Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
Post: #31  Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
|
Al Gore, former United States Vice-President said:
"There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of disinformation lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere."
Now we have Climategate and Gore making millions BSing us. How hypocritical can he get? CConcern for the planet is not concern for his wallet and increased government control.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 1015
|
| Post: #32 Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Scott wrote: |
| then buying mansions and $400 haircuts some with the money he swindled from that so-called charity of which he received most of the revenue. |
Citation? Yes, it would be hypocritical and then some to say, "Give money to this organization so that you can selflessly help the poor, because I believe in selflessness," only to selfishly keep the money. I don't see evidence of this. It is not, however, hypocritical to support charity and also own a mansion or a superfluous haircut.
| Scott wrote: |
| I think it's hypocritical that his house is bigger than my overcrowded high-school but that he claimed to support education and criticizes other politicians for not prioritizing on education or poverty as he does. |
How is this hypocritical? He's talking about policy decisions, not personal decisions. Or does he also criticize all millionaires for investing in their homes instead of donating money to education? Does he state his belief that, "The world would be a better place if all millionaires gave up their mansions"?
| Scott wrote: |
| I think it's hypocritical to say you care about poverty, encourage other people to do more about poverty and then get expensive haircuts and unbelievably expensively lavish homes when all that money could have saved so many children one claims to care so much about. |
Ok, you get the idea here. Hypocrisy is a particular sort of sin, and you aren't really talking about hypocrisy, just things you don't approve of.
| Scott wrote: |
| Edwards wrote: |
| Working people have been shut out by this president because he values only one thing: wealth. |
Edwards criticizing someone else for liking wealth? I can barely think of something more ridiculously hypocritical. |
He didn't disparage the president for valuing wealth; he is attacking the only. Again, you certainly have the right to criticize Edwards here, but only for self-indulgence, not for hypocrisy. I am not defending Edwards--I am defending my right to say "hypocrisy" and have it mean something specific. Likewise, I would contest accusations that Hitler was a rapist or a pedophile.
| Nick_A wrote: |
| Now we have Climategate and Gore making millions BSing us. How hypocritical can he get? |
I'm sure you found a second tin-foil hat when you heard about those emails, Nick_A. You know, I've known about the decline in global temperature for about 3 1/2 years now, but funnily enough it hasn't undermined my understanding of the meteorology. As with Scott, I suggest you look up "hypocritical" in the dictionary--and I won't even ask about your understanding of the science behind global warming.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dewey
Contributor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 525
Location: California
|
| Post: #33 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
OK, use “hypocrisy” any way you want. This is just the Lounge. But I do want to thank several of you folks for the new insight of hypocrisy you have given me..
Up to now I naively thought hypocrisy was something a person either had or didn’t have. He was either a hypocrite and therefore bad or he was a non-hypocrite and good. I thought the difference was in kind. You have opened my eyes. Thanks to your posts, I now understand. The difference is NOT in kind. It’s in degree.
We are all hypocrites. We do exactly what those we criticize do; we just don’t do it on the same scale. "Bad" hypocrite John Edwards takes $400 out of his $40 million for a haircut and only gives a few hundred thousands of dollars to the poor. One of us "good" hypocrites can barely manage to cough up that $100 dollars each time to see the Lakers play and has to settle for a new Ford instead of a Lexus, in order to give a couple of thousands to charity.
Selfish John! Self-sacrificing us! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #34 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Dewey wrote: |
OK, use “hypocrisy” any way you want. This is just the Lounge. But I do want to thank several of you folks for the new insight of hypocrisy you have given me..
Up to now I naively thought hypocrisy was something a person either had or didn’t have. He was either a hypocrite and therefore bad or he was a non-hypocrite and good. I thought the difference was in kind. You have opened my eyes. Thanks to your posts, I now understand. The difference is NOT in kind. It’s in degree.
