rule is not a real concept, it was coined by an Arab liberal, Nassim Nicholas Taleb and then retroactively applied by libs and evangelicals to the rest of the world and history. Nobody held the retroactive "silver rule" on the same level that Christians held the golden rule, despite you applying it so.

The Silver Rule is from Confucianism developed by Confucius (551–479 BCE) a Chinese philosopher, it is an eastern religion and its principal is found throughout a lot of eastern countries.

Since you want to wrongly attribute this to Confucius, let's start there. Firstly, Confucius is likely not the first to state this specific line, the Greeks had broached the concept 50-100 years earlier, including Thales, Sextus, and Plato. As for Confucius himself, according to Lunyu XV. 24:

The great principle of reciprocity is the rule of life.
Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

The "silver rule" you are referring to is actually just one word, Shu 恕, the most basic translation of which just means "to forgive." In this passage, the one word to live by according to Confucius, is forgiveness. That doesn't quite sound like what you're describing, and in many ways sounds more similar to the Christian concept of the Golden Rule. Additionally, unlike Christianity, this isn't elevated to the status of the Christian Golden Rule, it's just one of countless things Confucius said and holds the same merit or less as others. Concepts like filial piety occupy a much higher slot on the moral totem pole.

Furthermore, in Lunyu XII. 21:

Fan Ch'ih was in attendance during an outing to the Rain Altar. He said, 'May I ask about the exaltation of virtue, the reformation of the depraved and the recognition of misguided judgement?' The Master said, 'What a splendid question! To put service before the reward you get for it, is that not exaltation of virtue? To attack evil as evil and not as evil of a particular man, is that not the way to reform the depraved? To let a sudden fit of anger make you forget the safety of your own person or even that of your parents, is that not misguided judgement?

Add to that the next passage in XII. 22:

Fan Ch'ih asked about benevolence. The Master said, 'Love your fellow men.'
He asked about wisdom. The Master said, 'Know your fellow men.' Fan Ch'ih failed to grasp his meaning. The Master said, 'Raise the straight and set them over the crooked.9 This can make the crooked straight.'

These passages do not sound like the silver rule at all, instead, they exalt man to go out of their way to help others, to love their fellow man, and and to set the crooked straight. Adding on to that, here is a list of virtues by in Lunyu XVII. 6:

Five things the practice of which constitutes perfect virtue.
Tsze-chang asked Confucius about perfect virtue. Confucius said, "To be able to practice five things everywhere under heaven constitutes perfect virtue." He begged to ask what they were, and was told, "Gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness. If you are grave, you will not be treated with disrespect. If you are generous, you will win all. If you are sincere, people will repose trust in you. If you are earnest, you will accomplish much. If you are kind, this will enable you to employ the services of others.

Confucian values are not just derived from Confucius himself, but also from his students and followers. To further illustrate, in The Mencius, one of the Four Books considered the core to orthodox Confucianism, and arguably the most important after Analects itself, it makes the following statement:

2A:6 Mencius said: "All people have a heart which cannot stand to see the suffering of others. The ancient kings had this heart which could not stand to see the suffering of others, and, with this, operated a government which could not stand to see the suffering of the people. If, in this state of mind, you ran a government which could not endure people's suffering, you could govern the realm as if you were turning it in the palm of your hand."


"Why do I say all human beings have a heart which cannot stand to see the suffering of others? Even nowadays, if an infant were about to fall into a well, anyone would be upset and concerned. This concern would not be due to the fact that the person wanted to get in good with the baby's parents, or because s/he wanted to improve his/her reputation among the community or among his/her circle of friends. Nor would it be because he/she was afraid of the criticism that might result from a show of non-concern."


"From this point of view, we can say that if you did lack concern for the infant, you would not be human. Also, to lack a sense of shame and disgust would not be human; to lack a feeling of humility and deference is to be "in-human" and to lack a sense of right and wrong is to be inhuman."
"The sense of concern for others is the starting point of jen. The feeling of shame and disgust is the starting point of Righteousness. The sense of humility and deference is the starting point of Propriety and the sense of right and wrong is the starting point of Wisdom."


