And again, the golden rule does NOT state that you must be a pushover for societies assholes. I would give the same lack of respect for any other criminal.
If someone was to bully my friends I would not give them any respect. I would probably kick their ass.
Keep going on about the golden rule, but again people who have no concept of morality will not abide by any rules. People who steal do not abide by any rules,
If I stole from someone I would expect that people would stand for themselves. I would expect that people wouldn't be pushovers.
So I am doing what I believe. I believe in morality and personal responsibility. I believe in kindness, recpect, but I also believe in defending yourself against people who have no boundaries. So I would honestly drop the 'golden rule hypocrisy' if I was you.
I find it funny that one, who would claim a belief in kindness and respect, would so completely miss the ultimate point of the golden rule, being forgiveness, charity, and a general good will towards one's fellow man. While the golden rule does not state that one should be a pushover, it does have seem to have a problem with your second part about lack of respect. In general, I do not get into moral debates with people who are so strongly committed to such a destructive moral code, but I think in trying to bring the conversation back from mindless name calling, I will take a few moments to correct some of the flaws in your moral argument. If someone broke into your home and put your family at risk, this person has crossed a very real boundary and you have every right to protect your family. This is not a morality issue, but one of the simple nature of life. If you are not willing to defend your life or the lives of those you love, then you are deserving of the things that happen to you. If someone is bullying your friends, standing up for them is also not a moral issues, as again you are simply protecting the safety and happiness of those you care about. Yet, this brings us to a fundamental principle about Morality. If you have to create a hypothetical situation to define goodness or badness, you have shown nothing. Any maxim ( ie rule/law/Moral code ) can not rely upon a hypothetical situation to define its inherent goodness or badness, since this situation is one of a near infinite amount of possible situations, which can show the maxim in any number of different moral lights. Using the right hypothetical situation, one can claim murder, rape, theft, or even genocide to be good in one form or another. If something is to be considered good it must always be good, no matter what. Now, that said, You toss around a lot of words like Morality and personal responsibility, while also knocking people with 'no boundaries'. I hate to break it to you, but the limitless and unbounded nature of humanity is what makes us so amazing. It is that nature that even allows you to consider your own responsibilities and moralities. When looking at the history of the World, it is not the boundless that start wars, invade countries, commit mass genocide, or steal the livelihood of third world children. It is those who would have you believe that you are not boundless and must align yourself with a particular and limited paradigm of thought. To bring this all back to the original topic of conversation, I shall end by asking as two simple questions. First, How you feel if someone came up to you and started calling you names, like criminal? And Secondly, if internet pirates are such amazingly bad criminals destroying the livelihoods of hardworking people, how come the media industry is one of the wealthiest and most powerful groups on the planet?