We are all hypocrites. We do exactly what those we criticize do; we just don’t do it on the same scale. "Bad" hypocrite John Edwards takes $400 out of his $40 million for a haircut and only gives a few hundred thousands of dollars to the poor. One of us "good" hypocrites can barely manage to cough up that $100 dollars each time to see the Lakers play and has to settle for a new Ford instead of a Lexus, in order to give a couple of thousands to charity.
Selfish John! Self-sacrificing us! |
Yes, this is how it is. We are hypocrites. In the days before political correctness when humor was respected as the ability to appreciate laughing at ourselves rather than others, we were more willing to admit it.
The classic form of liberal hypocrisy is the willingness to spend another's money in ways they wouldn't spend their own and to tell other's how to act in ways they wouldn't do themselves.
The days of the Mark Twain types willing to admit our hypocrisy has been lost in favor of the political correctness that would find such realism insulting. Our loss.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dewey
Contributor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 525
Location: California
|
| Post: #35 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Nick_A wrote: |
| Dewey wrote: |
OK, use “hypocrisy” any way you want. This is just the Lounge. But I do want to thank several of you folks for the new insight of hypocrisy you have given me..
Up to now I naively thought hypocrisy was something a person either had or didn’t have. He was either a hypocrite and therefore bad or he was a non-hypocrite and good. I thought the difference was in kind. You have opened my eyes. Thanks to your posts, I now understand. The difference is NOT in kind. It’s in degree.
We are all hypocrites. We do exactly what those we criticize do; we just don’t do it on the same scale. "Bad" hypocrite John Edwards takes $400 out of his $40 million for a haircut and only gives a few hundred thousands of dollars to the poor. One of us "good" hypocrites can barely manage to cough up that $100 dollars each time to see the Lakers play and has to settle for a new Ford instead of a Lexus, in order to give a couple of thousands to charity.
Selfish John! Self-sacrificing us! |
Yes, this is how it is. We are hypocrites. In the days before political correctness when humor was respected as the ability to appreciate laughing at ourselves rather than others, we were more willing to admit it.
The classic form of liberal hypocrisy is the willingness to spend another's money in ways they wouldn't spend their own and to tell other's how to act in ways they wouldn't do themselves.
The days of the Mark Twain types willing to admit our hypocrisy has been lost in favor of the political correctness that would find such realism insulting. Our loss. |
Thanks, Nick_A. By confirming your interpretation of what I said, you have not only confirmed what I actually said but have also exemplified it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #36 Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
This isn't liberal hypocrisy as much as liberal lunacy. They must be putting something in the water for this to happen:
| Quote: |
| http://www.wickedlocal.com/taunton/news/x1903566059/Taunton-second-grader-suspended-over-drawing-of-Jesus |
| Quote: |
Taunton -
A Taunton father is outraged after his 8-year-old son was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.
The father said he got a call earlier this month from Maxham Elementary School informing him that his son, a second-grade student, had created a violent drawing. The image in question depicted a crucified Jesus with Xs covering his eyes to signify that he had died on the cross. The boy wrote his name above the cross.
“As far as I’m concerned, they’re violating his religion,” the incredulous father said.
He requested that his name and his son’s name be withheld from publication to protect the boy.
The student drew the picture shortly after taking a family trip to see the Christmas display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette, a Christian retreat site in Attleboro. He made the drawing in class after his teacher asked the children to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas, the father said.
“I think what happened is that because he put Xs in the eyes of Jesus, the teacher was alarmed and they told the parents they thought it was violent,” said Toni Saunders, an educational consultant with the Associated Advocacy Center.
Saunders is working with the boy’s parents after a mutual acquaintance referred them to her.
“When I got that call, I was so appalled that I had to do something,” Saunders said.
“They weren’t looking at the fact that this is an 8-year-old child with special needs,” she added. “They made him leave school, and they recommended that a psychiatrist do an evaluation.”
The school, in fact, required the evaluation before the boy could return, the father said.
Maxham School principal Rebecca Couet referred all questions on the matter to the superintendent’s office.
