Hypocrisy

Christy

b*tch rocket
In case some of you were born yesterday and aren't quite sure of what it is I'm talking about, I've taken the liberty of pulling the definition of "hypocrisy" from of all places, The online Catholic Encyclopedia.

(Greek hypo, under, and krinesthai, to contend — hence adequately "to answer" on the stage, "to play a part", "to feign or pretend".)

Hypocrisy is the pretension to qualities which one does not possess, or, more cognately, the putting forward of a false appearance of virtue or religion.

Essentially its malice is identical with that of lying; in both cases there is discordance between what a man has in his mind and the simultaneous manifestation of himself.

Let the games begin, let's start pointing fingers and exposing all that is hypocritical and those who are hypocrites!  :twitch:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
As Christy knows - hypocrisy is my least favorite thing of all time.  You can be a nose-picking moron and I'll still find something nice to say about you - but if you're a hypocrite all bets are off.

Certain politicians who argue against vouchers for private schools, saying that public schools are just fine for educating your children – while they send their kids to Sidwell Friends and wouldn’t dream of having little Muffy or Biff step foot in a public school. (Most Democrats)

Certain politicians who vote against drug deferment programs, until their wife gets busted with a prescription drug addiction. (John McCain)

Certain minority groups that demand inclusion in mainstream organizations, yet have their own organizations that exclude others. (Gays)

Certain politicians who scream that their opponent only won the election because they effectively got some votes disqualified, when <i>they</i> were trying to do the same thing <i>themselves</i>.  Especially when the votes that <i>were</i> disqualified weren’t even really votes, merely “mighta been” votes.  And the votes <i>they</i> were trying to get disqualified belonged to men and women serving in the military overseas. (Al Gore)

Certain religious groups that preach love for your fellow man while they show hate toward gays and members of other religions. (Most of them)

Women’s groups who lobby and protest endlessly about sexual harassment laws, then say “what did she expect?” when it becomes public knowledge that the President they helped elect is a world-class harasser. (NOW)

And people right here in these very forums who call other members names and spew vitriol, yet go crazy if you so much as disagree with their opinion, saying you're mean and a "hater".  Or they toss out some comment about how miserable your life must be. (I'll refrain from naming names but we all know who they are)

Some of those may not be good examples of hypocrisy  - they might be more "do as I say, not as I do".  But they drive me crazy anyway.
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
All right Vrai, you've gone and stole all my examples!  :bawl:  You even went and took NOW away from me! :twitch:  From now on you are banned to only one example at a time! :wink:  
 

missi1013

Catch Me If You Can!
As usual Variblonde I agree with you!!  I used to do NOW's accounting for the mail donations and they where big Clinton fans!!!  They bring in alot of money!!!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Christy - YOU started this thread and had the first opportunity to post examples :razz:  :lol:  You can mention how Rosie wants to ban guns, except the ones her kids' bodyguards carry.  Or how Gwyneth Paltrow gave a big speech to some environmentalist group about how she supports banning those horrible gas-guzzling SUVs, then promptly hopped in her Tahoe and drove to her colonic irrigation appointment.
:roflmao:
Anyway, I'm down there tomorrow and will be doing beer:30 at Ruby Tuesday's in Sans Souci - you should meet me and Jellybean there.  4:30, Ruby Tuesdays.  I'm going to messenger you my cell phone number so click when you see it blinking.  Anyone else who wants to show up, we'll be the obnoxious ones at the bar.  Yell out "Southern Maryland Online" and we'll flag you down.

(Edited by vraiblonde at 11:55 pm on April 17, 2002)
 

jimmy

Drunkard
Ok here's a quick few:

1. Right to Lifer's who bomb abortion clinics (I'm sure NO ONE misses the hypocracy there).

2. Conservatives who oppose gun control by the government but LOVE the war on drugs...Hypocritical view of personal freedoms and baffling comparison of two dangerous things. (i'll expand later)

3. Again, conservatives who want the government to step in and outlaw abortion but don't want the government involved in matters of their "personal freedoms".

4.  Religous people who have a bible that tells them to love their fellow man but preach hate against everyone who isn't like them.

5. A God that proclaims thou shalt not kill but goes on to include numerous offenses for which the penalty is death.

6.  Christian Right who's religous beliefs tell them to love all God's children but whos political leanings (republican) are agianst social welfare.

7. Rich republicans that favor tax cuts as being good for the economy when really it just helps them to keep more money in their pockets.

