White middle aged middle class cis straight able males tend to call themselves egalitarian. — Banno

I'm neither white, nor middle aged, nor do I subscribe to the cis label but I am a male. Let me explain my position on egalitarianism:

As far as acting as an egalitarian, I am neither an actor nor subscribe to any form of art school to learn how to act. I'm an egalitarian philosophically because I believe all humans ought to have all rights equally through socio-political and economic opportunities. I'm also an egalitarian because I belonged to a historically oppressed group and I've seen how generational oppression can blind people of said demographic to the point to where blanketed statements and accusations have been made and judgement and sentences have been met. Therefore, in order to mitigate the evolutionary process of going from one extreme to another, I am therefore egalitarian.

Just how far gone are you? You cannot see that throwing people from buildings IS FAR worse than a beating, and the rarity of the occurrence (or any act of bigotry towards gays) in the two cultures are not even close. — DingoJones

I'm sorry excuse me for reminding people of the exordium of introducing how the pot met the kettle. Of course I think being killed for your sexual orientation, race, religion, disability, gender, or species for extremist views is morally wrong. I want to also apologize further because in addition to that, I work in a hospital and most of my time is done in the emergency department where people of homosexual orientation as well as encountering those in the prostitute profession are assaulted daily. Of course being killed is worse than a beating, but the fact remains that being assaulted for the aforementioned identities period is bad.

Instead what do you do? Jump track to the False Equivalence Express. Staggering. — DingoJones

No. I was saying that its a double standard to look at Muslim cultures when it happens all the times here in the States and in other western countries. I think what you're hell bent on is seeing it in the news as proof of a daily occurrence and if that is true then that is another animal to discuss especially when it comes to what the media wants to highlight and doesn't. I'm merely looking at it from a general issue not specifics.

Here’s the problem with that statement:

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the genders.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism — javra

Ah yes Wikipedia the go-to website

I'm going to use the source from a writer and self-declared feminist:

"The movement was given the name ‘feminism’ because it focuses on the gender inequality issues that impact women. Just like any other civil rights category, feminism is a term used to show that one supports women’s equality and wants to address the serious amount of gender discrepancies they face daily. It does not take away from other civil rights matters.

Feminism is not called Humanism or Egalitarianism because Feminism, Humanism and Egalitarianism are three distinct theories."

Also the author later says:

"Feminism was given its name because it began as a socio-political movement to achieve gender equality for females and through its own rhetoric has become a movement to achieve equality for all persons regardless of gender."

Source:https://www.progressivewomensleadership.com/feminism-why-not-egalitarianism-or-humanism/

Any gender-specific form of egalitarianism is not complete humanism because the experiences and oppression of women do not speak in terms of the experiences and oppression I've experienced or any other male. I'm sure modern feminists wouldn't call the men's rights movement a part of egalitarianism due to the historical impact of patriarchy, with good reason and also with bias. The problem more importantly with allocating feminism with egalitarianism is definition and as defined earlier by the feminist writer, it is an equality based philosophy geared at addressing the socio-political, and economic oppression of women. This by definition, and my personal experiences alone does not speak for me.

As one commentator had said in the listed website I cited:

"Gender equality is a step for human equality, not an alternative to it."

They don't treat gay men that well, either. Or gay women. Or Christians. Or atheists. Or Westerners. — S

Neither does the west. Just because we aren't actively throwing gay people off buildings or performing public executions does not mean the west is significantly better. Excuse my French, but there are gay men/women trans men/women still getting their ass whooped on the streets for their orientation. There are still Christians shooting at Jews and Muslims and are attacking black churches.

For example, the Muslim-world doesn't really treat women that well and could call our attention, more than it does now. — ritikew

But women still face issues in the West. Women are still vilified online, at work place, in the occupational setting etc. Our issues concerning men's rights and women's rights are what I would call "first world" problems. You label the Muslim world as if all 50 Muslim countries deny women rights. I think we all forget Islam when it came to social rights among the Abrahamic faiths spearheaded these issues long before Middle Age Christianity began to address them.

I think he might be referring to Men putting weight behind the original Feminist movement? — I like sushi

Is this an insinuation or you know?

The short answer to the titular question is that it does and it is called Feminism. — Banno

Nope that is the conditioned answer. I'm an egalitarian, and quite frankly as well as technically that is NOT feminism.

Hey man whatever works for you. I'm glad you ultimately found companionship. For me, I've lived 37 years plus 14 years was spent trying to find the right woman (including social media/dating sites) after all the games women have played I decide to stay single but I love listening to the experiences of other men.

I don’t see the point in a “Men’s Rights Movement” as I cannot honestly see how it would benefit human society. — I like sushi

Currently I don't see a benefit to both to humanity. Unless we come from a position of intersectionality, which we don't which is a problem I don't see both as a benefit to humanity.

erhaps the reason is just that few will get a lofty academic position to study "male studies". And the university leadership will think: "Well, we have a woman studies department, so we cannot be intolerant and not have a "male studies" or "men's studies", so let's give them some financing. — ssu

Well the problem with that is academics especially female academics will perhaps argue from the philosophical position that we have learned for so long about the world through men, and that history has spoken about the human accomplishments through men, it would seem rhetorical academically to set up a class to learn about men when we do already in general study. Men are so over represented by academia it wouldn't make sense.

The same would be said about "Caucasian studies" some students have argued why we don't have one at my previous university at one point while I attended. Of course the idea was shot down but the traditional argument is that Caucasians in the U.S. are so over represented and that historically all systems had represented the Caucasian and given the historical account of the civil rights movement and its evolution, it wouldn't make sense academically to talk about the white male perspective in America when we already study that anyway in general study.

And that's what it's about: meeting people. — jamalrob

And getting laid. I'm just poking fun and I do not deny your experiences. It's just that women I've known who use social media and dating apps tend to talk more about the sexual ramifications of membership and the male patronage.

First, "sentience" is the condition of having sensory inputs. We have lots of sensory inputs we aren't conscious of, which never turn into experiences. We can see without really attending to everything in our visual field. Something is going on in the pre-conscious mind filtering what we see (by which I mean attend to or notice). — Unseen

Of course, a great example is the brain stem and its function. But it doesn't change the fact that sentience is a byproduct of consciousness. Why is it necessary to have sentience along with consciousness? Why is it necessary for a mammal to have sentience if, as you say we can maintain some sensory input without the need of a faculty in this case vision as you say. I only mentioned God in relation to my own explanation, not to make my explanation as an answer to your question.

Yes, people will always love wisdom.

It might be a different type of wisdom though. — Sir2u

Right but the inquiries that we all seek and share here will be lost. The contemplative "does God exist" or "I think therefore I am" will too, be lost in the rubble of human civilization. True, it would be a different type of wisdom but it would seem that the investigative inquiries and all of the historical elements that make up modern philosophical thought will be all lost.

You beat me to the punch

On the other hand, also because of the internet it's easier to meet other people now. Have you tried Tinder? — jamalrob

That is a hook up site. I know a nurse who was pregnant from a guy off that site. She now has a child. I'm not "dissing" the people that use tinder but like other sites like POF (plenty of fish) I have heard these places are predominantly filled with men and some women looking to hook up.

WHY is there consciousness? — Unseen

I believe the state of being consciousness is an extension of one being sentient.

Just exactly WHY are humans (and higher animals as well) conscious at all? It seems totally unnecessary and seems to have no survival value, either. — Unseen

The frame of questioning is on par with asking the question of why there is life on this planet? I personally cannot give a definite answer and I don't think no human here could. Although inferring as to why, one could speculate that consciousness by being a byproduct of sentience, is a consequence of the spontaneity of the existence of life on this planet. As for your idea of "survival value" I think the very fact you're using an instrument of a human design to convey your thoughts you deemed important enough to start this conversation, is evidence that there is a value in why humans survived.

Is it just an accident of evolution that ended up having no negative survival value? A fluke? — Unseen

I personally do not think life was an accident. As a healthcare worker I firmly believe there is a Creator far beyond any text that man can conceive of to describe it, and far too beyond the comprehension of any human language to speak of it. But this is my personal belief to which I concede amounts to my own faith.

I can't think of any reason why we need to be having experiences. Can you? — Unseen

As I've said already these things have different answers and to ask why we need to have experiences is on par with asking why does life exist?

You're getting ready to venture out into the jungle. What are your thoughts on borderline personality disorder (or NPD, HPD etc)? — csalisbury

Can you be more specific when you say what are my thoughts? Thoughts in what way? In general?

I've just seen a lot of folks in the mental health field hide behind their credentials when they can't answer a question. — yupamiralda

Well it depends on how the question is framed. If you're looking for an answer to which it may be complex, you'll be disappointed. That is like someone asking me how long am I supposed to take atvian for my panic attacks? Most common response among practitioners would be as needed.

If that's going to be your attitude, then there's no reason to continue this discussion. — NKBJ

So be it.

Because we don't have it, not completely...

By whom? You? I'll alert all feminists to report to you for ideological inspection promptly. s/ — NKBJ

Ok...

I interpret this differently than you. — NKBJ

Of course, as is everything in history that folks do when black folks have a different perspective...

But women of all colors and backgrounds are (to varying degrees perhaps) drawn to feminism because its core values are humanist — NKBJ

That is not what history has shown....

Feminist Rage: 4 Ways White Feminists Continue to Silence Women of Color’s Anger at Racism

"In the words of Pat Parker, in his 1978 poem “For the White Person Who Wants to Know How to Be My Friend”:

“The first thing you do is to forget that I’m black. Second, you must never forget that I’m black.”

Source:https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/feminist-rage-4-ways-white-feminists-continue-to-silence-women-of-colors-anger-at-racism/

Furthermore, the movement is clearly actively working against that very issue. So you're a bit late to the party to be calling feminists out for this. — NKBJ

The article I listed above if you check it, is 2018, so I think the problem is perpetual within feminism. I understand you want to argue this point, but there is too much evidence against what you're saying.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but most issues that feminists stand for are human issues that affect women of all colors: abortion rights, equal pay, being able to speak out in cases of assault, protection from domestic violence, and so on. Or do you contend that women of color aren't interested in those things? — NKBJ

"Because white people aren’t under attack by the structural racism created by a white power structure, they’re able to deny its realities. Casting themselves as the victims in discussions about racism, many white people defensively deflect from the issue, complaining that it’s actually people of color causing racial division (“race-baiting”) by pointing out its existence in the first place....

Making it about us actually upholds racism, because we’re allowing our own emotions to take center stage over the truths of those we’ve negatively impacted."

I can be an advocate of something but if I consider the support I'm not going to be a part of the movement closely. If people want a men's rights movement I'm with it, hell, I'm a man. But I choose to not be engaged in discussion considering there are people a part of that movement that don't like me as I've seen it.

The guy said he wanted support groups where men come together. That probably would break down pretty quickly because of the differences in experiences between races. — frank

Again history has shown otherwise, and I'm 37 I have not seen that in my life time.

They say the Korean War laid a foundation for the advancement of black rights because for many white men who fought in that war, it was their first experience fighting side by side with blacks. There was a documentary about it where white men who lived through that explained what it was like to discover that things you'd been told were untrue. It was pretty poignant. Is it necessary that we have a war in order to talk to each other? — frank

I would have to see that if you can give me the link to that fact....

You want to know real facts, the civil rights movement was the prime catalysts for the rights of all minority people including women and men. It was just that people of a different skin pigmentation had to prompt the people of Congress to observe the U.S. law.

This is fact.

Can anyone on the Trump support perspective explain to me what justifies his comments towards Ilhan Omar and the subsequent threats on her life? I'm trying to figure out how when she said in her speech regarding 9/11 "some people did something."

But your message was that white people have nothing to whine about because they're white. — frank

Can you put up the direct quote where I said that?

Everybody has a struggle of some kind. — frank

I agree.

If you want people to shut up and try to understand you, shut up and try to understand them. Right? — frank

I agree, but the question raised by the original post was "should a men's rights movement exist?"

My thing is why should it exist? If it does exist, like feminism will it speak to a certain group of men or all men? Considering that the male perspective has been at the forefront of society since the beginning of civilization I question at what point am I as a man in need of male rights when in fact historically my country of is just beginning to treat me as a human being, a civilian?

In other words how can I get behind a movement about my gender when I'm still facing a battlefront of what I look like?

The vast majority of feminists are humanists. — NKBJ

That remains to be seen. Considering that there were many women of color who have faced sexism and sexual assault and there haven't been any outspoken feminists on their case. I do recall the famous and late Sandra Bland case to mind on this issue.

And most of them, including me, are frankly tired of people trying to strawperson the movement by saying it's about hating men. — NKBJ

I never said it was about hating men. I specifically said that the original intent of feminism was not to speak for "all women, rather to speak for a category of women." This is why discussing the intersectionality of feminism as well as so-called men's rights is important because of the inequality experienced by people of color we see that women of color historically has been the most outspoken among the female gender:

“The problem, and what [many feminists today] are not saying,” Steinem told the crowd, “is that women of color in general—and especially black women—have always been more likely to be feminist than white women.”

