> So your position is inherently hypocritical; evidence for my hypothesis that it represents a 0 sum game.
The position is not hypocritical. It just doesn't expect that one should mindlessly apply one rule in all situations. Life isn't that simple. People aren't that simple. Also, hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether something is zero-sum.
> A proponent of this rule is not egalitarian but means to treat those above him or her in the social hierarchy they way he or she thinks their superiors wish to be treated, while expecting those he or she thinks less of to treat him or her they way he or she wishes to be treated.
This is a straw man. Proponents of this rule can easily apply it equally to everyone regardless of authority or power. Doing so doesn't make one a sucker because they can easily decide to stop applying the rule to a particular relationship if it becomes apparent that the other party is using it to bully/manipulate. Just because it's not a black and white thing doesn't mean it's not egalitarian.
> Extrapolating from this, we can surmise who wears the pants in OP's relationship.
Funny how you pay lip service to egalitarianism while revealing your actual view of relationships to be far from equitable.
That fact that people are mired in a constant struggle of dominance and submission has very little to do with my own opinion of how things should be, it simply reflects my observations of human social interaction. Honestly if you see all human relations through the filter of pecking order, little of it seems mysterious or complex. War, inequality, charity, abuse, politeness, castes, genocide - they are all just displays of dominance and submission.
Hypocrisy is not required for something to be zero-sum, but it is a common symptom. I said it was evidence, not proof. Zero-sum games always require a winner and loser and therefore a double standard - what is good for one is not good for the other. It's a stretch, I know. It's probably too weak to make a good case for.
I don't think my argument is a straw man - I do believe that there is inherent inequality (and therefore hierarchical jockeying) when one moves from the treatment like oneself in the golden rule to the "special treatment" of the platinum rule. Again, I can't think of a way to make a strong case for it at this time.
I vehemently disagree with your claim that it is simple to stop this policy if it is clear a person is abusing it. Because the test depends on the desires of another person, and that cannot be measured, it is not easy to know if they are being sincere or manipulative. Only after a many experiences could one make that assessment and by then you have lost so much or worse, married them.
> I vehemently disagree with your claim that it is simple to stop this policy if it is clear a person is abusing it.
Ok, I'll give you that, having been in situations like that myself. Remove the word easily from my above statement. So it's not always easy to stop applying the policy, but I believe (at least in my life experience) that the benefits of intelligent application of the platinum rule outweigh the costs imposed by those who abuse it.
> Because the test depends on the desires of another person, and that cannot be measured, it is not easy to know if they are being sincere or manipulative. Only after a many experiences could one make that assessment and by then you have lost so much or worse, married them.
The test only depends on you. Applying the platinum rule depends on the desires of the other person. But deciding when to stop applying it does not. I firmly believe that you cannot effectively help other people unless you yourself are healthy (not in just the medical sense, but the whole life sense). So it's your job to decide on the application of the platinum rule based on the dynamics of each relationship in question.
The position is not hypocritical. It just doesn't expect that one should mindlessly apply one rule in all situations. Life isn't that simple. People aren't that simple. Also, hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether something is zero-sum.
> A proponent of this rule is not egalitarian but means to treat those above him or her in the social hierarchy they way he or she thinks their superiors wish to be treated, while expecting those he or she thinks less of to treat him or her they way he or she wishes to be treated.
This is a straw man. Proponents of this rule can easily apply it equally to everyone regardless of authority or power. Doing so doesn't make one a sucker because they can easily decide to stop applying the rule to a particular relationship if it becomes apparent that the other party is using it to bully/manipulate. Just because it's not a black and white thing doesn't mean it's not egalitarian.
> Extrapolating from this, we can surmise who wears the pants in OP's relationship.
Funny how you pay lip service to egalitarianism while revealing your actual view of relationships to be far from equitable.