More to come....
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
Jimmy, to comment on your points:

1. Totally agree

2.  Pretty much agree, I feel that people should be able to make the decision on whether of not to fry their own brain, just so long as they do no harm to anyone else in the process, which is where the gun analogy comes into play.  People will argue that people on drugs have a tendency to do stupid things that do harm people.  So do drunks, but that's not banned.  The way I see it with guns and drugs alike (sort of) if you commit a crime with a gun you go to jail, if you commit a crime on drugs you go to jail, if you commit a crime PERIOD you go to jail.  How difficult is that concept to understand?  Obviously da#m near impossible to some folks.

3.  Murdering a human being is not a "personal freedom", especially one who is ill equipped to defend itself.

4.  Totally agree, however I'd like to add that all humans are far from perfect and none of us can fully live up to the standards set forth by the big G-Man.  I would rephrase that statement as "using the Bible to justify preaching hate against everyone who isn't like them".  I preach hate against a lot of people, but I don't justify it with Bible passages, simply my zero tolerence policy regarding idiots. :wink:

5. Thou shalt not kill, is actually, thou shalt not murder.  There is a difference.

6.  Where in the Bible does it state, to Love all God's children we must provide them with "Social Welfare"?  I personally believe welfare is the worst thing you can do to someone.  My kids won't be getting any "social welfare" from Mom and Dad, so why should a drug addicted baby factory?  I'm more than willing to promote various charities, which I feel (emphasis on the word I!) will truly help those in need.

7.  More money in the "Rich man's pocket", means more money that can be spent to expand that business and create more jobs, which in turn provide an opportunity for the "poor man" to work, move up, and someday become a "Rich man" himself.

(Edited by Christy at 1:13 pm on April 18, 2002)
 

jimmy

Drunkard
Christy,

Ok so we're in agreement on a lot...that's cool. As for the issues you take, let me clarify a few:

3. abortion- It's yet to be proven to me that you can really call the unborn fetus at that stage a "human being".  Until science diffinitivley clears up the issue (in which case, I'll have to rexamine my position) I can only see this as an issue of a woman's body (ie, personal freedom).

4. It IS thou shalt not kill, isn't it? It is in my version of the bible. Hmm...could have meant to INFER murder but murder but there are MANY references to a "turn the other cheek" mentality in the NT that are contradicted in the OT by all the "for the wages of sin is death" crap from the old....I guess the discrepency I see lies more between the NT and OT...

5. By "social welfare" I'm not implying the system as it is in existance now. I too am not a fan of the handout for the lazy or greedy. But social welfare is the idea of the fortunate in a society making sacrifices for the less fortunate. Conservatives, typically, do NOT want their taxes increased for social reform; that's just in general though, I'm not implying all. But the conservative mentality is more of a "me first" type thing where liberals are more externally focused (true, sometimes to a fault ie bleeding hearts). And christians tend to be conservative as well so that's where I'm seeing the hypocracy.

6. This is the age old debate between republicans and democrats on how best to handle taxes.  I think that richer people should be paying high taxes cause no one needs that much money and 50 million out of your $100 million a year you built BECAUSE of this country isn't too much to ask for in return.  Tax cuts to the wealthy don't promote spending.  Economists will tell you that every time (unless they are working for "W").  Businesses thrive on the middle class dollar, a group that gets pounded by conservative economics.  But, again, this is an age old debate that we won't solve here.
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
Jimmy, when does it become a human being?  Scientifically, life begins at conception in every other situation, except for the oh so political case of abortion.  Should it also be a "personal choice" to throw your baby in a dumpster to die?  Of course not.  So why is it okay to rip it from your womb to die?  To be quite honest, I believe the Government should not have the power to make abortion legal or illegal.  I do believe however, that medical practitioners such as planned parenthood, should be required by law, to present the facts before performing an abortion on anyone.  I also think society as a whole needs to rebuild its moral fiber and look upon abortion as an atrocity, rather than a convenient form of birth control, rendering the need for Federal laws regarding abortion a mute point.  

#4, I'd have thought you'd burned your Bible by now! :wink:  I knew I should have elaborated more on this section.  The context in which "thou shalt not kill" is written, is thou shalt not murder, meaning the taking of INNOCENT human life.  Like killing your brother just because you're jealous.  If you take what is written in the Bible and put it in context with the WHOLE of it, it makes perfect sense.  In life we all tend to encounter a lot of "gray areas" where the action taken, depends on the situation.  Say for instance....  You tell your kid not to hit another kid, (which is a common sense, be nice lesson we all teach) but then you've got the other kid whackin your kid day in and day out.  The teacher doesn't bother to do anything about it, the Principal doesn't bother to do anything about it, and the parents don't bother to do anything about it.  So in essence the rules tend to change and you have to tell your kid to bloody the bully kids nose to finally put an end to the problem.  (and no, this hasn't happened to my kids, just coming up with a "things change depending on the situation" scenario) .  It's the same for lessons taught in the Bible.   Am I making any sense? :twitch:

#5, Conservatives have no problem with Charity.  We do have a HUGE problem with money being taken from us and being squandered on and being distributed to programs that are wasteful or undermine what we believe to be immoral or unethical programs.  You are also way off on your belief that Conservatives have the "me first" mentality.  Conservatives tend to look at the "Big Picture" and use common sense rather than trying to solve social issues by throwing money at it.  

