Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

I can simply think of no reason to smear someone publicly for an "steamy interracial hookup" in 1987 or whatever year, or to attempt to draw negative conclusions of any sort about the person from such a thing, whether it is true or not.

Someone doing that, in my opinion would be a total jerk. That includes anyone making little self righteous arrogant charges of hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
No, that is not what I mean at all.

We should be able to evaluate a person's values on their own. Do we agree with their values or not? If not, then consistency between their actions and values can't reconcile their values to us, and inconsistency isn't needed to disagree with their values. If so, then the mere failing to live up to those values, regardless of any advocacy of them, is the real problem.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, but you are completely ignoring hypocrisy as a "value". I strongly feel that politicians' sex lives should be left out of any political discussion. I don't like it when politicians, either left or right, bring these things up or intentionally keep them in the forefront. So yes, I'm disgusted when anyone does it, but being realistic, I know that journalists are going to dig dirt. That's what they do for a living. It doesn't mean though that the politician has to repeat it. But as disgusting as I find that practice, it is much more disgusting when done by someone who is simultaneously inveighing against others who are doing the same thing that they're doing. Do you see a difference in these actions? If you don't, then I'm really surprised at you.

Ziggurat said:
And we can evaluate a person's actions on their own as well. Do we think they acted correctly or not? If they acted incorrectly, would that condemn values they violated but which they shared with us? It shouldn't. Would their actions be excusable if their own values, in contrast to ours, permitted such actions? Again, we have no reason to accept that.
Click to expand...
Again, you seem to be leaving hypocrisy out of the question. I consider hypocrisy an important failing, one that makes them less likely to be a trusted public servent. Sure it's better to be "doing bad but working for good" than it is to be "doing bad and working for bad", but it still doesn't excuse the hypocrisy. Are their actions excusable? It depends, but I'm pretty lenient about weaknesses of the flesh. If they're doing those actions though, then they should stop preaching against them. That is a weakness of character, and is less forgivable (to me) in a person I expect to represent me.

Ziggurat said:
So how is not successfully living up to a moral value worse than not having that value at all? I don't see how it is.
Click to expand...
That is a complete red herring. Nobody is saying they don't have moral values. We're talking about people who condemn others for not living up to their moral values while at the same time not living up to their own moral values. If you believe sex outside of marriage is not a big deal, then you should say so, or at the very least, leave it out of your screeds. If you have integrity.

I recall something that was said during the Clinton re-election campaign that has stayed with me. "I don't know if Bill Clinton committed adultry, but I know this: If everybody who as committed adultry voted for him, he'd win by the biggest landslide in history." I wish I could remember who said it.

Ziggurat said:
You speak of integrity, but how, exactly, does integrity enter the picture here? Do you mean that hypocrites are advocating values they don't actually believe in, and that's why they act hypocritically? Perhaps. But in that case, the problem is that they're dishonest, and possibly that they don't really hold a value one thinks they should hold. So it's still not the hypocrisy per se that's the important issue.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that it makes it better to call it "dishonesty" rather than hypocrisy? Hypocrisy is a specific kind of dishonesty that is, in my mind, more pernicious than many other kinds, like giving misleading statistics.

Ziggurat said:
The problem with this obsession with hypocrisy, absent any evaluation of the morals themselves, is that it panders to the lowest denominator. By elevating hypocrisy above the values themselves, one essentially rewards not having values, because then one cannot be hypocritical. This is a corrosive attitude. Worse, it is frequently employed cynically, by people who never cared about the value in question but merely hope to gain leverage from that value anyways.

And it is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I earlier gave an example of my values and how I subscribe to them for people whom I may agree with politically as well as those I disagree with. You are trying to paint those who object to hypocrisy as having no firm values, but only cynicism, and that is both dishonest and disgusting. It seems to me that you are the one who wants to paint hypocrisy as "plain old dishonesty" that seems more cynical than those you rail against. And that is hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
I'm getting mixed messages here.
Click to expand...
I should have said what bothers me the most. But the real worry are those who actively are engaged in harming others while they are being duplicitous. Besides, what I believe isn't a basis for condemnation. We can argue about abstinence only and gay rights but once you get outed as a hypocrite then the dynamic changes.

RandFan said:
I've nothing to apologize for.
I never suggested you did.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

You keep harping on it.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
I can simply think of no reason to smear someone publicly for an "steamy interracial hookup" in 1987 or whatever year, or to attempt to draw negative conclusions of any sort about the person from such a thing, whether it is true or not.

Someone doing that, in my opinion would be a total jerk.
Click to expand...
I so agree, so long as they are not sending their daughter on an abstinence only tour. Then they get it with both barrels. :) :) :)
 
mhaze said:
And after all the above discussion at the core you have the Saul Alinsky Principle "Pin your opponent, personalize the issue". Which whoever is doing here with Sarah Palin is doing in this really bizarre way, because the issue is allegedly a "steamy interracial hookup". Thus it isn't Palin that's the bigot or exhibiting racial prejudice, but those here, accusing her in this context (or using her alleged behavior for generalizing the greater issue of importance to them at the moment).

Somehow, now there is a contrived group of homophobes and racists in the RIGHT because a left wing crank alleges Palin had an affair with a black?
Click to expand...

mhaze said:
I can simply think of no reason to smear someone publicly for an "steamy interracial hookup" in 1987 or whatever year, or to attempt to draw negative conclusions of any sort about the person from such a thing, whether it is true or not.

