Palin had side order of Rice before marriage

[Darat]

Nor do I, but there is a line of thought that she, as a public figure that stumps with abstinance as a central theme, is acting in a hypocritical manner because she failed to come clean about her own pre-marital activities. I don't agree, but only just barely.

I know what you mean, if she had said "look I did it and it was the wrong thing to do and it's had a long lasting impact on my life, so I'm trying to help you from making the same mistakes I did" it would have been more palatable to me.

 

[BenBurch]

I know what you mean, if she had said "look I did it and it was the wrong thing to do and it's had a long lasting impact on my life, so I'm trying to help you from making the same mistakes I did" it would have been more palatable to me.

Thing is, her only regret seems to be that we found her out.

 

[sarge]

Except that there is no "coming clean" about affairs between unmarried, unattached people above the age of consent, to the public.

Of course there is - especially if, as in the case of Palin, one makes such a big deal of preaching abstinance. While I don't think that this automatically makes her a hypocrit, I do believe it automatically damages her credibility to be a spokesperson for abstinance. Had she did as Darat and Randfan suggest, she would have considerably more credibility - especially with those for whom support of her is not automatic.

There may be to various degrees such a thing in religion, such as confession of sins and redemption.

Simply untrue. Public figures forfeit reasonable expectations of privacy, and whether or not a public figure that currently espouses abstaining from pre-marital sex previously engaged in pre-marital sex is relevent information. If Palin wanted her past sexual activites to remain private, then Palin should not present herself as an expert on appropriate sexual behavior.

Whether that has or has not occurred in this case is unknown.

In fact, whether the alleged affair occurred is unknown.

That's a blinding flash of the obvious - whether or not she had sex is relevent to whether or not she is a hypocrit for having had sex.

Further, the exact standard for "abstinence" has not been produced. It's one thing to advocate that for 10 and 12 year olds, and another for 18-24 year olds. So it's alleged that the standard she used for abstinence is one that would parallel her age group.

Sarah Palin is on record as favoring abstinance until marriage. That statement cannot be construed to exclude 18-24 year olds.

That Palin favors abstinance before marriage now and had sex before marriage earlier does not make her a hypocrit. Stick to that and stop searching for reasons to defend Palin.

Finally, it's alleged that "hypocricy" exists whether or not the attitudes of an individual change over a 25 year period.

No - that is your mischaracterization of the positions of many of the posters to this thread.

 

[Skepticemea]

I'm fine with people having a change of heart, but Palin preaching abstinence after having not practiced it herself is rather like Keith Richards telling kids not to do drugs.

 

[sarge]

I'm fine with people having a change of heart, but Palin preaching abstinence after having not practiced it herself is rather like Keith Richards telling kids not to do drugs.

Only if the current allegations are true. Actually, not even then - unless Palin has a LOT more Glen Rice's in her closet.

Of course, Keith Richards is a nearly perfect person to tell kids not to do drugs. He could do so with a credibility that very few non-users could approach, and he would not necessarily be a hypocrit for doing so.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Simply untrue. Public figures forfeit reasonable expectations of privacy, and whether or not a public figure that currently espouses abstaining from pre-marital sex previously engaged in pre-marital sex is relevent information. If Palin wanted her past sexual activites to remain private, then Palin should not present herself as an expert on appropriate sexual behavior.

...snip...

Can I restate your last sentence, I think it's almost correct but it needs a tiny addition:

If Palin wanted her past sexual activites to remain private, then Palin should not present herself as an expert on appropriate sexual behavior for other people.​

 

[sarge]

Can I restate your last sentence, I think it's almost correct but it needs a tiny addition:

If Palin wanted her past sexual activites to remain private, then Palin should not present herself as an expert on appropriate sexual behavior for other people.​

Excellent, thank you.

 

[Skepticemea]

Only if the current allegations are true. Actually, not even then - unless Palin has a LOT more Glen Rice's in her closet.

Of course, Keith Richards is a nearly perfect person to tell kids not to do drugs. He could do so with a credibility that very few non-users could approach, and he would not necessarily be a hypocrit for doing so.