#6 Why bother busting your tail to make money if the more you make the more the IRS takes?  What really blows is getting a payraise, and wind up actually bringing home less due to being bumped up to a higher tax bracket.  :burning:  If I were a Bill Gates type, I'd be even more :burning: !


(Edited by Christy at 3:29 pm on April 18, 2002)


(Edited by Christy at 3:30 pm on April 18, 2002)
 

jimmy

Drunkard
Well Bill Gates is and interesting example. True, he started what I belive is the largest funded charity organization on the planet (or maybe he just made the largest donation). But this was YEARS after he accumulated his wealth and spent it on nothing.  He only made this charity after succumbing to massive peer pressure and negative public opinion. Here's a multi billionare and you're saying you would be flaming mad in his position if he had to pay an assload of taxes? Do you know that with the money he spent on his house, he could have built afforable housing to the tune of something like 7 blocks of 7 houses each? Have you been to inner city baltimore and seen the state of the housing there? My friend is a baltimore county fire department and he's gone on calls where the ROOF OF THE HOUSE has fallen on someone and they need his help. So Bill Gates spending money on a house that's temperature and music change based on who enters the room? How repulsively decatant of him!  
On the "when is it a human being" matter--look. Science has yet to determine when "life" as we're gonna define it legally begins.  it's obviously not considered 'Murder' yet by everyone or it would be illegal.So you can't just say "life begins at conception" and be done with it as though it were fact. Like I said; if I could see a convincing arguement otherwise, then I'll have to rexamine my position.
However---you and I are in TOTAL agreement about education on abortion. I wholeheartedly belive that people should be educated before having an abortion and shown other options. I am NOT a fan of abortion as a means of birth control but I am pro choice politically. You mention "throwing money" at problems as a liberal thing to do.  Yeah, i'd pretty much say that's a good way to do things. Money is everything. Planned Parenthood CAN'T educate or open offices in areas where there needed or get intelligent, educated people to work there without money.  Schools can't educate children well without good facilities, equipment, and well-paid teachers.  Yes, I'm a fan of THROWING money at things but the RIGHT things; not just blindly and to just whomever.  THat's another hypocracy right there; conservatives will say "well you can't just throw money at it and expect it to work" but then, they offer no real solution. Just "I'm tired of MY hard earned money going towards selfish, lazy people".  Or just "they need to get up and change their lives. I know someone that came from poverty and totally changed their life around" and that's supposed to be possible for everyone.  I just think that's ignorant.  And a bit selfish.  Sure there is PLENTY of government waste; on BOTH sides. That needs to be looked at too.  
Oh and the making more and being put in a different tax bracket? That IS a pain in the a$$
and it sucks that people that are all refered to as the middle class, can be in different tax brakets. I find it ridiculous that someone makeing like 150,000 per year is in the same tax bracket as someone making 10 million a year.  (at least I'm pretty sure that's the case).  I think that whole system needs to be changed, government needs to be responsible with it's spending and money needs to start going where it can do the most good; not in a piddly $400 "tax refund" for no damn reason.
 

BudoPo

Member
Actually, life begins when the kids finally move out.

Seriously, though, in the original Hebrew, it's "no murder", not "kil", and refers to the *intentional* taking of any human life.  Which segues to the abortion topic:

Personally, I feel that abortion should be kept legal.  This would let it remain a matter of personal conscience.  In my religion, the fetus is not considered human life until the majority of the body has emerged.  Until then, it's considered "potential" human life, and thus must not be aborted lightly.  However, the life of the mother comes first, and abortion to save her life is not only permitted, but actually required.  Once the baby is half way out, though, both lives are of equal value.

To get a scientific definition of if/when a fetus becomes a human being (prior to birth) would be difficult.  Afterall, it starts out as a small group of undifferntiated cells.  So, a scientific definition would probably have to be somewhat arbitrary.  This really leaves it to the individual to decide.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Is it “kill” or “murder”?  It totally depends on which version of the bible you read for the exact text.  I, however, see them as synonyms – same or nearly the same meaning.  Reading through Exodus 20:1-17 in 12 different versions I found that in 7 of them the term is “murder” and in 5 it is “kill”.  The online version provided by SOMD is the King James Version at http://www.somd.com/worship/bible and it uses the term “kill”.