Someone doing that, in my opinion would be a total jerk. That includes anyone making little self righteous arrogant charges of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

You keep proclaiming that "The Left" is presenting this as a scandal because Palin's alleged tryst was with a black man.

Care to offer any citations to support that proclamation?
 
Media = liberal, national enquirer = media. By the transitive property, the National Enquirer is liberal.
 
Tricky said:
I know what you mean, but you are completely ignoring hypocrisy as a "value".
Click to expand...

So in other words, we take it as axiomatically bad. To some extent, many of our values have to end up as being held axiomatically, but that has been missing from the discussion so far: that you're taking hypocrisy as being axiomatically bad, and that's that. Which you're certainly free to do, but no, I don't.

Do you see a difference in these actions? If you don't, then I'm really surprised at you.
Click to expand...

I see a difference. But the issue isn't whether there's a difference, but why and how that difference matters. One way that difference can matter to someone is through jealousy. They see someone get away with something, and resent them for it because they don't feel like they can get away with stuff. This is a very understandable, very human response. But it's not a moral response. It's not a response I actually endorse.

Again, you seem to be leaving hypocrisy out of the question.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm just not taking it as axiomatically bad.

I consider hypocrisy an important failing, one that makes them less likely to be a trusted public servent.
Click to expand...

In other words, it's a possible indicator of dishonesty. I explicitly brought up this possibility, but that point was ignored.

That is a complete red herring. Nobody is saying they don't have moral values.
Click to expand...

I used the singular "value" for a reason. I was specifically talking about a value, not values. So for example, one politician may have the value that homosexuality is sinful. Another politician might not think anything is wrong with homosexuality. So that politician does not have that value (singular). That does not mean that this other politician has no other values, it means that they do not have this particular one. The rest of your response seems to hinge on this misunderstanding.

We're talking about people who condemn others for not living up to their moral values while at the same time not living up to their own moral values. If you believe sex outside of marriage is not a big deal, then you should say so, or at the very least, leave it out of your screeds. If you have integrity.
Click to expand...

Implicit in this argument is that hypocrisy is based on dishonesty. Which it certainly can be (but isn't always), but why is the problem then not the dishonesty itself?

Do you honestly think that it makes it better to call it "dishonesty" rather than hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

It makes it more accurate, because the two are not synonymous.

You are trying to paint those who object to hypocrisy as having no firm values, but only cynicism, and that is both dishonest and disgusting.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that this problem of cynical usage of hypocrisy accusations was universal. But it does exist, and pointing it out is not dishonest. And if pointing out a genuine issue is disgusting, then you have a strange sense of what disgusts you.
 
Ziggurat said:
I never claimed that this problem of cynical usage of hypocrisy accusations was universal. But it does exist, and pointing it out is not dishonest. And if pointing out a genuine issue is disgusting, then you have a strange sense of what disgusts you.
Click to expand...
Teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, the belief that homosexuality is a sin, etc..

I find the propagating of these religious based "values" to be harmful. They don't conform to science and they cause more harm than good. The bullying of gay teens, suicides of gay teens, the real harm of rolling back women's health options. These are cynical and to think these things are propagated by people who don't even believe their "values" but are simply a means to holding on to political power disgusts me.

:)
 
BenBurch said:
But... But... Didn't they do that already?
Click to expand...
:)

bingocard.gif
 
Spindrift said:
She apparently had a one night stand with future NBA player Glen Rice when he was in Alaska for a college basketball tournament. This was just a year before she eloped with Todd.
Click to expand...

So what? I can't stand Palin for the person she is NOW, I could care less for what she did in her early 20s, which wasn't illegal. This thread is just as weak as Perry's mdiocre college transcript thread.
 
Alt+F4 said:
So what? I can't stand Palin for the person she is NOW, I could care less for what she did in her early 20s, which wasn't illegal. This thread is just as weak as Perry's mdiocre college transcript thread.
Click to expand...

pedantic but... couldn't care less is what you mean.
 
BenBurch said:
I'd never break bad on somebody because they ********** around. I'd be a massive hypocrite if I did. Because I really can't even tell you how many people I had sex with in my youth.
Click to expand...
Agreed. On the other hand I don't mind making a big deal about bestiality because sheep can't talk.
 
mhaze said:
I can simply think of no reason to smear someone publicly for an "steamy interracial hookup" in 1987 or whatever year, or to attempt to draw negative conclusions of any sort about the person from such a thing, whether it is true or not.

Someone doing that, in my opinion would be a total jerk. That includes anyone making little self righteous arrogant charges of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

It was interracial?!!

Man, the potential for porn on this one just got HUGE. Oh, wait ;)
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
It was interracial?!!

Man, the potential for porn on this one just got HUGE. Oh, wait ;)
Click to expand...

Well.

I'm glad you now have something exciting in your life.

;)

But to be fair you are neither attempting...

  • to smear someone publicly for an "steamy interracial hookup"
  • ...or to attempt to draw negative conclusions of any sort about the person from such a thing, whether it is true or not.
 
mhaze said:
But to be fair you are neither attempting...

  • to smear someone publicly for an "steamy interracial hookup"
  • ...or to attempt to draw negative conclusions of any sort about the person from such a thing, whether it is true or not.
Click to expand...

Who is?
 
mhaze said:
Well.

I'm glad you now have something exciting in your life.

;)

But to be fair you are neither attempting...

  • to smear someone publicly for an "steamy interracial hookup"
  • ...or to attempt to draw negative conclusions of any sort about the person from such a thing, whether it is true or not.
Click to expand...

You forgot option c...

I'm having fun playing immature, adolescent games on the Interwebs :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom