Hypocritical?

Remove all ads!

Let me turn the tables... what Nakia said.

By all means, Chev, if you witness a stranger breaking a law that impacts only another stranger, there's still a societal imperative to act to uphold the law. But if the act you witness is a crime only in your own mind/heart/soul, then there's no reason you can't act as long as you're prepared to pay whatever penalty you may be subject to because of your interference.

How?

I never said nor implied that you don't have the right to speak or teach your children whatever you want or practice whatever religion you want, and stop implying that I did. You have all of those rights. It is you who is trying to take them away from others.

[ August 21, 2005, 04:58: Message edited by: Rallymama ]

 

That comment is not nearly as accurate as you might like. (You do realize those were jokes, right?)

Yet another thing we can agree on. (And you're not a freak, though I do occasionally wonder where your sense of humor has gone. ) But I think that it's a little hypocritical to ask them to hide something that the majority of our society is not willing to hide. IMHO we should crusade against BOTH kinds of overt sex in movies and TV, and not single out a numerically disadvantaged group like gay people, simply because we think their kind is 'more wrong'. IOW, equal opportunity crusading.

That belief can be argued, yes, but that doesn't explain your exclusion of the Libertarians' beliefs about law. They may not be mutually inclusive, but they are not mutually exclusive, either.

...by people making a big deal out of it. Perhaps they were the ones who sought the offense and brought it to your attention in the first place. I speak not only of the (very rare) reactionaries in the church who objected (loudly) to it in the first place, but also the (again very rare) flamboyant members of the gay community who do in fact wish to shove it in everybody's faces (also loudly).

Had they not done so, do you really think your life would have been affected in any way by two gay people you didn't know marrying each other in a private ceremony hundreds of miles away from you? Do you perhaps think that you would be forced to attend, or forced to read their wedding announcement in the paper (Does anyone really read those anyway?), or forced to watch them as they 'consummate' their marriage? What would change???

People who crave attention as much as these [people who brought it to everyone's attention] should be denied it at every opportunity, as you would deny it to a child who cries just to get their way. In the absence of a spotlight they will move on, and so will life. If everyone had simply let this alone in the first place, it would have passed with barely a whimper, and noone (aside from the occasional gay couple or priest) would have noticed the difference.

 

Laws should not be about upholding one person's morals above another’s. Laws should be about protecting the rights of individuals, period. The minute you start passing laws to enforce moral judgments you have just started down the slippery slope then ends where theocracy (or moralocracy) begins and freedom dies. This is why democracy is no better than any other form of government and why a constitutional repetitive republic founded and governed on the rule of law that is rooted in the sanctity of freedom is the fairest form of government for the most people that has been discovered to date. There is no guilt of hypocrisy, because there is no need to be put in a position that makes you feel like a hypocrite in a pure form of such a society. Democracy is what screws it up!

 

I don't see the issue being totally and 100% about individual freedoms. there's also the fact that everyone wants to live in a society that they feel reflects their values -- everyone wants to shape our society in one way or another. So let's use an example:

Homosexuals wish to change some of the aspects of society. Fair enough. Other people wish to preserve some aspects of society. This is also fair. I am opposed to the queer agenda, but I do not oppose their right to lobby for it. What burns my butt is when people lobby in opposition, they are immediately branded with all sorts of horrid labels and it is insinuated that they are against free speech. Far from it, they are exercising THEIR right to that speech! If it's not germane to the topic for anti-queer forces to say "well, you're just a little fairy faggot who should be burned at the stake" (which is, IIRC, an ad hominem attack) then it is equally wrong for pro queer forces to say "you don't support our amendment which makes you a redneck theocratic Nazi bastard." It seems to me it cuts both ways.

To come at this from another angle, in some cases, people may not be decided on something yet. So their actions one day may not be in perfect synchronization with their actions or speech on another day. Not worthy of the title of hypocrisy, IMHO.