Superintendent Julie Hackett said district policy prevents her from discussing a “confidential matter regarding a student.”
“Generally speaking, we have safety protocols in place,” Hackett said. “If a situation warrants it, we ask for outside safety evaluations if we have particular concerns about a child’s safety. We followed all the protocols in our system.”
Hackett refused to specifically discuss the student’s drawing or the school’s reaction to it.
The father was flabbergasted when he learned his son had to undergo an evaluation.
“When she told me he needed to be psychologically evaluated, I thought she was playing,” he said.
The man said his son, who gets specialized reading and speech instruction at school, has never shown any tendency toward violence.
“He’s never been suspended,” he said. “He’s 8 years old. They overreacted.”
The boy made the drawing and was sent home from school on Dec. 2. He went for the psychological evaluation — at his parents’ expense — the next day and was cleared to return to school the following Monday after the psychological evaluation found nothing to indicate that he posed a threat to himself or others.
The boy, however, was traumatized by the incident, which made going back to school very difficult, the father said. School administrators have approved the father’s request to have the boy transferred to another elementary school in the district.
This is not the first time in recent years that a Taunton student has been sent home over a drawing. In June 2008, a fifth-grade student was suspended from Mulcahey Middle School for a day after creating a stick figure drawing that appeared to depict him shooting his teacher and a classmate.
The Mulcahey teacher also contacted the police to take out charges in the 2008 incident.
gtuoti@tauntongazette.com |
There is nothing I can say other then to agree with Einstein:
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 1015
|
| Post: #37 Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
The teacher/public school is liberal?
I'm sorry to be such a downer in this thread, but I just don't understand.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #38 Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Alun wrote: |
The teacher/public school is liberal?
I'm sorry to be such a downer in this thread, but I just don't understand. |
Don't feel bad, I don't understand it either. It is progressive logic that is from its own planet.
| Quote: |
| The student drew the picture shortly after taking a family trip to see the Christmas display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette, a Christian retreat site in Attleboro. He made the drawing in class after his teacher asked the children to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas, the father said. |
Obviously an eight year old child relating the Crucifixion to the birth of Christ is absurd and only exhibits violent tendenccies. He should be thinking of Santa and what Macy's can do for him. But no, he associates Christmas and the birth of Christ with the Crucifixion. Hmmmm.... very suspicious! He must be watched and evaluated by people who can "help" him.
I hope they don't discover me. I will be "evaluated" as well and forced back into "education." Nick_A vs. Education. That could be a PPV event.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1710
|
| Post: #39 Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I think it is hypocritical for a person to criticize others for not caring enough about the poor or for a person to praise themselves for caring about the poor when in fact the person cares more about fancy haircuts, fame and mansions for himself.
Edwards chose to fund lavishness for himself rather than help the poor. If he criticized people for helping the poor and praised them for selfish materialism than he would be the opposite of hypocritical. But he did the opposite; he did the hypocritical--praised himself for what he's not; and criticized others for what he is.
I believe Edwards was being dishonest when he claimed he cared about the poor. I believe his decisions demonstrate that he is a selfish, vain materialist not a charitable champion of the poor. Granted, that's merely dishonesty and not hypocrisy up until the point he either praises himself for caring about the poor or criticizes others for not caring enough about the poor. But he did. I'm surprised I have to explain this because it seems blatantly hypocritical to me. I think hypocrisy is the perfect word for it.
| Scott wrote: |
| then buying mansions and $400 haircuts some with the money he swindled from that so-called charity of which he received most of the revenue. |
The New York Times: "Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center's fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show." That quote of course just re-iterates what I already said in the blog post I linked to earlier.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alun
Joined: 11 Jul 2009
Posts: 1015
|
| Post: #40 Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Scott wrote: |
| I believe Edwards was being dishonest when he claimed he cared about the poor. I believe his decisions demonstrate that he is a selfish, vain materialist not a charitable champion of the poor. |
Well I guess what I'm asking is, has Edwards demanded that people make serious sacrifices for the poor, or that they make small sacrifices? As Dewey implied, even people we consider fairly selfless spend most of their time and income on their own interests. I did not follow Edwards too closely, but I've never heard him really demand heavily of people--rather, he seems to criticize people who openly ignore the plight of the poor, not people who only sacrifice a little to help the poor.
