Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help me find a hypocrite!
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 61 of 160 (396944)
04-23-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Archer Opteryx
04-23-2007 1:42 PM


Re: No monopolies
I can name several. Friends of mine. I'm not making this up.
Here in the states we call this, "My girlfriend lives in Canada. You don't know her."
Obviously this thread is aimed at political figures, not your beer buddies. Hence my examples on post 1, and my question in the post you initially responded to about "their legions".
Do you friends have legions?
And as for China, first off, I haven't seen any left politicians saying they are for China's policy and against all forms of abortion.
But even if they did. China's 1 child policy is about population controll in a country which has a population problem.
Abortion is about punishing girls who have sex.
These are VERY different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-23-2007 1:42 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-26-2007 7:08 AM Nuggin has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 62 of 160 (396948)
04-23-2007 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
04-23-2007 2:12 PM


Re: Al Gore?
As far as more environmentally friendly technology goes, the U.S. of A. is behind other developed nations, especially the Western European nations. So far, most of the windmills in operation in the U.S. are made in Spain first and then shipped here. They are monitored by people in Spain via sattelite.
U.S. energy companies started investing in windmills not because they wanted to but because they were pressured to.
But for the moment let us forget about the environmental costs for making these windmills in the first place. Windmills actually are causing some ecological as well as a little bit of psychological affects. Bats are being killed by the moving blades, and some people have claimed that the fast moving, hardly noticable shadows of the blades are causing them to have psychological problems.
Last I checked, they are looking into some kind of device that drives away the bats. The psychological problems aren't that big of a deal so they are being ignored.
Anyway, there's your next project. You can campaign for U.S. companies to invest more in developing the technology so we can produce our own windmills.
Added by edit after seeing your edit.
Sure, we make them here. Doesn't mean our companies can outcompete with the more experienced companies in Europe.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 2:12 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by lechuga los muertos, posted 04-23-2007 2:55 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 64 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 3:28 PM Taz has replied

  
lechuga los muertos
Junior Member (Idle past 6183 days)
Posts: 3
From: Over there
Joined: 04-18-2007


Message 63 of 160 (396956)
04-23-2007 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Taz
04-23-2007 2:23 PM


Re: Al Gore?
Anyway, there's your next project. You can campaign for U.S. companies to invest more in developing the technology so we can produce our own windmills.
That could even be better for the economy since people have to be hired and trained to build them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Taz, posted 04-23-2007 2:23 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 64 of 160 (396963)
04-23-2007 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Taz
04-23-2007 2:23 PM


Re: Al Gore?
My original point, of course, was that windmills and nuclear reactors are not really equivalent as far as environmental impact, as far as we know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Taz, posted 04-23-2007 2:23 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Taz, posted 04-24-2007 2:12 PM nator has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 65 of 160 (397122)
04-24-2007 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nator
04-23-2007 3:28 PM


Re: Al Gore?
And my point has always been that while windmills and nucular reactors are not equivalent as far as environmental impact goes, they both do have environmental impacts, nonetheless, even if those impacts are in different sectors of the environment.
Look, we often point out how conservatives like to mislead and give out half-truths to achieve their own ends. I am simply providing a counter balance for the liberal side. Yes, windmills are environmentally more friendly than nuclear reactors. No, windmills are not completely environmentally friendly as most liberals seem to believe. In fact, I would go as far as say that exactly how much more efficient and environmentally friendly windmills are compared to conventional means of energy production still remain to be seen.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nator, posted 04-23-2007 3:28 PM nator has not replied

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


Message 66 of 160 (397469)
04-26-2007 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Nuggin
04-23-2007 2:13 PM


Re: No monopolies
Nuggin:
Here in the states we call this, "My girlfriend lives in Canada. You don't know her."
Here in Taiwan we call it 'Having American friends, practically Nuggin's neighbours, who are living falsifications of his blindly partisan premise that only one political camp ever exhibits a self-serving inconsistency.'
Anyone who has spent any time at all observing human nature knows that there's plenty of human weakness to spread around. No one group has a monopoly. It's naive, really, to assert such a thing.
Obviously this thread is aimed at political figures, not your beer buddies.
Our beer buddies are political figures. They hire and fire presidents.
That's why we call democracy 'self-government.' Distinctions between citizens are a matter of degree and role, not caste.
You're making trouble for yourself anyway if you retreat toward the position that (maybe, kinda, once-in-a-great-while) Our Tribe might have 'citizen hypocrites' even as its officials, pundits and activists never get tainted. If you seriously intend to put that idea forward, expect to be asked about the location and functioning of the magic firewall.
And as for China, first off, I haven't seen any left politicians saying they are for China's policy and against all forms of abortion.
But even if they did. China's 1 child policy is about population controll in a country which has a population problem.
Abortion is about punishing girls who have sex.
These are VERY different things.
The issue was government control of reproductive choice.
_____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Nuggin, posted 04-23-2007 2:13 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by nator, posted 04-26-2007 8:11 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 68 by Nuggin, posted 04-26-2007 1:11 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

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


Message 67 of 160 (397475)
04-26-2007 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Archer Opteryx
04-26-2007 7:08 AM