So, if the allegations are true (which I think most of us are agreed "we don't care") wouldn't the same reasoning make Palin a credible person to promote abstinance?

 

[RandFan]

Nor do I, but there is a line of thought that she, as a public figure that stumps with abstinance as a central theme, is acting in a hypocritical manner because she failed to come clean about her own pre-marital activities. I don't agree, but only just barely.

I know what you mean, if she had said "look I did it and it was the wrong thing to do and it's had a long lasting impact on my life, so I'm trying to help you from making the same mistakes I did" it would have been more palatable to me.

If these right-wing types didn't moralize. If they were not self righteous. If they simply outlined the problems inherent to promiscuity and adultery I'd keep my trap shut. It's the "sin" aspect that bothers me and the many young people who are stigmatized by people who have done the same but who did not suffer stigmatization or ostracization.

This is what bothers me and this is why I confidently proclaim the moralizers hypocrites. When they drop the holier than thou BS I'll shut up. Quite simply we need a better message, a healthier message.

 

[RandFan]

Can I restate your last sentence, I think it's almost correct but it needs a tiny addition:

If Palin wanted her past sexual activites to remain private, then Palin should not present herself as an expert on appropriate sexual behavior for other people.​

Bingo.

 

[Spindrift]

Delete

 

[mhaze]

Can I restate your last sentence, I think it's almost correct but it needs a tiny addition:

If Palin wanted her past sexual activites to remain private, then Palin should not present herself as an expert on appropriate sexual behavior for other people.​

Really? Adults should not advise 10 and 12 year olds on sex? Or is it that you only want certain adults who share your views to advise them?

Or should every progressive liberal teacher in the classroom on sex ed be required to recite a litany of their transgressions, including every situation where they engaged in unprotected sex?

 

[tyr_13]

Sarah Palin had sex with Glen Rice. Glen Rice is a black guy. Sarah Palin got married to Todd Palin and had some kids. Todd Palin is a white guy. Therefore, "Once you go black, you never go back" is a false statement.

I found a flaw in your proof. If Glen Rice was her first, then hooking up with Todd wouldn't be going back. So we need to establish that she was with at least one white guy prior to Rice, and then your proof is rigorous.

I'll get on that. Expedia has some deals on flights to Alaska.

For science!

 

[tyr_13]

But couldn't her views have changed over the years? I don't see that as hypocrisy.

Oh I agree. That's why I've made a point to say that she's a hypocrite if she held the same view then and that her view could have changed.

 

[tyr_13]

Really? Adults should not advise 10 and 12 year olds on sex? Or is it that you only want certain adults who share your views to advise them?

She's advising people to not have sex until marriage. Unless you believe in child brides or something, one has to be an adult to get married. Thus she is also telling adults what do to sexually, but targeting children directly with the 'advice'.

 

[mhaze]

She's advising people to not have sex until marriage. Unless you believe in child brides or something, one has to be an adult to get married. Thus she is also telling adults what do to sexually, but targeting children directly with the 'advice'.

That's some kind of doubletalk.

WHO is she advising?

 

[Skepticemea]

Really? Adults should not advise 10 and 12 year olds on sex? Or is it that you only want certain adults who share your views to advise them?

Advice given that appears contrary to the advisors alleged past activities is likely to be considered hypocritical.

 

[tyr_13]

That's some kind of doubletalk.

WHO is she advising?

Everyone.

 

[Spindrift]

Advice given that appears contrary to the advisors alleged past activities is likely to be considered hypocritical.

It would be different if she was apologetic and come clean about what she has done in the past. Does Palin say "Do as I say not as I've done?" No, it seems she just says "Do what I say and the fact that I've done it all in the past is none of your business."

 

[Skepticemea]

It would be different if she was apologetic and come clean about what she has done in the past. Does Palin say "Do as I say not as I've done?" No, it seems she just says "Do what I say and the fact that I've done it all in the past is none of your business."

Absolutely. In fact, a Damascene disclosure speech. "Even Mama Grizzly's can have a past but now I know the truthyness" but American politics don't allow politicians to have a past.