Lastly, a very great poet once said something about even though he contradicts himself, yet he is still a man (or something similar). And here's an example right here -- that poet, of course, was Walt Whitman. I have no problem declaring him a great poet -- his impact on American literature and society (not to mention the role of his book "Leaves of Grass" eventually played in Billy Bob Clinton educating Monica Lewinsky on new uses for cigars) is stunning and indisputable. Do I like Whitman or anything he stood for? Nope, not for a second. I'd rather put my eye out than read his writing. But I still recognize his place in the canon of literature.

 

A constitutio mixta is the best form of goverment. Yet you make a grave error if you think that democracy is not a vital and integral part of a working of it. Political freedoms are a part of the individual freedom. Therefore, there can be no bit of freedom without the ability to participate in the shaping of one's one enviroment. How can one pursue any goal or consilidate what one has if one has no means to influence the political entity one lives in? Political rights are part of the indivdual rights like property and free speech. What's the worth of free speech without the right to vote? What's property without control over the goverment that can confiscate it whenever it pleases it? The only ways a public thing can be successfully managaged is by the public itself.

The more democratic a society is, the better off this society is and the more freedoms are granted to the single individual.

And reasonably, the principle is: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, or turned: Everything is allowed as long it doesn't hurt nothers.
The problem is to find out what hurts others. And that is something that can be very contreversial and very unclear. Most of the times, It seems to be a matter of taste.
But that's the difference between tolerance and indifference. If I am indifferent, I don't care anyway, only if I do care, I have the questionable blessing of practising tolerance, however painful that may be and swallow something that doesn't please my tastes at all.

But I don't see a reasonable way to evaluate what really hurts and what not in a definitive and decisive manner without hours of brooding over it.

[ August 21, 2005, 13:15: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

That's very true. IMO, democratic-representative government has worked very well here, since Jefferson and Madison transformed America from a strict republic, into a democratic society, where almost every man had the right to vote. Of course, it took another hundred years for blacks and women to get the vote. And the more democratic American society became, the more individual freedom increased. So, Iago's comments can be demonstrated in recent history, at least here in the US.

 

Part of the fun with democracy is that if a democratic government screws something up, you can say it wasn't democratic enough, so it failed. And yes, a lot depends on the definition of democracy. Do we define democracy by majority vote instead of elite rule, or do we define democracy by protection of individuals from the majority? Strictly speaking, democracy is about the rule of the people, as opposed to an elite, therefore putting the interests of any individual or group of individuals ahead of the rest is in defiance of the basic principle of democracy. Whether good or bad, all the protective umbrellas and affirmative actions politicians on the left side seem to love, that is hardly democracy. So yes, there is some hypocrisy here.

@Gnarff:

Allowing people to hurt others, even in order for them to learn a lesson from life itself rather than from a man, is a dangerous course of action. I believe that Kerry was not concerned so much with individual responsibility as with getting votes in exchange for supporting a wider scope of liberty at the expense of those who cannot defend themselves. In order to preserve the votes of Catholics, when the question arose of whether a Catholic could vote for Kerry with a clear conscience, he claimed that yes, he agreed with whatever the Catholic Church teached but privately. That was not even fence sitting, that was trying to be on both sides of a conflict. Where I see hypocrisy is that he admitted to believing abortion was murder and should be banned and yet supported the legalisation of it.

Okay, but what if a woman is getting rid of a baby in her womb and a doctor is assisting her (see Hippocrates Oath)?

@Rally:

How do I tell if a crime exists only in my mind? If I have invented it and convinced myself it's real, shouldn't I rather see no difference between it and the other crimes?

@LKD:

Yeah, if they lobby for it, they are exercising their freedom of speach. If you lobby against it, you are thwarting their freedoms. Therefore, you should be legally obliged to shut up. Noticed which wing of the political scene (it's easy, they're just two) is the quicker one legally to force people to shut up? Surprisingly not the conservatives who are typically associated with curtailing that freedom.

Other people say that morals shouldn't take part in any political decision. But what is this very sentence other than a... moral statement, moral tenet even? At some point, every single political option says, "it's wrong to...", even if just to say, "it's wrong to say anything is wrong."