Re: No monopolies
quote:
Our beer buddies are political figures. They hire and fire presidents.
Only sort of, unless the electoral college was disbanded when I wasn't looking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-26-2007 7:08 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

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


Message 68 of 160 (397537)
04-26-2007 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Archer Opteryx
04-26-2007 7:08 AM


Re: No monopolies
Wow, you are really holding fast to this "I know a guy who thinks something different than you do, therefore I'm right." thing
I don't care if your friend in the IT department has a different opinion than you about reproductive rights.
What I am talking about are figure heads and why their followers don't recognize the hypocracy.
Are there individual hypocrites in the 6+ billion people alive today (a figure we can attribute a significant percenatage of to China)? Sure. Is that the question? no.
You're starting to sound like a creationist with this "One guy believes differently than the rest of science, therefore he gets equal weight." thought process.
If Franny Smith, 87, widow living in Miami has hypocritical beliefs it does not carry as much weight as Bush's hypocracy. Hell, it doesn't even carry as much weight as Karl Rove's hypocracy and he's NOT elected.
The point is, legions of mindless conservative troops are marching in lock step to the drum beat of Fox News, Bush and the Fundy movement. They are marching to, among other things, put homosexuals in their place. And they don't even notice that one of the people leading the charge is frolicing with a gay prostitute! That takes a spectacular blind spot, one that, so far, we can only find in the conservative moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-26-2007 7:08 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

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


Message 69 of 160 (397648)
04-26-2007 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Archer Opteryx
04-23-2007 2:35 AM


Re: No monopolies
quote:
What about so-called liberals who ask us to be offended on their behalf if their elected president tells them something that turns out not to be true, who then turn around and say a 'strongman' in the Saddam Hussein mold is just fine for the people of Iraq?"
Name one person who has said that Hussein was "just fine for the people of Iraq".
Not "wasn't our place to use our military to attack him", not "there were worse dictators we could target if our aim was to liberate a people", not "the case against Hussein was exaggerated to hide the administration's true agenda".
But Saddam Hussein was "just fine for the people of Iraq".
Never heard of such a person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-23-2007 2:35 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 11:34 AM Zhimbo has replied
 Message 71 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 12:59 PM Zhimbo has replied

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


Message 70 of 160 (397717)
04-27-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Zhimbo
04-26-2007 11:47 PM


Re: No monopolies
I offered:
What about so-called liberals who ask us to be offended on their behalf if their elected president tells them something that turns out not to be true, who then turn around and say a 'strongman' in the Saddam Hussein mold is just fine for the people of Iraq?"
Zhimbo:
Name one person who has said that Hussein was "just fine for the people of Iraq".
Misquote. I said a 'strongman' in the Saddam Hussein mold.
Great thing for someone else. Just don't give them a leader in their own country who would do something like, say, tell them something untrue.
_____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Zhimbo, posted 04-26-2007 11:47 PM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Zhimbo, posted 04-27-2007 6:14 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

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


Message 71 of 160 (397725)
04-27-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Zhimbo
04-26-2007 11:47 PM


Re: No monopolies
Not "wasn't our place to use our military to attack him", not "there were worse dictators we could target if our aim was to liberate a people", not "the case against Hussein was exaggerated to hide the administration's true agenda".
In raising these matters you do bring us to something necessary in this thread. You bring up an aspect of political issues that goes to the heart of why Nuggin's 'monopoly' premise cannot be taken seriously by any observer of human nature.
The premise that The Other Tribe has a 'monopoly' on 'hypocrisy' (his words) would make Our Tribe immune from this shortcoming. And it's not hyperbole. He really seems to believe this. Daring anyone to find an example to the contrary is his stated purpose in this thread.
I avoided the word 'hypocrisy' as being too quickly judgemental. I have put forward just two examples from my own experience of positions that:
1. exhibit self-contradictions on the issue of human rights that
2. demand considerable sacrifices from someone else while demanding none from the speaker.
I have done so because these features seem to meet Nuggin's criteria.
The idea of a tribal 'monopoly' on such behaviour is naive for at least three reasons.
One is the reason I have stated: no 'monopoly on hypocrisy' can be shown to exist by objective criteria. It's not unusual to meet people of Nuggin's own tribe who exhibit the same trouble with consistency experienced by others.
The second is another reason I have stated: human beings remain human beings and do not cease to be so because they have joined one tribe or another. All human shortcomings can be found in all human communities. No tribe is exempt.
The third is the reason you have begun to show us here. Political choices involve compromise. The issues they address are complex and often pit conflicting priorities against one another.
In the political arena it is necessary not only to hold to certain principles, but to know the limits of one's power, consider the costs and likelihood of success for any given project, honour obligations to one's allies and constituents, and do many other things. Every decision involves trade-offs. One cannot fight every battle on every front, all at once, on behalf of what one believes. No person, no government, no country is that powerful. One has to choose one's battles.
Compromise is unavoidable.
Because compromise is always present in any political decision, it is simplicity itself for One Tribe to cast The Other Tribe's compromises as unconscionable acts of hypocrisy, then cast its own compromises as pragmatic acts of mature statesmanship. The rest is just anecdotes.
It's an easy game to play. 'My Tribe Good, Their Tribe Bad' is a staple of campaign rhetoric, when one wants voters to opt for one's own product over Brand X. But it is not governing.
This is not to say there aren't, or shouldn't be, core principles behind all the compromises one makes. Principles are the things that represent one's bedrock priorities, one's absolutes. These are the things that keep you on course through all the compromises and delayed gratification the world makes necessary. Give on these and the moorings are lost. At that point it makes sense to speak of a fatal self-contradiction.
Which is why no informed consideration of hypocrisy, the real kind, can take place until one first knows what those principles are.
_____
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Zhimbo, posted 04-26-2007 11:47 PM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Nuggin, posted 04-27-2007 4:01 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 73 by Zhimbo, posted 04-27-2007 6:06 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