Source:https://www.theroot.com/these-are-the-women-of-color-who-fought-both-sexism-and-1823720002

I find it ironic that most of the outspoken women who've I've discussed regarding #MeToo were more knowledgeable of Alyssa Milano than Tawana Burke the founder of the movement.

The article says further:

"Black women and women of color have actively fought for the rights and livelihoods of women for more than two centuries, yet their stories and contributions are often sidelined in the mainstream narrative of the feminist movement."

This was my position earlier regarding feminism. In total, feminism as it is expressed today as it was expressed in the past did not speak for all women.

I do think that the knee-jerk impulse to vilify feminists comes from a fear of men's privilege being uprooted. — NKBJ

I agree with this.

It's very much like people trying to demonize any black rights movement by pointing to the outlier black racists who talk about killing cops — NKBJ

I do not see the correlation of racism and killing cops but okay unless you pressupose that the underlying factor of cop murder is racial hatred and even that is hard to play considering the police force is diverse.

One sexist feminist/racist black does not discredit the entire movement. — NKBJ

Who says it does?

Sounds like your a liberal elite. — christian2017

You don't know me in real life but okay.

No way. People are killed in Israel all the time by terrorists. — christian2017

Do you have anything to substantiate this claim of yours? Meaning, since you are saying more people in Israel are dying more than U.S. Americans, can you substantiate the claim using an objective source?

People are killed and maimed all through out europe by terrorists all the time and in the United States most people are murdered due to domestic crimes — christian2017

What is your point? I clearly said people in the United States are killed more by domestic terrorists than international ones.

If you scrolled up you'd see that I listed a link which headlined:

Report: Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism

"The bureau investigates thousands of Americans for charges related to terrorism every year, though, as the Post notes, the public only is aware of dozens of the high-profile suspects charged with violent crimes, or the plans to carry them out. “Sometimes, it’s the violence that motivates someone more than any particular ideology,” an FBI official told the Post. It’s a theory that certainly applies to the most recent high-profile case of domestic terror: Coast Guard Lieutenant Christopher Hasson, who was arrested for stockpiling weapons for a domestic terror plot targeting journalists and politicians, including Chris Hayes, Ilhan Omar, and much of the 2020 Democratic field. “I am dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the Earth,” Hasson allegedly wrote."

Source:http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/domestic-terror-still-greater-threat-than-islamic-extremism.html

If you weren't so lazy you'd see this link to a couple individuals I responded to here regarding that, so congratulations on looking stupid. Because I'm not disagreeing with you when you said:

in the United States most people are murdered due to domestic crimes or gang warfare. — christian2017

Which is why the position I took at least from the American position is that the media in the United States highlights so much regarding Islamic extremism yet we are dealing with domestic issues. I, in addition to that, stated that if we look at 1.8 billion Muslims at least 0.00001% of that population is committed to terrorism (these are just guessed numbers). Since you mentioned Europe and around the world according to this article by the Pacific standard:

"In 2017, researchers with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START (which is hosted at the University of Maryland), told ABC News that Muslims are "absolutely" the most likely people to be victims of terrorist attacks worldwide."

Source:https://psmag.com/news/most-terrorist-victims-are-muslim

So in actuality everywhere Muslims are more victims of terrorism, it is just that on the west we tend to show significance when it happens on our soil.

White women and black men both have some privileges and some disadvantages, just of different kinds. — NKBJ

True. But what I'm saying is that the grievances proposed by feminism in its original context was not meant for "all women" just as the grievances proposed by men's rights groups is not meant for all men. Furthermore, feminism although was a bedrock for women highlighting social equality, has transformed into a hot bed of fanatical women who for the most part want to take issue of every facet of society. Although their numbers are small, they are extremists and are the most outspoken. Unfortunately, men's rights is the result of that.

try not to play the race card too often — frank

Well, race does matter when it comes to examining perspectives. When you're looking at disadvantages and things of that nature unfortunately race does play a part in the issues that affect certain people. so when I say "I and a person of color," I'm demonstrating that my opinion comes from the minority perspective as I do see a dichotomy of my civil rights as a person of color, and rights as a man.