Rights of others? Rights of one person end where rights of another begin. This is where I agree with the left side. It's just I believe that rights of a woman to decide about her body and her future end where the right of her baby to life begins. The right of homosexuals to shape their unions as they well please, even legally, end where the right of the society and state to accord the benefits intended for traditional families to traditional families begin. The right of homosexuals to adopt children, if it can even be construed, is cancelled by the right of the child to his welfare and proper development. Even if anyone says that there is nothing to guarantee that homosexual parents won't do the job well, the child's right to proper development is still not thwarted by progressives' right to make societal experiments.

See how strongly I believe in freedom and equal rights for everyone? Equal rights for everyone, no mending the word by favouring one group over another.

 

Don't play stupid, Chev. You're a law student, you know when something is illegal according to the state v immoral acccording to Chev.

 

Okay but what is it in me that tells me that the law is a morality handbook? The first thing they teach you in a law school is that it isn't.

 

Interesting. In one theology class we were told that morality can not be legislated.

Is a person who is convinced that abortion even in the first trimester is murder hypocritcal if they don't do anything they can to prevent it? Even if this means breaking the law?

Would their rights include murdering medical staff and burning down buildings?

My gut reaction is no because they would be replacing what they believe to be a crime with another crime.

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

 

@ Rally: When the law gives one definition of marriage that contradicts the one I plan to teach my children, that infringes upon my rights to teach my children. But because I'm not gay and looking to marry another guy, my opinion wouldn't count under those circumstances.

@ Fellinoid: I don't always catch jokes, and sometimes I don't make them very well either. That said, People's sex lives are private. I'm sure that someone would get banned from SP if they went into graphic detail about their sex life on a regular basis. I would prefer that, for the most part, sex be cut back on television, and focus on more substantial pogramming.

My point was that making a law was a moral judgement whether the Libertarian party wanted to admit it or not. Basicaly, the policy of trying not to offend anyone would mean selling out the country to the vocal minorities that want to be allowed to do something. This, in turn, will likely offend those that believe that government has the mandate to protect traditional morality.

Further, when one set of beliefs is openly mocked, offence is a result. Often, those offending don't really care what their opponents think, only that they get what they want. My life is affected by anyone that wants to change the rules of common morality to suit their own desires. What if I don't think that change is necessary, or even believe it is detrimental to society? Why then must I change my beliefs to accomodate these people? I refuse to compromise my standards to stoop so low.

@Darkwolf: But by legalizing Gay Marriage, abortion or removing prayer and religion from school, you are making a statement against morality. This itself is a moral judgement. I am very frightened about the direction this sends us. If laws protecting morality lead us to a theocratic or moralistic state, then wouldn't laws against morality lead us to an amoral state?

@LKD: Exactly, People want to change things to go their own way, and try to use freedom as a means to compel people to see things their way--even when they think it's a crock. To have a gay rights activist refer to his critics as you described should weaken their position, but not many want to point that out for fear that they will so be labeled. So much for the land of the free...

@ Iago: Political Freedom is vital to personal freedom, but why should one group's freedom trump another group's freedom? Further, if the ones getting elected are too far swayed by one group, their decisions may be compromised to offend a large group as opposed to not giving in totally to one group to find a compromise. Democracy would be a good thing--if it wasn't for the people...

@Chandos: The more democratic the governemtn, the more it can piss off the people...

@Chev: But the party system means that the people choose which group of elite rule. That is basically a Democratic Oligarchy, isn't it? And even though people should learn from their mistakes, their mistakes hurt innocent people. This is why I feel obligated to speak. The doctor is in violation of that oath by ending an innocent life.

While I see your point that we have no right to oppose their freedom, but the opposite holds true. we reserve the right to support the traditional morality, and they have no right to try to change that. So basically, we're stuck with the right to lobby for change versus the imperative to stand for what we believe. Someone has to end up getting the short end of the stick...

So you're saying that the rights to believe what you will end when you trample the rights of others? So the rights of homosexuals should end when it infringes on the rights of those of us that don't want to hear it? The same can be laid against the religious crowd too. Yet we are given the imperative through scripture to proclaim the truth to all nations, Kindreds and Toungues. So give them the right to speak their minds, but make the government accountable for the laws they make. That way, if they make a law to appease one group, they must answer to the offended group, and face the consequences...

@Nakia: I'm not advocating murder or arson, but I would like to see people rally for tighter abortion laws, find ways to voice their displeasure with other offensive legislation and the like. If one side can fight for change, can't the other side oppose this?

 

Yes, but take away their representation and see how angry they really can become. Take a look at some of the rhetoric and comments made by the Revolutionary Generation over the lack of representation in Parliament. The Boston Tea Party was not about the tax on tea. Heck, half of those guys didn't even drink tea. It was about representation.

[ August 22, 2005, 07:43: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I think thats fine. What I think is hypocritical, is saying gay sex is gross and should be banned, yet watching lesbian porn!

Some people need them, but if you are a highschool student that lives near school, and drives one of these monsters just by yourself, wll that is irresponsible, and pathetic. It screams 'I have a small penis'!

Pot has medical benefits, and is not addictive, so maybe not that hypocritical. Do you mean 'made legal' for medical use, or just for fun?

A double edged sword. Some troops want freedom for Iraq, Afghanistan, and respect the country they are occupying, so give them all the support, but for prison abusers, or people that say "We own Baghdad" don't deserve any support what so ever. Support those that show compasison and integrety.

I have some as well.

People that complained about Janet Jackson at the superbowl, yet did not mind Kid Rocks scantily clad dancers (at the same event), the Victorias Secret advert, or the Viagra adverts "Daddy, what is erictile dysfunction?"

People that go to church every Sunday (also quick to judge others that do not) and support civillians being killed in Iraq

People that go to church (again, quick to judge others that do not) every Sunday and watch porn movies with their husbands and wives, yet hate nudity in movies.

 

Gnarff, there's nothing in the law that says you can't teach your children, "Gay marriage is legal in this country but we think it's wrong, and our Church doesn't recognize such sinful unions." I do something similar every day, with regard to smoking and tobacco. That's what I mean by seeking out offense where it doesn't otherwise exist. I'm sure that I'm far more directly impacted by smoking than you will ever be by gay marriage.

I'm assuming that you will bring up your children to follow all the teachings of the Mormon church, including the prohibitions against alcohol and coffee? Following your thinking on gay marriage, any Starbucks ad is an affront and an attack on your church. Why aren't you out fighting them? That kind of selective activism is what I mean by hypocrisy.

 

Ouch, Rally! I have to take a stand on this one -- while Mormons believe that coffee is not healthy for you and all, we also believe that some things are more detrimental to society than others. We DO have perspective, you know! We are of the belief (and I think I can safely speak for all practicing Mormons on this one) that the homosexual agenda is detrimental to a healthy society (the whys, wherefores, yes-it-is, no-it-isn't discussions to be done elsewhere). We do not believe the Starbucks agenda to be anywhere close as detrimental to society, so we prioritize. I mean, it would be like criticizing anti-smoking lobbyists for not going after Starbucks -- caffeine is an addictive drug (just talk to Chev ), but from their standpoint it is not the health risk or society disrupter that nicotine is.

End rant.

 

/me does some finger stretching for a warm-up

@Gnarff:

Yeah, nowadays democracy is much like oligarchy in that you get to choose from the people parties give you on a predefined list. Parties form more or less closed environments and, while proffesional politicians aren't such a bad idea, the group quickly begins to include their relatives and friends and they quickly find a common tongue with business lobbies. Enter oligarchy. There is hypocrisy here.

And yes, a doctor violates his oath when he performs an abortion, especially when there's no health risk for the mother. One of the reasons to distrust those people: they put politics and political correctness above oaths. This is quite a measure of hypocrisy, if a person also claims to be doing the right thing.

Generally, we need the right to speak either way. But as I said, it's the left side, with all the pro-gay and pro-abortion stuff, that goes to reat lengths in curtailing the freedom of speech. Not the pro-life, pro-family side, which is constantly accused of thwarting it. Lots of hypocrisy here. Lots.