"People's having these four basic senses is like their having four limbs. Having these four basic senses and yet claiming inability to act on them is to cheat yourself. To say that the ruler doesn't have them is to cheat the ruler. Since all people have these four basic senses within themselves, they should all understand how to enhance and develop them. It is like when a fire just starts, or a spring first bubbles out of the ground. If you are able to develop these four basic senses, you will be able to take care of everybody within the four seas. If you do not develop them, you won't even be able to take care of your own parents."

This directly addresses and refutes your notion of the silver rule and oriental societies. In ancient, post-Confucius China, someone who did not help a child in harm was considered inhuman and people were expected to help their fellow man, or in your case, an old lady cross the street. I do not see the point in lying about other worldviews and faiths just to justify your own.

Interesting, It seems my sources (this was from a university course years ago) on this are tainted it seems (not a surprise and not the first time I have seen this happen).

They established the silver rule as I explained, and showed the golden rule to be the differing ideals between various eastern and western principals. I never went to lengths outside of the presented text to research as I did with subjects like history and the like.

Thanks for taking the time.

edit:

one thing though, there is an enormous amount of information out there that also seems to promote the same concept I am describing between the silver and golden rule as to their differences. Since you take issue, why is that do you know? Is there some reasoning as to why there is contest between such?

[Nammu Archag]

Silver rule.

It is the "Do no harm" principal, not the Golden Rule, which is proactive in that it pushes people to do good.

There is a distinct difference between "doing no harm" (ie don't do bad) and "doing good".

An example... walking by an old lady who is slow, having difficulties crossing the street. The Golden Rule suggests you stop, and provide aid to the woman in helping her cross the street. The silver rule simply means, do not do her harm, do not do bad, ie you can walk on by because you are not the cause of her problems.

The silver rule is not a real concept, it was coined by an Arab liberal, Nassim Nicholas Taleb and then retroactively applied by libs and evangelicals to the rest of the world and history. Nobody held the retroactive "silver rule" on the same level that Christians held the golden rule, despite you applying it so.

The Silver Rule is from Confucianism developed by Confucius (551–479 BCE) a Chinese philosopher, it is an eastern religion and its principal is found throughout a lot of eastern countries.

Since you want to wrongly attribute this to Confucius, let's start there. Firstly, Confucius is likely not the first to state this specific line, the Greeks had broached the concept 50-100 years earlier, including Thales, Sextus, and Plato. As for Confucius himself, according to Lunyu XV. 24:

The great principle of reciprocity is the rule of life.
Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not RECIPROCITY such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

The "silver rule" you are referring to is actually just one word, Shu 恕, the most basic translation of which just means "to forgive." In this passage, the one word to live by according to Confucius, is forgiveness. That doesn't quite sound like what you're describing, and in many ways sounds more similar to the Christian concept of the Golden Rule. Additionally, unlike Christianity, this isn't elevated to the status of the Christian Golden Rule, it's just one of countless things Confucius said and holds the same merit or less as others. Concepts like filial piety occupy a much higher slot on the moral totem pole.

Furthermore, in Lunyu XII. 21:

Fan Ch'ih was in attendance during an outing to the Rain Altar. He said, 'May I ask about the exaltation of virtue, the reformation of the depraved and the recognition of misguided judgement?' The Master said, 'What a splendid question! To put service before the reward you get for it, is that not exaltation of virtue? To attack evil as evil and not as evil of a particular man, is that not the way to reform the depraved? To let a sudden fit of anger make you forget the safety of your own person or even that of your parents, is that not misguided judgement?

Add to that the next passage in XII. 22:

Fan Ch'ih asked about benevolence. The Master said, 'Love your fellow men.'
He asked about wisdom. The Master said, 'Know your fellow men.' Fan Ch'ih failed to grasp his meaning. The Master said, 'Raise the straight and set them over the crooked.9 This can make the crooked straight.'