That does sound a bit sketchy, but on the other hand it is not necessarily dishonest--I mean, Edwards was raising awareness of poverty by campaigning. As that article says, it is also seems that the donors to that non-profit may have known what they were doing. Obviously politics is a pretty dirty business, and we should be skeptical of the claims politicians make--but on the other hand, slandering politicians is a huge industry, so I'm doubtful of claims that spin basic facts about political strategy into allegations of dishonesty or hypocrisy.
_________________
"I have nothing new to teach the world" -Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1710
|
| Post: #41 Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
When a man is being dishonest when he claims to do something or be something and then praised himself for doing or being it while criticizing others for not doing it or being, he's a hypocrite. I think hypocrisy is the perfect term for it.
Granted, hypocrisy is almost part of the job for a politician where they get elected and re-elected by making themselves out as unrealistic saints and criticize their opponents for not being perfect and flaws they often share. But John Edwards hypocrisy, marked by $400 haircuts, insane mansions and fake care for the poor, is especially disgusting to me--much more than say the hypocrisy of the politicians voting for anti-gay policies and then giving gay oral sex in a public bathroom or such.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #42 Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Cheer up Robin. It will get a lot worse before it gets better. Just be happy you've seen through the hypocrisy.
| Quote: |
| http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/the_hypocrisy_of_the_left.html |
"The Hypocrisy of the Left"
By Robin of Berkeley
I have been looking for God my whole life. I first recognized Him in the black foster parents I worked with who manifested Christ-consciousness.
I then found him four years ago, when my parents died three weeks apart and I was carried by a force stronger than myself. And more recently, as I've gone from left to right, I have discovered him in the many conservatives guiding me, such as AT readers.
Given my spiritual longing, I decided it was time to explore places of worship. Being a secular Jew, my first step should have been a temple. However, the synagogues around here are practically recruitment stations for Obama (aside from the Orthodox ones, but I don't speak a word of Hebrew). So I decided to experience church on Christmas Eve.
Checking out churches online, I found almost none that offered political neutrality. Most heralded their progressive credentials, welcoming the transgendered, but not conservatives.
I was pleased to find an Episcopal church whose website focused on religion, not ObamaCare. I left a message for the priest that I was looking for a church that didn't press a political agenda because I wasn't a liberal.
I received an icy reply from the priest, the Reverend Lucy, who said with barely-contained disgust, "I don't think you should check us out."
Her response left me shaken and angry. I understand that leftists despise conservatives. I have seen that creepy look of pure hatred when I naïvely told a leftist friend about my political conversion.
But an Episcopal priest rejecting me during the holiest time of year? Isn't anything or anyone sacred?
In shunning me, the Reverend Lucy exposed not only her own hypocrisy, but the duplicity of the left itself. She unveiled the left's dirty little secret -- that their doctrines are as bogus as global warming.
I used to believe it all. But when I removed one piece -- that the left protects women -- the whole house of cards came tumbling down.
Obama and his friends preach tolerance, but there is bigotry at their group's core. As displayed by the Reverend Lucy, this is a spiritually vacuous ideology. While they fashion themselves as human saviors, they clearly don't like people very much, and they despise conservatives.
Why do they hate us, even during the season to be merry? I think it's because we see right through their elaborate disguises.
We know who they are -- the Audacity of Obama. Dreams from his Marxist Father. Before us, the Emperor has no clothes. Even the left's priests are no true servants of God.
The left can easily dupe the masses who are still congratulating themselves for electing a biracial president. Obama sneers, glares, and gestures dismissively. He castigates Sgt. Crowley for supposed racism, pals around with dictators, and chuckles while millions are out of work.
Yet half the country is convinced that he's the nicest guy around.
There's a resonant story about Suzuki Roshi, the beloved 60s-era Zen master. A visiting teacher asked Suzuki Roshi whether his students had mastered a particular Buddhist scripture. Suzuki responded that he didn't know.
Aghast, the visitor demanded, "Then how do you evaluate the students' progress?"
Suzuki answered quietly, "I observe how they treat each other."
To know everything about the "progressives," just observe how people have been treating each other since Obama came on the scene. For one, the misogyny has been despicable.
Then there's the surge of attacks on law enforcement, from the murders of police officers in Seattle and Oakland to the slaughter of soldiers at Ft. Hood. Obama is sending out a "question authority" vibe -- everyone's authority, that is, except his.
In the Berkeley area, there appears to be a skyrocketing of black-on-white crimes. I'm hearing stories from clients of even more brazen street crimes and harassment.
I've written about two horrendous crimes at local schools the last few months: the gang-rape and beating of a teenage girl at Richmond High School and the stoning of a middle-school teacher during her class.
Just two weeks ago, there was another horrific assault at the same middle school: a fourteen-year-old boy raped a twelve-year-old girl during the school day. While the politically correct media refuses to tell, the word on the street is that these recent crimes have been racially motivated.
We are a country in rapid decline -- another red flag that leftist ideology is destructive. Not only is the value of the dollar sinking, but our moral fiber is unraveling before our eyes.
Gandhi taught that a civilization's greatness can be measured by how it treats its weakest citizens. So how are society's most vulnerable doing?
Medical care may be withheld from the elderly, children are being sexualized and "queered" in public schools, and conservative women are subject to degradation and rape threats.
Another measure of a nation: whether political opponents can speak freely. In Obama's America, prepare to be labeled a racist should you question "The Man." Find yourself ostracized by liberal friends, colleagues, and even churches should you not pass the political litmus test.
No wonder the left doesn't want us anywhere near their bully pulpits. We can see right through their media-orchestrated charade.
I decided to confront the Reverend Lucy about her un-Christian behavior and challenge her to do better. I e-mailed her the following:
Dear Reverend:
I inquired about whether I would feel comfortable at your church because I am not politically liberal. You left me a message with barely contained hostility. You stated, "I don't think you should check us out."
The fact that you responded to me in such an uncharitable manner makes me terribly sad. Has politics divided people so much that even a minister will treat someone unkindly for having a different political ideology?
In this holiest of seasons, I wish for you a change of heart, an opening of the heart, to those who come to your door. Because when someone makes a phone call to you -- which isn't easy -- they are in need of God. Don't you, as a minister, have a sacred duty to respond with God's infinite love and mercy?
With the blessings of the season,
Robin
No, she didn't write back.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Site Admin
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 1710
|
| Post: #43 Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
If politicizing religion is hypocritical, then the right would take the cake.
But like I've said before, I think leftists and rightists are both hypocritical to about the same degree.
I also noticed how "Robin of Berkeley" tried to blame Obama for the shootings at Fort Hood and anecdotal incidences of child rape. This claim is so far-fetched that it ruins her credibility in my eyes, and I assume in the vast majority of people's eyes. Thus, any actual facts or statistics stated in her article are not to be believed without credible, unbiased sources.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dewey
Contributor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 525
Location: California
|
| Post: #44 Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:17 pm Post subject: Liberal Hypocrisy |
|
|
|
| I’d like to thank Nick-A for placing this discussion in the Philosophers’ Lounge. At that time, he apparently realized that invective is outside the scope of political philosophy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick_A
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 1461
|
| Post: #45 Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
You may want to close your eyes to it but young rape and black on white crime is common. This is all the result of progeressive "love."
I know this narrow mindedness in education around where I live not to mention the bigotry of certain expressions of secular "religions." It is what it is.
I'm just surprised that Robin was able to grow to see it rather than follow the crowd of denial. They are a minority.
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