Depends. I don't think they should have no calm, civil way to express their thoughts just because we don't want to hear them. But there should probably be a limit to some more... unorthodox forms of expression. I don't want to see my flag burned by idiots making a "statement". I don't want condoms flying in the air. I don't want almost naked men in gold pain or whatever rabbit tails or feather they come up with. Okay, no one forces me to look, so I won't be there to watch, but still. And all the mess and litter that remains after such events should be cleared by the lobbies that initiate those demonstrations. Imagine if a straight pride parade made such a gross display and left such a mess. Hypocrisy shows again on the "progressive" side, I guess...

When a politician speaks in favour of gay rights, I don't call it flaunting a sexual perversion in my face. Not even when more or less polite groups demonstrate non-violently without inciting hatred and yelling obscenities. However, gay pride parades are indeed all that throwing something in someone's face stands for. This is hypocrisy the size of the moon with all their claims that they are just protecting their repressed freedom of whatever, especially peaceful life. I'm not sure if it should be outlawed. Perhaps not. Perhaps let's just allow the society to see how low people can get and make up its own mind judging by the absurdities and obscenities it sees during such events. Outlawing them and prosecuting the activists only makes them into martyrs, which is not exactly what we need.

Authorities tend to be responsible for enactments, subordinate legislation etc. Or executing a law in a faulty way. It would be hard, however, to make a large group of parliament members accountable for a wrong bill. Or constitutional judges (Supreme Court in the US) accountable for absurd verdicts. You don't really have a body above the parliament or the constitutional court unless you want to make them politically responsible before the president or someone, which would be a very bad idea. It wouldn't be democratic and it would push us into self-denial.

@Cuchulainn:

Indeed. The bullies deserve court-martial, which they are not getting. Something is wrong with training and recruitment procedures in the US army. The other armies of the coalition, except maybe the British army to some extent, don't have such problems. Where the real hypocrisy is, is the American government pretending there are no bullies but only the noble people. Of course, presenting all soldiers as bullies after the manner of Abu-Ghraib or Guantanamo is also hypocrisy, this time on the left side.

A youthful person's right to have fun is nowhere near as important as the community's right to peaceful living. Super fast and extra dangerous cars should have a special driving license category with a lot of tests attached to filter out cowboys and unstable people.

I know of a case of a man with three drunk driving accidents under his belt who walks scott free. Such things shouldn't happen. I'm in favour of taking driving licenses from people who shouldn't have got them in the first place. Perhaps all drivers should be tested for alcohol addiction? Being an alcoholic doesn't guarantee causing car accidents while drunk but we all know that sooner or later, it will happen. I'm not speaking about people who like to drink, I'm speaking about addicts here. All this talk about cracking down on drunk driving and all those people being given another opportunity to cause an accident. H... guess the word.

@Rally:

I'm not an expert on Mormons but it seems to me that they oppose all drugs for clarity of mind reasons, as well as training willpower and putting some great stress on freedom and personal responsibility. So they don't drink coffee because it's a drug. But while alcohol has brought people down and destroyed families, coffee or chocolate or perhaps small amounts of alcohol that don't make you a clinical case are mostly harmful to yourself, in the eyes of a Mormon, than to the whole of the society. I don't know for sure, I'm just guessing. It's a bit like with vegetarians who perhaps have concerns of a moral nature that prevent them from eating meat, but they don't (normally) become violent when faced with meat eating. I don't see hypocrisy here.

When one person harms himself is one thing. When people feel in their right to harm others, is another. Abortion doesn't involve just the mother or both parents. It involves also the foetus whom no one asks any questions before it's torn limb from limb by awful chemicals. It's a big show of hypocrisy to claim that abortion is only on the mother's conscience.

Gay adoption also affects children, therefore it isn't just a gay issue, it affects the whole society by affecting the abstract totality of the society's orphaned or abandoned children. Therefore, it takes a hypocrite to claim that gay adoption being banned is infringement upon gay people's rights. The "two consenting adults" problem of gay marriage is a bit tougher than this, though. There are already instances when the society intervenes when two consenting adults are harming each other, such as in fights. We don't allow duels, for example. Suicide is prevented, not supported as an exercise of freedom. Therefore, there is a precedent for intervention. No hypocrisy in intervening, some hypocrisy in claiming that intervention is unprecedented.