These passages do not sound like the silver rule at all, instead, they exalt man to go out of their way to help others, to love their fellow man, and and to set the crooked straight. Adding on to that, here is a list of virtues by in Lunyu XVII. 6:

Five things the practice of which constitutes perfect virtue.
Tsze-chang asked Confucius about perfect virtue. Confucius said, "To be able to practice five things everywhere under heaven constitutes perfect virtue." He begged to ask what they were, and was told, "Gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness. If you are grave, you will not be treated with disrespect. If you are generous, you will win all. If you are sincere, people will repose trust in you. If you are earnest, you will accomplish much. If you are kind, this will enable you to employ the services of others.

Confucian values are not just derived from Confucius himself, but also from his students and followers. To further illustrate, in The Mencius, one of the Four Books considered the core to orthodox Confucianism, and arguably the most important after Analects itself, it makes the following statement:

2A:6 Mencius said: "All people have a heart which cannot stand to see the suffering of others. The ancient kings had this heart which could not stand to see the suffering of others, and, with this, operated a government which could not stand to see the suffering of the people. If, in this state of mind, you ran a government which could not endure people's suffering, you could govern the realm as if you were turning it in the palm of your hand."


"Why do I say all human beings have a heart which cannot stand to see the suffering of others? Even nowadays, if an infant were about to fall into a well, anyone would be upset and concerned. This concern would not be due to the fact that the person wanted to get in good with the baby's parents, or because s/he wanted to improve his/her reputation among the community or among his/her circle of friends. Nor would it be because he/she was afraid of the criticism that might result from a show of non-concern."


"From this point of view, we can say that if you did lack concern for the infant, you would not be human. Also, to lack a sense of shame and disgust would not be human; to lack a feeling of humility and deference is to be "in-human" and to lack a sense of right and wrong is to be inhuman."
"The sense of concern for others is the starting point of jen. The feeling of shame and disgust is the starting point of Righteousness. The sense of humility and deference is the starting point of Propriety and the sense of right and wrong is the starting point of Wisdom."


"People's having these four basic senses is like their having four limbs. Having these four basic senses and yet claiming inability to act on them is to cheat yourself. To say that the ruler doesn't have them is to cheat the ruler. Since all people have these four basic senses within themselves, they should all understand how to enhance and develop them. It is like when a fire just starts, or a spring first bubbles out of the ground. If you are able to develop these four basic senses, you will be able to take care of everybody within the four seas. If you do not develop them, you won't even be able to take care of your own parents."

This directly addresses and refutes your notion of the silver rule and oriental societies. In ancient, post-Confucius China, someone who did not help a child in harm was considered inhuman and people were expected to help their fellow man, or in your case, an old lady cross the street. I do not see the point in lying about other worldviews and faiths just to justify your own.

Interesting, It seems my sources (this was from a taught in a course from a university years ago) on this are tainted it seems (not a surprise and not the first time I have seen this happen).

They established the silver rule as I explained, and showed the golden rule to be the differing ideals between various eastern and western principles. I never went to lengths outside of the presented text to research as I did with subjects like history and the like.

Thanks for taking the time.

edit:

one thing though, there is an enormous amount of information out there that also seems to promote the same concept I am describing between the silver and golden rule as to their differences. Since you take issue, why is that do you know? Is there some reasoning as to why there is contest between such?

I would have to do more research but I know it became prevalent in the 60s, probably as retarded boomers looked for new-age alternatives to devalue Christian morality in favor of more secular "ethics" while evangelicals sought to oppose this. Boomers were largely the ones who advocated for the silver rule after all. I think the differentiation is academic bullshit, as honestly, the rules are not in conflict as many societies "followed" both. Basically, liberal arts intellectuals made up differences that weren't there for their own purposes that then became the basis for later writings and arguments, as is the case for many modern academic schools of thought.

Tldr ethics is retarded and mostly made up by liberals

[Ranselknulf]

This thread is now about bridges.

[A Chinese opium den]

This thread is now about bridges.

What a curious coincidence that it would happen twice

[Roguey]

What a curious coincidence that it would happen twice

This kind of thing happens a lot but no harm no foul. It's just a meme at this point, like cops shooting unarmed blacks.

[A Chinese opium den]

What a curious coincidence that it would happen twice

This kind of thing happens a lot but no harm no foul. It's just a meme at this point, like cops shooting unarmed blacks.

We need more captains to die of scurvy so the professional standard gets higher.