• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Its different when its your side piece

Lithrael said:
Well, for starters I don't call it murder.

Similar to the tax situation in Zig's post, as only one person paying more tax than everyone else isn't going to do much for the tax coffers, so only one company polluting less than everyone else isn't going to do much for the watershed. You need everyone to agree to make and follow the rule for the rule to do what you want it to do. The river is still polluted if you stop and the other three guys don't. The bridge is still not funded if you pay 40% and the other million people don't.

Abortions happen in discrete units. The bun continues to bake if you don't get an abortion, no matter what anyone else does with their buns.

Reading your post again it sounds more like you'd mean, for example, a gambling addict who gambles but wants gambling outlawed because he'd like to stop but as long as it's available he will not stop. On that one I can't really square it with abortion, for instance the gambler probably isn't calling other gamblers immoral. And for those who do view it as murder it seems so completely strange to me that they'd go around essentially handwaving it half the time.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean abortion as murder. I meant normal murder.
 
johnny karate said:
This goes beyond hypocrisy. As a member of Congress, Murphy was actively participating in the chipping away of abortion rights.

It's one thing to engage in an activity you claim is immoral. It's another thing entirely to engage in an activity while trying to take away other people's rights to do the same.
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
He would also be taking away his right to do it.
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy speaks not only to law, but to declared principle. Say, as I understood you earlier, he is opposed to abortion, knows he may stray, and does stray: he is not hypocritical in supporting the law nonetheless. Fine. Now let's change that to: he knows he will always seek an abortion, could not care less about the issue, and uses it only to get into office. In this case, to deny the rights he knows he will nevertheless enjoy, in exchange for office, may be typical of many politicians, but it is most definitely the kind of behavior a voter, the affected party, is particularly qualified to condemn.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
The hypocrisy speaks not only to law, but to declared principle. Say, as I understood you earlier, he is opposed to abortion, knows he may stray, and does stray: he is not hypocritical in supporting the law nonetheless. Fine. Now let's change that to: he knows he will always seek an abortion, could not care less about the issue, and uses it only to get into office. In this case, to deny the rights he knows he will nevertheless enjoy, in exchange for office, may be typical of many politicians, but it is most definitely the kind of behavior a voter, the affected party, is particularly qualified to condemn.
Click to expand...

And I don't care. The limit of my interest in this thread is to the meaning of hypocrisy. I don't care what voters wish to condemn.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
The hypocrisy speaks not only to law, but to declared principle. Say, as I understood you earlier, he is opposed to abortion, knows he may stray, and does stray: he is not hypocritical in supporting the law nonetheless. Fine. Now let's change that to: he knows he will always seek an abortion, could not care less about the issue, and uses it only to get into office. In this case, to deny the rights he knows he will nevertheless enjoy, in exchange for office, may be typical of many politicians, but it is most definitely the kind of behavior a voter, the affected party, is particularly qualified to condemn.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with you there. I think in the first instance, unless he is willing to put his money where his mouth is, he's hypocritical. He may not realize how much so before he strays, but he is after, and the only mitigation one can offer is that before straying he was, if unhypocritical, thoughtless and stupid. If he is unhypocritical and thoughtful, he will face up to his parenthood and follow the principles he espouses. He will still be a sanctimonious busybody, but at least an hones tone.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I meant normal murder.
Click to expand...

I am honestly not prepared to argue why I'd call someone a hypocrite if they were legislating against murder while murdering people.

Though I admit I'd be impressed at their candor if their position was "there oughta be a law, cause murder is wrong, and I find I can't just not murder people on my own."
 
Lithrael said:
I am honestly not prepared to argue why I'd call someone a hypocrite if they were legislating against murder while murdering people.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. In that hypothetical, the fact that they're a murderer usually takes precedence over whether or not they're hypocritical. Sort of like how if someone robs a bank, we don't tend to freak out over the fact that they illegally parked in a handicap spot to do it.
 
John Jones said:
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...
It should be, but is it? How is the party responding? With indignation or with annoyance at the inconvenience?

Here's speaker Ryan's comment:

‘‘It was Dr. Murphy’s decision to move on to the next chapter of his life, and I support it,’’ Ryan said in a statement. ‘‘We thank him for his many years of tireless work on mental health issues here in Congress and his service to the country as a naval reserve officer.’’
Click to expand...


There are a few conservatives participating in this thread, and yet the only one who has not responded by deflection and tu quoque is The Big Dog.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Murphy just upgraded his not running for reelection to a resignation, as of Oct 21st he no longer be a congressman.
 
bruto said:
It should be, but is it? How is the party responding? With indignation or with annoyance at the inconvenience?

Here's speaker Ryan's comment:




There are a few conservatives participating in this thread, and yet the only one who has not responded by deflection and tu quoque is The Big Dog.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there attempts to prove that Murphy was not a hypocrite are pretty amusing.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, yeah. In that hypothetical, the fact that they're a murderer usually takes precedence over whether or not they're hypocritical. Sort of like how if someone robs a bank, we don't tend to freak out over the fact that they illegally parked in a handicap spot to do it.
Click to expand...

Depends on the bank. 'Cause **** Welles Fargo, but damn if that isn't a dick move to take the handicap spot.

Yeah, but to your point, generally agreed.
 
Ziggurat said:
Huh. Usually I get called a conservative around here. I guess I'm not, when it's inconvenient.
Click to expand...

We have high hopes for you and wouldn't want to weigh you down with such labels.

That's the best I can come up with at the moment . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom