Pro-Life Lawmaker Pressured Mistress to Get an Abortion

[LarianLeQuella]

Ah, they hypcricy is strong with the GOP: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2...er_pressured_mistress_to_get_an_abortion.html

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) "was trying to save his marriage at the time, according to his remarks on the call, made in September of 2000. And, according to three independent sources familiar with the call and the recording, he made the tape himself."

Why is it that the GOP is so interested in not having government tell you what to do, except when they want to tell you what to do (or not do), but don't seem to adhere to those very things themselves? Classic liberalism (as in not a liberal party, but expanding personal freedoms) doesn't seem to run into tis hypocricy as much. I wonder if that is because the GOP built their platfrom on outlooks based on ideals from 1612?

 

[BenBurch]

Wow.

The entire GOP in a nutshell there.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

I don't have time to examine this. I'm going hiking on the Appalachian Trail!

 

[Random]

Ah, they hypcricy is strong with the GOP: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2...er_pressured_mistress_to_get_an_abortion.html



Why is it that the GOP is so interested in not having government tell you what to do, except when they want to tell you what to do (or not do), but don't seem to adhere to those very things themselves? Classic liberalism (as in not a liberal party, but expanding personal freedoms) doesn't seem to run into tis hypocricy as much. I wonder if that is because the GOP built their platfrom on outlooks based on ideals from 1612?

It’s much simpler than that. If your stated philosophy is “Everyone should be able to do what they want unless it affects someone else”, it’s pretty hard to get caught up in charges of hypocrisy simply because you don’t have much to be hypocritical about. You need to take a stand against an activity in order to be “caught” engaging in it.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I don't have time to examine this. I'm going hiking on the Appalachian Trail!

You mean the one that ends somewhere in the vagina of a woman in Argentina?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It’s much simpler than that. If your stated philosophy is “Everyone should be able to do what they want unless it affects someone else”, it’s pretty hard to get caught up in charges of hypocrisy simply because you don’t have much to be hypocritical about. You need to take a stand against an activity in order to be “caught” engaging in it.

You make hypocrisy sound like something noble.

You can certainly take a stand against something and remain true to your position by not doing it.

And FWIW, it is entirely possible for someone on the Pro-Choice side of this issue to be hypocritical (contrary to what you seem to be saying here). What if a Pro-Choice parent insisted that his or her daughter either get or not get an abortion? (That is, remove the choice from the daughter?)

[ETA: You're merely making the false claim that being Pro-Choice is not taking a stand, aren't you?]

You find a Democratic legislator doing this and you'd have a tu quoque story. And of course this hypothetical tu quoque would do nothing to excuse DesJarlais' hypocrisy.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

It’s much simpler than that. If your stated philosophy is “Everyone should be able to do what they want unless it affects someone else”, it’s pretty hard to get caught up in charges of hypocrisy simply because you don’t have much to be hypocritical about. You need to take a stand against an activity in order to be “caught” engaging in it.

I think you can have a personal stance on many issues. The thing is when you start expecting everyone else to follow YOUR stance, and your stance only that it opens up the hypocricy potential. It may be my stance that I think pot use is detremental to the user, and I don't engage in that behaviour myself. However, I also recognize that people do not agree with my stance on marajiuana, and choose to engage in the smoking and ingesting of it. I am not going to attempt to pass legislation to limit their access to it (beyond taxation and age of informed consent like tobacco).

The thing that the GOP seems to be failing at is understanding that society isn't a carbon copy of their little fantasy world, and people aren't 100% like them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think you can have a personal stance on many issues. The thing is when you start expecting everyone else to follow YOUR stance, and your stance only that it opens up the hypocricy potential. It may be my stance that I think pot use is detremental to the user, and I don't engage in that behaviour myself. However, I also recognize that people do not agree with my stance on marajiuana, and choose to engage in the smoking and ingesting of it. I am not going to attempt to pass legislation to limit their access to it (beyond taxation and age of informed consent like tobacco).

The thing that the GOP seems to be failing at is understanding that society isn't a carbon copy of their little fantasy world, and people aren't 100% like them.

Random seems to be arguing that being a hypocrite is a natural and inevitable result of taking a stand. And people who disagree with a position he embraces are themselves not taking a stand and therefore run no risk of hypocrisy.

It's the most convoluted logic I've seen in some time.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

You mean the one that ends somewhere in the vagina of a woman in Argentina?

*singing*

Ohhh, the women in Argentina, they look so very fine,
I think I'd like to hike with one, she'd help me drink my wine.
We'd **** all up and down the Trail, these women have no peer,
And if it all comes out someday,

To Hell with my career!
Oh, I don't need no more of my career, it's time to say goodbye.
When I come home from hiking I can't look her in the eye;
My wife she asks me how it went and were the bugs a-biting?
I tell her everything was great, could not have been more exciting.

Ohhhhhh...

 

[Random]

Random seems to be arguing that being a hypocrite is a natural and inevitable result of taking a stand. And people who disagree with a position he embraces are themselves not taking a stand and therefore run no risk of hypocrisy.

It's the most convoluted logic I've seen in some time.

Sheesh, I thought my point was obvious, but everyone seems to be either distorting or misunderstanding it. If you have a stated policy which says either having or not having an abortion is fine, and then you have an abortion, it’s not hypocritical. If you choose not to have an abortion, it’s still not hypocritical. If you say both choices are fine, neither choice is contrary to your stated belief and neither choice is hypocritical.

People who state permissive social beliefs are protected from charges of hypocrisy by the awesome power of semantics. It’s one reason Liberals don’t get caught up in accusations of “hypocrisy” as much as Conservatives.

Of course, you can still object to the actual actions that a Liberal takes, but if the Liberal has previously stated that his action was acceptable, you can't charge him with "hypocrisy".

 

[DavidJames]

People who state permissive social beliefs are protected from charges of hypocrisy by the awesome power of semantics. It’s one reason Liberals don’t get caught up in accusations of “hypocrisy” as much as Conservatives.

The reality is conservatives are caught up in accusations of hypocrisy not due to the "awesome power of semantics" but rather because they've earned the accusation

Liberals could be hypocrites if they, after they "state permissive social beliefs" attempt to legislate against them. The fact is they are less inclined.

 

[332nd]

You mean the one that ends somewhere in the vagina of a woman in Argentina?

[Bugs Bunny as Teddy Roosevelt]That is a long walk [Bugs Bunny as Teddy Roosevelt]

 

[fuelair]

*singing*

Ohhh, the women in Argentina, they look so very fine,
I think I'd like to hike with one, she'd help me drink my wine.
We'd **** all up and down the Trail, these women have no peer,
And if it all comes out someday,

To Hell with my career!
Oh, I don't need no more of my career, it's time to say goodbye.
When I come home from hiking I can't look her in the eye;
My wife she asks me how it went and were the bugs a-biting?
I tell her everything was great, could not have been more exciting.

Ohhhhhh...

Not bad at al!!!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sheesh, I thought my point was obvious, but everyone seems to be either distorting or misunderstanding it. If you have a stated policy which says either having or not having an abortion is fine, and then you have an abortion, it’s not hypocritical. If you choose not to have an abortion, it’s still not hypocritical. If you say both choices are fine, neither choice is contrary to your stated belief and neither choice is hypocritical.

I understood you just fine the first time. I invite you to re-read my criticisms of your tortured logic. You don't seem to understand me. (Or you're simply ignoring what I said because you wrongly assumed that I misunderstood you.)

You're trying to cast this hypocrisy as being the result of taking a stand, and you're trying to cast those who hold the opposite position on abortion (Pro-Choice) as not taking a stand. Again, it's possible to be a Pro-Choice legislator who is hypocritical and would deny the choice to someone in his personal life.

People who state permissive social beliefs are protected from charges of hypocrisy by the awesome power of semantics.

That's false. Someone who takes a stand in favor of permissive ideals would be hypocritical if they violated thoses ideals in his or her personal life.

You're trying to say it's only possible to be a hypocrite if you're a conservative, but that's just false.

Of course, you can still object to the actual actions that a Liberal takes, but if the Liberal has previously stated that his action was acceptable, you can't charge him with "hypocrisy".

Yes, and if a conservative's actual actions were in accord with what he has previously stated, then you can't charge him with hypocrisy.

And if a liberal's actual actions contradict his stated ideals, then you can charge him with hypocrisy--and if you raised such a case here, you'd be committing a tu quoque fallacy.

What you're doing, therefore, is worse than a tu quoque fallacy. You're trying to defend this guy by pointing out (wrongly) that you can't make a tu quoque fallacy because you claim (wrongly) that it's impossible for liberals to act hypocritically since they stand for nothing.

Again, it's as if you're trying to make hypocrisy into something noble.

 

[rocketdodger]

You're trying to cast this hypocrisy as being the result of taking a stand, and you're trying to cast those who hold the opposite position on abortion (Pro-Choice) as not taking a stand. Again, it's possible to be a Pro-Choice legislator who is hypocritical and would deny the choice to someone in his personal life.

But it isn't the same thing.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean taking the stand that the choice to have an abortion should be arbitrary, or even entirely personal. Rather it means you think the choice should *ultimately* be up to the woman carrying the baby, that local factors should be considered first, and baloney last.

I see nothing hypocritical about a parent being pro choice and then influencing their child one way or another, because it still ultimately involves the choice of the child. It would only be hypocritical if the parent threatened them one way or another. Saying "honey, I really think you need to consider X or Y" is merely sharing opinions.

Pro-life is the stance that there should be *no* abortions, period. There isn't even any choice at all.

There are a small number of "pro life" people who are actually pro-choice, they just think abortion is a really really really bad idea. I certainly don't think they are being hypocrites if they picket abortion clinics, they are just trying to get their point across.

In other words, I think you are taking the positions to be polar opposites, and thus interpreting any movement one way or another as contrary to the "stand." But this isn't true. Pro-life is the far end of the spectrum, where choice no longer exists. Pro-choice is *everything else,* including "very nearly pro-life, because abortion is a horrible sin, but the woman still has the final decision."

And in support of Random, this applies to most of the liberal outlook on other topics as well. Conservative positions that "all drugs are bad and should be illegal" invite hypocrisy. Liberal positions that "its up to the user" include the possible position "all drugs are bad, and nobody should use them, but its up to the user." Etc.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Liberals could be hypocrites if they, after they "state permissive social beliefs" attempt to legislate against them.

Maybe Random needs some examples, since he thinks liberals have no principles and therefore no principles they can violate.

How about a liberal who espouses permissive free speech rights (for example, opposes legislation to ban flag burning), but then turns around and prohibits a KKK organization from participating in a local adopt-a-highway program.

More hypothetically: someone who publicly promotes women's rights, but then in the home is a misogynistic wife-beater who denies his wife equal opportunities.

I think the reason it happens less often (but certainly does happen) is that in our current climate "liberalism" is still a dirty word, so politicians aren't motivated to fake being a liberal. (That is to publicly espouse liberal ideals that they don't really hold.)

I think, for example, plenty of politicians are sex hounds who fake holding traditional family values on the sanctity of marriage. (Perhaps a subset of them have the cognitive dissonance and self loathing involved with being sex hounds who really believe it's wrong to be a sex hound.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Being pro-choice doesn't mean taking the stand that the choice to have an abortion should be arbitrary, or even entirely personal.

Who said it was any such thing?

I see nothing hypocritical about a parent being pro choice and then influencing their child one way or another, because it still ultimately involves the choice of the child. It would only be hypocritical if the parent threatened them one way or another. Saying "honey, I really think you need to consider X or Y" is merely sharing opinions.

Pro-life is the stance that there should be *no* abortions, period. There isn't even any choice at all.

There are a small number of "pro life" people who are actually pro-choice, they just think abortion is a really really really bad idea. I certainly don't think they are being hypocrites if they picket abortion clinics, they are just trying to get their point across.

Your point is well taken (though there is a difference between influencing a choice and denying someone the choice), but my broader point stands-- that it's entirely possible for someone who publicly professes to be Pro-Choice could be hypocritical by acting in contradiction with those principles in their private life.

Perhaps a better example would be the domineering husband I mentioned above. It would be hypocritical for a Pro-Choice legislator to forbid his wife from having an abortion, for example.

 

[Ladewig]

I am prepared to throw the abortion aspect out of the discussion and call the guy a hypocrite for having a mistress while belonging to the party of family values.

 

[Tricky]

Sheesh, I thought my point was obvious, but everyone seems to be either distorting or misunderstanding it. If you have a stated policy which says either having or not having an abortion is fine, and then you have an abortion, it’s not hypocritical. If you choose not to have an abortion, it’s still not hypocritical. If you say both choices are fine, neither choice is contrary to your stated belief and neither choice is hypocritical.

People who state permissive social beliefs are protected from charges of hypocrisy by the awesome power of semantics. It’s one reason Liberals don’t get caught up in accusations of “hypocrisy” as much as Conservatives.

Boy, that was a semantical mishmash if ever I saw one. Look, it's very simple. Liberals say you should be able to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Conservatives say you should never have that choice.

Sure, it's possible for a pro-choice liberal to be hypocritical on that, such as if they forbid their own daughter to make her own choice, but I'm not too familiar with those kinds of cases.

It is not semantics. It is saying one thing and doing another.

 

[hgc]

It’s much simpler than that. If your stated philosophy is “Everyone should be able to do what they want unless it affects someone else”, it’s pretty hard to get caught up in charges of hypocrisy simply because you don’t have much to be hypocritical about. You need to take a stand against an activity in order to be “caught” engaging in it.

It's really simpler than that. A politician who advocates outlawing abortion because it's morally wrong, who then procures or induces someone else to procure an abortion is a hypocrite. It's a no-brainer.