Next, marriage is an institution developed over countless centuries and one of the central ones in any society. As a social and also legal institution, it benefits from certain associated privileges and freedoms. Those are intented for traditional families, based on the mutual complementariness and fruitfulness of the union between a man and a woman. A sexual relationship between two people of the same gender does not possess the qualities in question, nor does it meet the goals set before the institution which we are discussing. Therefore, a group lobbying for change sets itself in opposition to the rest of the society, demanding changes to accommodate its particular interests. That's quite rogue politics and, as I said, the demands are unfounded. The level of hypocrisy is comparable to a nasty hangover.

I don't want to put gay people in prison for what they do in their own bedrooms but I don't want the gay lifestyle to become part of the society's daily life. I don't want any more distortions of science, ethics and even common sense in order to accommodate the aggressive gay lobby. I don't want any homophobia laws. I don't want a strong gay lobby with a powerful base, advertising its lifestyle with catchy phrases and encouraging the youth to give it a go before defining their own sexuality. I don't want it to be considered normal that a woman should hit on a woman or a man on a man. Why? I've had enough of all the hypocrisy that makes people pretend that the gay way is a normal way just like the straight way.

It doesn't mean I react decidedly and violently when faced with such situations in life, except maybe making sure that my refusal to participate or cooperate in anything is clearly understood and no approval is assumed. Hypocrisy is not my style.

I'm a believer in freedom myself. I'm not in favour of prosecution or ostracism. Propagating the gay lifestyle is corruption and should be frowned upon, not supported. Otherwise, like when we are talking about indecent exposure and other such petty crimes, I believe gay people should be punished all the same as straight people, no more, no less. I don't think there should be an extra grossness penalty unless someone's making a statement (corruption). But I'm against the idea that the state should support the gay lifestyle or gay marriage or gay adoption. In short, to give any sort of "placet" to the gay lifestyle. We need to deal with the gay problem somehow and I'm afraid we aren't too far advanced in the process of finding the way. Some merit is in arguments that the law shouldn't be the main tool in this. If you ask me, it sucks that gay people feel hurt, rejected and discriminated against. It's unfortunate that they have trouble finding inner peace and happiness because of this. Nonetheless, I can't support their claims. I would be lying to myself if I tried to keep my beliefs private and stand by when things happen. No fence sitting for me.

[ August 22, 2005, 19:36: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Sorry Tal - responsibility assumed. I've been around, I have just been observing and not being an active participant.

Acknowledging that some of the examples I listed in my opening post would be opposed by some on religious grounds, I do not think it is entirely inappropriate to discuss religion if that is your basis for feeling some of the items are hypocritical.

That having been said, I don't understand Gnarff's post stating that if a law is passed legalizing gay marriage, he will not be able to teach his children appropriate Mormon doctrine. Just because something is legal in the country, it doesn't mean that you can't have religious beliefs running counter to it.

Example: Most practicing Cathlics do not eat meat on Fridays during lent. Just because McDonalds is open on Fridays year-round does not mean Catholics cannot teach their children that while it is legal to purchase a burger on Fridays during lent, that it is considered inappropriate in the Catholic faith. Similarly, I can't see why Gnarff can't explain to his children (which AFAIK do not even exist at this point): While gay marriage is legal in Canada, those of the Mormon faith think gay marriage is sinful, and thus we do not ackowledge gay marriage within the Mormon Church.

To All,

I am quite surprised by the responses up to this point. I'm coming to think that I should have asked the question: "Are people who stick their guns without wavering on every single issue being pig-headed, stubborn and/or hypocritical. (And no, that's not a cut on you Gnarff - at least not specifically.)

[ August 22, 2005, 20:21: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Just when is the appropriate day to eat you, then? Can a buddhist eat you on Wednesdays? So many rules!

 

**** me. Damn, didn't really mean that - eat meat on Fridays - will edit post.