Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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!
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 160 (395092)
04-14-2007 9:35 PM


In my mind there is only one thing worse that hypocracy, and that's blind obedience to a hypocrite!
Over and over and over again in the news we see people exposed as hypocrites only to have the people who support them not only continue to do so, but come up with excuses for the person.
A recent (though certainly not most recent) example is Ted Haggard, the Fundy anti-gay preacher who was exposed as a Meth-head and a homosexual.
Then, after a good three day class in how not to be gay, he returned to his flock with open arms - a "cured" man.
Here's why I'm posting. I'm sure, given even a very brief amount of time, we could list dozens if not hundreds of examples like the one I just gave. they are legion
The problem I have is that they ALL seem to be from the political right?
Aren't there any hypocrites on the left? Maybe an openly gay senator who's actually straight? Or world reknowned atheist who's actually secretly a cardinal in the Catholic church?
Come on, hypocracy arrises from the unabashed seeking of power, doesn't it? As such, shouldn't the numbers be equal on both sides?
I put this out as a challenge to all - fundies and scientists - find me some politically left hypocrites!
Oh, and sub-note, while I'm sure we'll be able to turn up people who have said things like "Taxes are important, we should pay them." but who have themselves cheated the tax man, I'm looking for something a little more grandeous. No one likes paying taxes, that's not exactly an earthshattered revelation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Zhimbo, posted 04-29-2007 11:04 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 85 by riVeRraT, posted 08-10-2007 2:16 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 08-10-2007 8:35 PM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 5 of 160 (395597)
04-17-2007 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Doddy
04-16-2007 9:01 PM


Re: Al Gore?
Nice try.
But even if the stuff you just said were true, they still wouldn't be on par.
Gore is not going around saying - "You average person are the cause of Global Warming" and then piling up coals in his backyard and burning them for gits and shiggles.
Here's another example, a political one, Rush Limbaugh rails against drug addicts, calling them weak and pathetic. Meanwhile, he himself was addicted to drugs.
To try and express it mathematically -
Person "I hate X" meanwhile person is X.
Though, I will give you credit for at least trying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Doddy, posted 04-16-2007 9:01 PM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-17-2007 10:11 AM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 8 of 160 (395701)
04-17-2007 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
04-17-2007 10:11 AM


Re: Hypocrites from the Left, Right, and Middle
Obama made a speech a couple of months back about SUV's and how impractical they are, as well as a danger to the environment. But then after the speech he was seen getting in to one and driving off in to the sunset.
Excellent! Perfect example, if not as vile as some others. Obama was not advocating an ammendment to prevent people from driving SUVs, but still a good example.
Then you have the whole Iraq war where 2/3 majority of the Democratic Senate voted in favor of the proposal to oust Saddam.
I'm afraid I can't let this slide.
If I tell you that milk is poisonous and you vote that we ban milk. You aren't being a hypocrite, you are acting on bad information. If you later discover that I was paid a lot of money by haliburton to lie to you about milk, and you say, "Hey man, that's BS!". You still aren't being a hypocrite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-17-2007 10:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by DorfMan, posted 04-18-2007 2:33 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 35 of 160 (396477)
04-20-2007 9:49 AM


John Edwards?
First off, I can't believe that _I_ am the one saying this but... has anyone seen the topic? Enough about tofu already!
Here's a potential example as well as why I'm not entirely sure that it fits.
John Edwards, who's presidential campaign is primarily about poverty in the US, apparently spent $400 on a haircut recently.
Hypocracy? Eh.
If you want to really look at where he's spending money, check out his TV ads. How much does 30sec of airtime cost?
But we can't count TV ads are hypocracy because he's in a presidential campaign. He's spending money to win the presidency so that he can effect a greater change on poverty.
The question then becomes, "Is a $400 haircut necessary to be president?" That I can't really answer. I go to SuperCuts and no one votes for me for anything.
Though all in all, I can't see spending $400 on something being really on par with railing against homosexuals, then going home and being a catcher.

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Zhimbo, posted 04-21-2007 6:59 PM Nuggin has not replied

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


Message 52 of 160 (396863)
04-22-2007 9:34 PM


Conservative monopoly on hypocracy
So, we've basically come to the conclusion that the conservatives / fundamentalists have a solid lock on hypocracy.
Now I have two questions:
1) Why?
2) Why don't their legions notice this?