When does life begin and more importantly, who decides?  Many feel it is at the moment of conception, others at birth, and still others believe it is somewhere in between, like once movement of the fetus is detected.  Each of these could be valid depending on one’s point of view and I am sure there are even more beliefs out there, like some who talk about the viable being.  I also see problems with each from a legal standpoint.

If life begins at the moment of conception, would all abortions be illegal because a life is being taken?  What about the abortions performed to save the mother’s life?  How about those that seek an assisted pregnancy where multiple embryos are created and implanted into the host and only one survives, would they be murdering the others?  What about miscarriages, would they all have to be investigated to see if negligence, foul play, or a wanton act led to the loss of that life?  Would this view require women to register the fact that they are pregnant in order to afford the fetus required protection?

If life does not begin until birth, could anyone be charged with taking a life if, for instance, an expecting mother was hit in the abdomen resulting in a miscarriage?  Or say a drunk driver causes an accident with an expecting woman involved and she loses that child?  Would that not be a crime?

Now who gets to decide?  Should it be the government, should it be the scientist, should it be the clergy, should it be the pregnant woman, should it be the couple involved in conception, or should it be some other entity?  

Right now I only have gut feeling and emotion driving my thoughts, this is truly a “Pandora’s Box” for which I feel there is no easy or right answer.  I personally lean towards the right of choice for the woman involved.
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
Ken, it's definitely a Pandora's box and really do prefer the government stay out of it, (as they tend to make a mess out of just about everything).  My personal feeling is that life begins at conception, and to purposely dispose of it is simply wrong.  In terms of legality, I feel that once a fetus can survive outside the womb, it should be afforded the right to live.

And Jimmy, Planned Parenthood isn't what I would call an unbiased educator.  Planned Parenthood sways heavily towards abortion and downplays and sugarcoats the facts.  What we don't need is more "educated" Planned Parenthood folks out there giving advice.

As far as more money being thrown at the public school system.  What a joke!  Public schools are the perfect example of a Government MESS!
 

missi1013

Catch Me If You Can!
Right on girl!!!

Is a beating heart alive?  Of course so why isn't it the same for unborn babies.  Babies have a heart beat 3 weeks after conception.  So what is the difference between born and unborn?  They both have heart beats!!
Don't believe me go to www.pregnancycalendar.com  and find out for your self.  Planned Parenthood doesn't tell you what I just told you. They don't want to tell you!!!

And public schools, I agree with Christy, they are a joke!!!  The gov't is lowering the standerds instead of working to bring the kids up!!
 

BudoPo

Member
Ken King on 9:37 am on April 21, 2002[br]Is it “kill” or “murder”?  It totally depends on which version of the bible you read for the exact text.

This is why I looked up what it says in Hebrew, which is "murder".

As for the abortion discussion, I think it really needs to be left to the individual.  Imagine for the sake of argument that abortion is made illegal, under all circumstances.  Then, if a pregnancy is endangering the woman's life, she would have no legal option, regardless of her own personal religious and philosophical beliefs.  In the end, both the mother and the fetus' lives would be in danger.
 

Christy

b*tch rocket
Budpro, all the pro abortion folks throw out that "to save the life of the mother" line.  Very rarely, (pretty close to never!) do babies HAVE to be aborted in order to save the life of the mother.  Normally when a womans life is endangered during pregnancy, it is towards the end of pregnancy, where it's just as viable an option to deliver the baby and hook it up to life support.  The majority of late term abortions aren't done to save the lives of women.  
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Christy,

I understand and respect your belief of the viable life (which can be as early as 19 weeks after conception, from what I have read and becoming earlier with medical advancements).   Now stepping into the role of the Devil’s Advocate, if after achieving viability a problem arises with the mother medically necessitating the aborting of the fetus, would that be allowable?  Also, if it was determined that once viable that child has equal rights, how could anyone make the decision to abort it?  And who would make that decision?   Wouldn’t the government have to establish the standard and determine who and how the decision is reached?   Would that standard require a woman or doctor to notify an agency to the fact that a pregnancy exists in order to assure the protection of the soon to be viable life?

Missi1013,

You ask and answer “Is a beating heart alive? Of course so why isn't it the same for unborn babies.”   But if that were so, how could they ever unhook anyone on life support, where there is no brain activity, if the heart is still beating?   Would that mean that families facing this issue could not ask that their loved one be removed form the machines?  How about “do not resuscitate”  instructions, would these become illegal because of the potentiality of a viable life resuming, regardless of how little hope there is?

You then ask, “So what is the difference between born and unborn? They both have heart beats!!”  Simple, one has a date of birth the other doesn’t. One has breathed air the other hasn't.  One has entered the world the other lives within the mother.
 
Top