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


Message 72 of 160 (397753)
04-27-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Archer Opteryx
04-27-2007 12:59 PM


Re: No monopolies
blah blah blah...
You're writing and writing and writing, but you have yet to answer the question.
Is there a modern political figure on the left on par with Ted Haggard vilifying homosexuals while actively doling out sexual favors to his boytoy prositute?
We're 70+ posts in and the closest people have come is this:
Al Gore uses electricity and John Edwards pays too much for a haircut.
HARDLY on par.
But, of course, you aren't trying to answer the question. You want to bring up relativism. "There are people who AREN'T political figures who hold hypocritical views". Well, DUH.
Though, you making up imaginary people from your work place to try to prove a point doesn't really win you much support here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 12:59 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

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


Message 73 of 160 (397793)
04-27-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Archer Opteryx
04-27-2007 12:59 PM


Re: No monopolies
Actually, I think there's good reason to argue that - in current American politics - the right IS the natural home of hypocrisy.
Strict 100.00% monopolies, of course not. I'm sure everyone is a little hypocritical in some sense.
But Nuggin is talking about a special kind of hypocrisy - where an actual leader holds himself (and "him" as opposed to "her" is the very dominant pattern) as a special spokesman against X, even when indulging in activity X. This is something out of the ordinary.
The hypocrisy that Nuggin is zooming in on isn't really about debatable, shades of gray cases.
They're -
Homosexuals are an abomination! (Excuse me while I pay a male prostitute to fellate me).
Child porn is a scourge on this nation! (Excuse me while I scam on this young girl).
Drug Addicts should be thrown in jail for life! (Excuse me while I get my fix...)
This is not normal hypocrisy. This is a type of blatant, pathological hypocrisy that most people are more or less incapable of. NORMAL people simply don't boldly, purposefully, put themselves in such situations. Hypocrisy is NOT equally distributed among all humans
According to Bob Altemeyer, as I read him, (and I fully admit to not yet even finishing the relevant chapter from his online book, The Authoritarians) this is the type of hypocrisy linked to a distinctive personality type - the Right Wing Authoritarian leader (but not Authoritarian followers.)
Authoritarianism is not always linked to the political right - but in current North American politics, it most certainly is.
So I really don't think Nuggin is just playing a "My Tribe Good, Your Tribe Bad" game. I think he's spotting a real phenomenon.
Edited by Zhimbo, : spelling
Edited by Zhimbo, : changed 'a' to 'I'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 12:59 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-03-2007 11:56 AM Zhimbo has not replied

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


Message 74 of 160 (397794)
04-27-2007 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Archer Opteryx
04-27-2007 11:34 AM


Re: No monopolies
Ok...Sooo...who is saying that a strongman in the Hussein mold is "just fine" for the people of Iraq?
Not a "realistic compromise", or whatever, but "just fine"?
Edited by Zhimbo, : bold --> mold. Sorry, hab a code.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 11:34 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-27-2007 7:48 PM Zhimbo has replied

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


Message 75 of 160 (397807)
04-27-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Zhimbo
04-27-2007 6:14 PM


Re: No monopolies
Zhimbo:
who is saying that a strongman in the Hussein mold is "just fine" for the people of Iraq?
I was about to answer that, but then you blew it by throwing in a new variable.
Not a "realistic compromise", or whatever, but "just fine"?
You now ask for an example of 'hypocrisy' (Nuggin's word) that cannot also be characterized with a little argument as a 'realistic compromise' (your word).
I never made that distinction. In most cases I do not think it can be done.
Compromise is inevitable. This is characteristic of adult life. It is especially true in an area as complex as world affairs.
The omnipresence of compromise means partisans can always cast The Other Tribe's compromises as 'hypocritical' and Our Tribe's compromises as 'realistic.' Pots and kettles. One can play that game all day.
To get past it, we need objective functioning criteria for discerning between 'realistic compromise' on the one hand (your term) and 'hypocrisy' on the other (Nuggin's) that will operate regardless of the issue.
Please provide this. It is you asked for an example of the one that cannot also be represented as the other.
______
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : gram.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Zhimbo, posted 04-27-2007 6:14 PM Zhimbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Zhimbo, posted 04-27-2007 7:58 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024