Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help me find a hypocrite!
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 76 of 160 (397811)
04-27-2007 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Archer Opteryx
04-27-2007 7:48 PM


Re: No monopolies
Fine. Remove my qualification.
Tell me someone who said it was "just fine".
But you misinterpret my "reasonable compromise" statement. That is NOT my term for anything.
Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 7:48 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 9:21 PM Zhimbo has replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 77 of 160 (397814)
04-27-2007 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Taz
04-21-2007 6:32 PM


Re: Al Gore?
quote:
What they don't know is that the environmental "costs" to make these cars are just the same or even more than normal cars.
And? They use less fossil fuel than other cars. Ergo, in the end, hybrids still come out ahead. It's basic math.
There's a recent "Green" topic somewhere in the "Coffee House". Look for it. - Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off topic stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Taz, posted 04-21-2007 6:32 PM Taz has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 78 of 160 (397823)
04-27-2007 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Zhimbo
04-27-2007 7:58 PM


Re: No monopolies
Zhimbo:
Tell me someone who said it was "just fine".
I was not quoting. The argument I have encountered is that a 'strongman' along the lines of 'Saddam Hussein' (mentioned by name) is what the people of Iraq 'need.' The idea being put forward is that a leader in that, er, genre is just fine, is adequate, is on the whole beneficial... for someone else to live under.
http://EvC Forum: Lie after Lie (Mother Jones - The Bush War Timeline) -->EvC Forum: Lie after Lie (Mother Jones - The Bush War Timeline)
http://EvC Forum: Iraq needed Saddam? -->EvC Forum: Iraq needed Saddam?
As I noted, those making this argument hold their own leaders to conspicuously more stringent standards.
This meets the criteria I described: [1] a self-contradictory view (in this case, concerning the ethical standards that are acceptable in a leader) that [2] puts a heavier burden on others than on oneself.
It is not my purpose to revisit that discussion. It was my purpose to answer Nuggin's question in good faith as best I could, given the terms he used to ask it.
Unflattering compromises know no boundaries of party.
But you misinterpret my "reasonable compromise" statement. That is NOT my term for anything.
You said you wanted an example of someone taking this position that could not also be construed as someone making a 'realistic compromise.'
True, you did not not say 'reasonable compromise.' Your word was 'realistic.' But a look at both your post and mine will show that I quoted you accurately. It is you who now misquote yourself.
(This is the second time you've changed terms in the very act of challenging them. That's rather often for such a brief exchange.)
Regardless: I cannot show you one kind of compromise that could not be argued as the other. I have already observed (in comments you have so far ignored) that the distinction between 'hypocrisy' and 'realistic compromise' is in the eye of the beholder. One can always be taken for the other depending on whether that beholder prefers to find a speck or a two-by-four in the eye of the beheld.
Unless.
Unless one can establish the existence of certain principles that provide a foundation for all policies and are considered non-negotiable. That would establish the limits of acceptable compromise--and thus the boundary of hypocrisy. But these principles would have to be held as such by the persons doing the compromising, not the person doing the beholding.
Any ideas?
_____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Zhimbo, posted 04-27-2007 7:58 PM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Zhimbo, posted 04-27-2007 9:37 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 79 of 160 (397828)
04-27-2007 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Archer Opteryx
04-27-2007 9:21 PM


Re: No monopolies
quote:
"you said you wanted an example of someone taking this position that could not also be construed as someone making a 'realistic compromise.'"
No, I didn't, but I was quite terse, so let me elaborate.
I meant to indicate that the hypothetical person in question was saying that a Saddam-style strongman was "realistic compromise". Not that *I* was saying that the person's opinion itself was a realistic compromise.
If the person believed it was a "realistic compromise" given the context, then that person would not be hypocritical. If person X said "Bush lies, and that is bad" and said "given the geopolitical and historical context, only a strongman is likely to give stability in Iraq at this time", I am not personally claiming that is realistic/reasonable, just that the person is NOT holding contradictory opinions, and thus isn't hypocritical.
Now, if they said a strongman would be "just fine", then that would be.
You have not presented such a person.
quote:
I cannot show you one kind of compromise that could not be argued as the other.
Really? How about the based-on-reality examples I gave in the message you skipped over?
Is there a 'reasonable compromise' argument for Ted Haggard's hypocrisy? I haven't heard one.
Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.
Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.
Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.
Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 9:21 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 80 of 160 (398105)
04-29-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-14-2007 9:35 PM