As a person of color, I see a lot of men's rights advocates largely like I see women's rights advocates a bunch of people who have privileges but are complaining that they don't have enough. Looking at the history of the civil rights movement and the feminist waves during that time, women's rights largely spoke for disgruntled white women who wanted to be a part of the work force and the greater portion of society. Fast forward now we have disgruntled white males who feel isolated apart from society and who feel that the judicial system specifically family court are biased. This followed by circumcision arguments and such.

Unfortunately in the United States, I am still trying to fight against a system that still sees me as an inferior human being all because my skin pigmentation isn't a reflection of the greater portion of the U.S. Although there are biases against men, I do not feel they are significant enough to formulate a group where there is a substantial enough amount of evidence to support where men have little to no rights. Men's rights groups especially online have been infiltrated by supremacist believers already, so obviously I'm not going to be on board with other men who hold these beliefs, naturally.

Like modern feminism, its a bunch of disgruntled folks who are/were privileged and who wants t continue that privilege.

Nevermind this is worthless. No wonder, you're from England, no wonder you're a natural dick head

As I said, one can't be critical of islam without becoming 'islamophobic', 'controversial' or something similar. — George K

You can be critical of a religious faith without proclaiming pejorative remarks about it. It's called constructive criticism, the problem with discussions like these is the idea of a person's constructive criticism. If by being constructive you believe by talking about all the negatives of a community without making distinctions and isolating them from other members then it is problematic. then there is also personal bias that comes into play.

ou’ve challenged me to support what argument? — I like sushi

With evidence like a research link or two, or three or something that I can read that may substantiate your claim not "well I think you're wrong because of X, Y, and Z."

Have you provided “evidence” other than posting articles from the US? No. Then you accuse me of being “shortsighted”? — I like sushi

Would you prefer research articles? So i provide evidence but because it is from America (more specifically the FBI that looks at global data) it is no good. So you tell me which source do you prefer? difference between you and I is I can actually get the material to provide which would validate my viewpoint, you on the other hand have words which in the case of plausibility is not going to help you here.

Did I say I haven’t traveled? No. — I like sushi

Have you been to a Muslim household? Have you ever been to a mosque? Have you ever discussed with an Alim, or an Imam or a Shaykh about the general principles of Islam?

You assume SO much it is a VERY bad habit you have. — I like sushi

Because your behavior in your words have demonstrated a slight bit of ignorance on worldly cultures.

but I'm done...

The point is that the psychologists themselves, who you are suggesting are drunk with power to control society, arrived at the conclusion that forced psychiatric treatment was ineffective in resolving criminal propensities. — Hanover

Right, I read into that and it pissed me off. I have fucking taken my work home with me in hoping how to better help people and their conditions.

And you would say this of all first world nations? — boethius

No, I'm just saying that first world nations have used these tactics to oppress people therefore implying that being a part of a first world nation does not mean its success wasn't realized without oppressing people.

I do not say an effective democracy is without flaws and humans would be perfect within it; I say democracy can solve the issue of dangerous state organs, as with the police and military. — boethius

I have revisited your argument and it is flawed. I live in a so-called democratic republic called the United States, and so far I don't see any difference from what you're saying and what I'm currently living in.

This is not my view at all. I do not say removing oppression would remove mental illness, nor that removing psychiatrists/psychologists would remove oppression. Where do you get that from? — boethius

This is what you've seem to imply, at least to me.

I also say that even in an oppressive system, successes could be pointed to of effective mental health treatment. — boethius

Yes you did, but if the system is oppressive how is there success? since we are discussing the United States, if we are looking at oppressive systems it takes a certain amount of gall, to fight against the system to establish equity. So far again nothing what you've said is substantial enough to where it would distinguish itself from the current state of affairs in the U.S. or elsewhere.

under an oppressive state, dissidents, mentally healthy people subject to intolerable conditions (i.e. the oppressed), and the mentally ill, are all grouped together and the state does not employ (or tolerate the employment of such people by others) people interested in distinguishing these categories. — boethius

This is your problem is that going back and reading you're very vague and not too descriptive on how something is oppressive yet allude to the state of affairs concerning perhaps the pharmaceutical industry. What I'm saying is regardless whether you change society, mental illness will always be a byproduct of human existence. Much research has indicated our environment playing a factor. So regardless whether you change the government, change the way people think, change the way people eat, drink, and live, mental illness will always be a factor and you need specialists to mitigate those behaviors with coping mechanisms to modify them which is where therapists come in.

