|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Help me find a hypocrite! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cthulhu Member (Idle past 5852 days) Posts: 273 From: Roe Dyelin Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
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. _______ 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6011 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Answers in Gene Simmons Junior Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 8 Joined: |
So apparently, nobody has ever heard of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: Really? How so?
quote: Actually, she is mostly running on her own tremendous success as a very popular and skillful Senator from the state of New York.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024