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by kuresu, posted 04-23-2007 12:30 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 55 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-23-2007 2:35 AM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 54 of 160 (396873)
04-23-2007 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by kuresu
04-23-2007 12:30 AM


Re: Conservative monopoly on hypocracy
Maybe, but there's two problems. Mao is outside of the American ideas of "liberal" or "conservative". Additionally, though I didn't say it, I was looking for more current examples - like people who are alive at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by kuresu, posted 04-23-2007 12:30 AM kuresu has not replied

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


Message 57 of 160 (396932)
04-23-2007 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Archer Opteryx
04-23-2007 2:35 AM


Re: No monopolies
What about the so-called liberals who insist on free reproductive choice for themselves but praise China's one-child policy as being such a sensible thing for the people of China?
Can you name one? And even if you can, do you realize that there is a difference between outlawing all abortion as a means to punish people who have sex and changing that tax laws to favor people who have only one child?
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?
This is simply not hypocracy. A hypocrite would say, "I'm offended that GWB lied to us to get us into the war, but I'm not offended that President X lied to us to get us into war Y".
Personally, I don't give a shit of Saddam is in charge of Iraq or not. I certainly don't think it's my job to get rid of him. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, that makes me an isolationist.
If I was a hypocrite, like the Conservatives, my position would be this:
"Saddam is bad for Iraq, he's mean to his own people, we need to go in there and fix this situation. But, I don't think we need to go in to stop the genocide which is actually happening in Africa."

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 59 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-23-2007 1:42 PM Nuggin has replied

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 97 of 160 (415571)
08-10-2007 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Buzsaw
08-10-2007 8:35 PM


Re: Buzsaw's Two Bits.
Well, really what I'm looking for in this thread is more like:
Feingold of McCain Feingold campaign finance reform takes 10,000 from some insurance company to vote a different way on a bill. *
*I made this up as an example.
But to address your posts:
#1) Science refuses to accept things outside the realm of science.
I fail to see how this is hypocracy. Science is what we can observe and test. That which is outside the realm of what we can observe and test, is necessarily outside the realm of science. Science doesn't say: "This can not exist", it says, "According to science, there's no evidence for this." That's pretty consistant.
#2) The FDA doesn't let herbal remedies make unsubstantiated claims.
Well, that's the FDA's job. Most of the "herbal" remedy manufacturers are selling products which simply do not do what they claim they do. That's why "Head On" is the most brilliant product ever. They make no claim whatsoever. They don't even tell you what it's used for.
Either way, neither of these examples are hypocracy at all, let alone on the scale of a Ted Haggard or this new guy from Florida

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Buzsaw, posted 08-10-2007 8:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 98 of 160 (415572)
08-10-2007 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Buzsaw
08-10-2007 9:00 PM


Re: Here's Another.
Obviously you don't actually believe what you've posted.
But, just in case you do, I'll give you an example of why you are mistaken.
Water is good for plants, therefore more water is better for plants, therefore a massive flood that drowns everything will be fantastic for my cactus garden.
Yes plants utilitize CO2. But the plants existing on Earth right are not capable of using all the CO2 currently here. If they were, there would be extremely low amounts of CO2 available.
Add to that the fact that we are adding CO2 to the system at an ever increasing rate, and you come up with more and more CO2 that can not be obsorbed.
So, just like you don't want it to keep raining during a flood, adding more CO2 to an already over loaded system is a problem.
Not hypocracy, just simple logic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Buzsaw, posted 08-10-2007 9:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 12:00 AM Nuggin has replied

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


Message 100 of 160 (415588)
08-11-2007 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2007 12:00 AM


Re: Here's Another.
No, I mean CO2.
In a stable system, there is X amount of CO2 and the additional amount of CO2 produced by all living and mechanical means roughly equals the amount of CO2 being absorbed by all plants/ocean/whatever.
If the absorbtion rate was higher than the production rate, we would not be in a stable system - the amount of CO2 would be increasingly less than X.
If the production rate was higher than the absorbtion rate, we would not be in a stable system - the amount of CO2 would be increasingly more than X.
Since we are not adding more plants at nearly the same rate we are adding things we produce CO2, the amount of CO2 in the system is steadily increasing.
This increase has not caused a massive boom in plant populations, as Buzz predicts. In fact, deserts are growing larger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2007 12:00 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Omnivorous, posted 08-11-2007 12:30 AM Nuggin 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