However, the difference with a oppressive state is that an effective democracy would consider and debate all aspects of these issues and try to tease out ethical nuances as well as allow different opinions from both professionals and laypersons to be voiced as to the causes due to environment and social organization that better government policy can do something about. — boethius

THIS IS WHAT WE DO IN GRADUATE SCHOOL!!!!!!!!!!

This is what the APA do annually with meetings concerning different therapeutic models that work. This is the problem with you people who have never been to a graduate program or what you think you know about psychology/psychiatry. You sit there at your computer and theorize and have no stepped one foot on campus to actually see exactly this is the shit we do. It really pisses me off online that a bunch of nobodies on a chat forum who have never actually written research can sit there and try to make dialectical arguments to destroy something we've built online as if we aren't making a difference in the world.

Here is a suggestion for you.....

Have the balls to apply to a doctoral program as I did, make sure you have the grades, the letters of recommendation, as well as the background to support your excellent character. Get in, complete the program as well as residency. Get on the APA board and change the game from within. Getting on an online philosophy forum does shit to change the system. I at least put in the work to try and make a difference in the system and yes there is plenty to debate and disagree with, but for certain I've seen an excellent group of board members who are listening to people in psychiatric distress and we are evolving better methods of producing a better way in treating the human condition.

How so? — boethius

The United States have used race to oppress people. Portugal more specifically King Leopold II used religion (in addition to race) to oppress.

and that my view is effective democracy solves the problems of the dangers of behavioral sciences used to manipulate society; just as effective democracy solves the problem of the dangers of police and military institutions. — boethius

That remains to be seen. I never experienced what effective democracy looks like, and considering that any political system that stems from a human is flawed so I look at your worldview with much skepticism. The problem with your view is that you lack understanding to the nature of various psychological illnesses and conditions. Your so-called explanation does not address the generations of psychological/physiological disorders and diseases people of have contracted, nor does it explain how the removal of the systems of oppression will prevent future mental distress and the necessary removal of psychiatrists/psychologists.

How does effective democracy answer for ADHD, Down Syndrome, Anti-Social Personality Disorders (which research has indicated that some children have experienced behaviors associated with it)?

I'm not referring to a particular system. — boethius

If not a system then what is effective democracy then?

How do you relate the original with someone that has extreme sadistic tendencies? — Sir2u

Depends if harm is involved. Surely sadists of the extreme kind tend to gravitate towards others of like mind. That is different from those with social anxiety disorder and a stark contrast. One test the limits of tactile pleasure versus the other who shy away from all forms of contact. Now of course there are the outliers of sadists who are murderers and rapist.

However, in this discussion I'm only interested in establishing that an oppressive state will naturally use mental health sciences as a tool to further oppression. — boethius

You can say that about any powerful first world society.

But even if your statement is true for you and for me, I am largely an adherent to stoic formulation of ethics where the intention and "giving a good ol' try" is what matters. — boethius

Which is what I've done during my residency yet according to you, psychiatrists/psychologists are agents of oppression.

even in a system that does more harm than good. — boethius

pray tell what system do you refer?

If you're an agnostic please get out. Only theists and atheists should be in this room. — Agustino

What if you're an agnostic-theist?

I always thought that this was badly written. It would make much more sense if it said,

"Don't do to others things that you don't want them to do to you".

Stated thus it would be applicable anywhere at any time. — Sir2u

If you are a scholar of Aramaic and Hebrew perhaps you would enlighten me how you would write it. I'm curious to know considering you're focused on the grammatical formation of said verse, rather than what it entails.

Furthermore I'm curious as you said:

"Don't do to others things that you don't want them to do to you".

Stated thus it would be applicable anywhere at any time. — Sir2u

Going back to my favorite subject aside from philosophy which is psychology, how do you reconcile your above reformatted quote with someone who has social anxiety disorder?

Someone who is introverted in addition to having social anxiety disorder, who avoids others in hopes that others may avoid them (which relates to your reformatted verse) seems to have an adverse affect not just on the development of social skills, but also on the mental health of the individual. Because in your case:

"Don't do to others things that you don't want them to do to you". — Sir2u

Would seem to perpetuate the behavior of one maintaining their own isolation would costantly affect their own mental distress. Which in contrast to the original verse's intent of one placing themselves in the shoes of others, and treating them accordingly. Now, don't bite my head off the social anxiety example is extreme but just throwing that curve ball out there.