Here's Another!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/...ter/2007/04/senior_official.html
"Deputy Secretary of State Randall L. Tobias submitted his resignation Friday, one day after confirming to ABC News that he had been a customer of a Washington, D.C. escort service whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a prostitution operation."
[...]
"As a top official overseeing global AIDS funding to other countries, Tobias was responsible for enforcing a U.S. policy, enacted during the Bush administration, that requires recipients to swear they oppose prostitution and sex trafficking."
OK, granted, he claims he only had "gals" come over to give him a massage. Of course. In the way that Haggard only bought meth but didn't use it. Got it.
Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-14-2007 9:35 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Nuggin, posted 04-29-2007 1:06 PM Zhimbo has not replied
 Message 83 by Zhimbo, posted 08-09-2007 8:15 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 81 of 160 (398156)
04-29-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Zhimbo
04-29-2007 11:04 AM


Re: Here's Another!
Very nice, Zhim.
So, we're 80+ posts in and still no "leftist" hyprocrits. I'd like to thank all you conservatives who tried and recommend that you take a long hard look at leaders like Haggard (Pun most definitely intended).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Zhimbo, posted 04-29-2007 11:04 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 82 of 160 (398993)
05-03-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Zhimbo
04-27-2007 6:06 PM


Re: No monopolies
Thank you for calling attention to your earlier post, Zhimbo. I did not ignore it; I had accidentally overlooked it.
I like how you argue for a position that is rationally defensible. It's a welcome change.
Clearly you feel yours is the position Nuggin should have taken. It is not the one, though, that he did take. On the key point your position actually represents a reversal.
Nuggin asserted a 'monopoly' on 'hypocrisy' from one side of the political spectrum. He showed every sign of meaning this literally. I contested the notion. No intelligent observer of human nature would say anything so blindly partisan and patently silly.
I see now that you agree with me. On the possibility of a 'monopoly' you say 'of course not.' You then admit a reality your colleague refused to entertain: 'Everyone,' you say, 'is a little hypocritical in some sense.'
This concession of my point is accepted.
Granted, you did try to camouflage it with some redundant adjectives. You denied a 'strict 100.00%' monopoly as if you thought a 'not-so-strict, 50.01-99.99% monopoly' might remain a possibility.
It doesn't.
A monopoly is the single exclusive source of a particular item. A monopoly is total or it is not a monopoly.
So we agree. No monopoly on hypocrisy exists.
Thank you, Zhimbo. Take note, Nuggin.
I firmly believe that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, or oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.
...This is more than just a matter of "framing," although clarity of language, thought, and heart are required. It's a matter of actually having faith in the American people's ability to hear a real and authentic debate about the issues that matter.
Barack Obama
_______
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Zhimbo, posted 04-27-2007 6:06 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6011 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 83 of 160 (415380)
08-09-2007 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Zhimbo
04-29-2007 11:04 AM


Here's another, was Re: Here's Another!
link
"Florida lawmaker [...] Bob Allen has been snagged in a gay prostitution scandal. What’s more, just like Foley, Allen authored legislation that would ban the very same lewd and lascivious public acts in which he was caught red-handed."
In case you aren't up on this case - his defense was that he was intimidated by the stocky black guy (the undercover cop) in the public restroom, and that explains why he offered the stocky black man $20 to perform fellatio on him (Allen fellate stocky black man, not vice versa).
The Daily Show video at the link goes into the whole blatant hypocrisy thing at some length...
Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Zhimbo, posted 04-29-2007 11:04 AM Zhimbo has not replied

  
Answers in Gene Simmons
Junior Member (Idle past 6073 days)
Posts: 8
Joined: 08-08-2007


Message 84 of 160 (415406)
08-10-2007 12:26 AM


So apparently, nobody has ever heard of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by nator, posted 08-11-2007 9:31 PM Answers in Gene Simmons has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 85 of 160 (415507)
08-10-2007 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
04-14-2007 9:35 PM


Hillary Clinton
Why would you need help finding out how much of a hypocrite she is?
A google search on, why Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite returned 337,000 pages.
Here's one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../04/20/AR2007042001589.html
That's on the heels of her making a plea to stop world wide prostitution. She gets her money from people who glorify the things she denounces.
Not to mention she is just an outright liar.
I would love to see a woman as President, but not her. She has a paper thin record, and is running on her husband's success.
They should name a dance after her, called the sidestep tango.
My question to is, why would one side be any better than the other?
There is no difference between the word politician, and hypocrite.
Arnold for President!
Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 04-14-2007 9:35 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 08-10-2007 6:34 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 87 by Nuggin, posted 08-10-2007 6:59 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 160 (415549)
08-10-2007 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by riVeRraT
08-10-2007 2:16 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
quote:
Why would you need help finding out how much of a hypocrite she is?
A google search on, why Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite returned 337,000 pages.
Just how many of those websites are legitimate, and how many are wacko wingnuts who start frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of the Clintons?
Hell, I got 1,170,000 google hits on a search of God hates Republicans. Does that mean it is true?
quote:
Here's one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../04/20/AR2007042001589.html
That's on the heels of her making a plea to stop world wide prostitution. She gets her money from people who glorify the things she denounces.
All the better, wouldn't you say, to use a gangsta rapper's money to work against prostitution and violence?
But anyway, that's not the kind of hypocrisy we're talking about.
We are talking about a politician being caught engaging in activities they specifically try to pass legislation to ban or restrict, or that they particularly condemn.
Much more direct than "turning a blind eye", which was your example.
Clinton didn't engage in international prostitution.
quote:
Not to mention she is just an outright liar.
Really? How so?
quote:
I would love to see a woman as President, but not her. She has a paper thin record, and is running on her husband's success.
Actually, she is mostly running on her own tremendous success as a very popular and skillful Senator from the state of New York.
quote:
They should name a dance after her, called the sidestep tango.
My question to is, why would one side be any better than the other?
There is no difference between the word politician, and hypocrite.
Arnold for President!
If they are all hypocrites, then so is Arnold. He's just as bad, right?
Arnold is well-meaning but doesn't have what it takes to be a good President.
Kind of like the Shrub.
...except for the well-meaning part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 2:16 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 7:30 PM nator has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 87 of 160 (415550)
08-10-2007 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by riVeRraT
08-10-2007 2:16 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
While Im not a Hillary supporter I find the article you linked a little light on the facts.
As near as I can tell, she opposed world wide prostitution (which I take to be forced prostitution, because I don't see her in Nevada trying to change their laws).
Meanwhile she takes money from people who are in the music industry who have some clients which include rap artists who have some songs which include the word "Hos".
I don't think I need to explain to you that there is a difference between "Pimps & Hos" of urban culture and young girls sold into sex slavery in Africa.
Additionally, just like when people say "She's a bitch" they don't literally mean, she's a female dog, when rap artists say "get some hos up in here" they don't literally mean bring up some prostitutes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 2:16 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 7:37 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 88 of 160 (415554)
08-10-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by nator
08-10-2007 6:34 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
popular and skillful Senator from the state of New York.
Being popular doesnt make you skillful.
I live in NY, and I have yet to experience anything positive from her. Pretty much any time I pay attention to her, it's like a joke.
Last thing I really got involved in was her kooky ideas for health coverage for the US, when Clinton was President.
If they are all hypocrites, then so is Arnold. He's just as bad, right?
Arnold is in politics, but he's no politician.
If Arnold's well meaning, isn't enough to make him president, then what is? A good liar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by nator, posted 08-10-2007 6:34 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 08-10-2007 8:19 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 94 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-10-2007 9:01 PM riVeRraT has replied
 Message 112 by nator, posted 08-11-2007 9:46 AM riVeRraT has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 89 of 160 (415555)
08-10-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Nuggin
08-10-2007 6:59 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
Nuggin, I am well aware of what rappers mean when they say things. I actually *gasp* hang out with black people, and even preferred hanging with the brothers over most of the white people I knew in the city.
Alot of it is uncalled for, and glorifies bad things.
It's ok if you want to rap about what is bad in your life, and express that you would like some kind of change, or even just to rap about it, but not to glorify it, I don't find that constructive at all. And so do many black people.
Here is another article that shows she takes money from people who are into the "wrong" aspect of prostitution.
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hypocrit.htm
I can't vouch if it's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Hillary has all these morals, until it comes to the dollar, then it's out the window, and anything goes. That's my impression of her.
I even feel staying with her husband, was just apolitical move on her part, and had nothing to do with love.
IT all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Nuggin, posted 08-10-2007 6:59 PM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 08-10-2007 8:06 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 160 (415556)
08-10-2007 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by riVeRraT
08-10-2007 7:37 PM


And you wonder why no one can take you seriously.
riVeRraT writes:
I can't vouch if it's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me.
You post a link that is simply a copy of a WorldNetDaily editorial, admit you have no idea if any of it is true, and then you follow up with:
That's my impression of her.
I even feel staying with her husband, was just apolitical move on her part, and had nothing to do with love.
Absolutely nothing but your personal bias.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 7:37 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 08-11-2007 3:36 AM jar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024