NationStates Jolt Archive

Don't you get fairly of tired of those who will happily point out the hypocrisies of their enemies and then do the things which their enemies are hypocrites for? For example, one who is a global warming skeptic and does nothing to aid in combatting it, and yet will complain about the hypocrisy of those who speak out against global warming and privately act hypocritically.
Whilst their hypocrisy is indeed reprehensible, at least it can be said of them that they attempt to aid in the fight for their cause a bit. In the case of global warming believers, they are at least trying to make other people cut down and thus reduce emissions.
This doesn't pardon their hypocrisy, but I feel that it's better to be selfish and yet spread the word of danger than it is to bury one's head in the sand completely.

Thus ends my short rant.
Thoughts?

Ilaer

For example, one who is a global warming skeptic and does nothing to aid in combatting it, and yet will complain about the hypocrisy of those who speak out against global warming and privately act hypocritically.

What I found salient from that thread was that the accusation of hypocrisy against the global warming activist was done without any proof, but when the accusation was rebutted the same people that bought the accusation without any proof thereof suddenly demanded proof for the rebuttal, but still continued to believe the accusation without any such proof as to its validity. They didn't need proof of malfeasance to assume that it was true, because they don't like the person, but needed proof that the malfeasance hadn't happened to buy the rebuttal.

I found that a more glaring hypocrisy.

What I found salient from that thread was that the accusation of hypocrisy against the global warming activist was done without any proof, but when the accusation was rebutted the same people that bought the accusation without any proof thereof suddenly demanded proof for the rebuttal, but still continued to believe the accusation without any such proof as to its validity. They didn't need proof of malfeasance to assume that it was true, because they don't like the person, but needed proof that the malfeasance hadn't happened to buy the rebuttal.

I found that a more glaring hypocrisy.

I don't know which thread you're referring to (my aggravation was caused by a group of diehard global warming skeptics on another internet forum) but that sounds suspiciously likely with some people today.
Hypocrisy on a level like that really is inexcusable.

Ilaer

What? No.

Hypocrisy is when you fail to follow the rules you set yourself. If someone hasn't set rules for themselves against contributing to Climate Change, that doesn't mean that they can't call someone out for breaking their own rules.

Another example. Say a Preacherman preaches that homosexuality is a sin, while at the same time having lurid homosexual affairs. I would call him a hypocrite. But if I was then to go out and have wild bumsecks, that would not make me a hypocrite, because I do not have a personal rule against that.

What? No.

Hypocrisy is when you fail to follow the rules you set yourself. If someone hasn't set rules for themselves against contributing to Climate Change, that doesn't mean that they can't call someone out for breaking their own rules.

Another example. Say a Preacherman preaches that homosexuality is a sin, while at the same time having lurid homosexual affairs. I would call him a hypocrite. But if I was then to go out and have wild bumsecks, that would not make me a hypocrite, because I do not have a personal rule against that.

I was not accusing the other person of hypocrisy; I was merely pointing out that they do not have the right to get at a person for doing something which they themselves do, even if the other person does publicly speak out against the action.

For example, global warming skeptics are always eager to grab on global warming proponent's hypocrises; if they are really such skeptics who do not care, then how do they have the right to insult someone who at least is attempting something to cut down on emissions, if it is only telling other to do so and not doing it themselves.

Ilaer

Everyone's a hypocrite.

Everyone's a hypocrite.

In what way?

Ilaer

I myself am overweight, but I am almost exclusively attracted to women who are not. Does this make me a "hippocrite"?

In what way?

Ilaer

Each in their own unique exceptional way ;)

I myself am overweight, but I am almost exclusively attracted to women who are not. Does this make me a "hippocrite"?

No.
It doesn't.

You'd be a hypocrite if you said that it was stupid to be overweight and you then proceeded to tell other overweight people to get thinner.

Ilaer

No.
It doesn't.

You'd be a hypocrite if you said that it was stupid to be overweight and you then proceeded to tell other overweight people to get thinner.

Ilaer

*Missed pun alert* ;)

No.
It doesn't.

You'd be a hypocrite if you said that it was stupid to be overweight and you then proceeded to tell other overweight people to get thinner.

Ilaer

You ignored my pun :(

I admit it. I'm addicted to punography. I'm an incorrigible punographer. Do not incorrige.

*Missed pun alert* ;)

?

Ilaer

This doesn't apply that well to your example but: I think it is far better for someone to be a hypocrite than to hold rigidly to a view you are no longer certain of for the sake only of consistency. I would not trust someone who claimed they had never been a hypocrite, even moreso if they were telling the truth.

?

Ilaer

While I may not be a "HIPPO"crite, I do have a double standard, which is almost as bad :eek:

You ignored my pun :(

I admit it. I'm addicted to punography. I'm an incorrigible punographer. Do not incorrige.

Oh, lord...
I get it now...
The overweight thing and the 'hippo'-crite?
*cries*

Ilaer

You ignored my pun :(

I admit it. I'm addicted to punography. I'm an incorrigible punographer. Do not incorrige.

For cruel and unusual punishment, you will serve out your sentence to the end. Period.

Thoughts?

Ilaer
Yeah! Stop signing each and every single one of your posts - it's highly irritating.

(:p end of my little rant)

I was not accusing the other person of hypocrisy; I was merely pointing out that they do not have the right to get at a person for doing something which they themselves do, even if the other person does publicly speak out against the action.

For example, global warming skeptics are always eager to grab on global warming proponent's hypocrises; if they are really such skeptics who do not care, then how do they have the right to insult someone who at least is attempting something to cut down on emissions, if it is only telling other to do so and not doing it themselves.

Ilaer

So homosexuals do not have the right to call out hypocritical homophobes?

The fact is, some people may not view Climate Change (Global Warming is a misleading term, as much of the world may actually end up colder) as something that they should worry about, or may not view driving their cars around or importing fruit as bad activities. Whereas, if someone they know does, but does them anyway, the original person is surely within their right to tell them that they are being hypocritical.

Morals are relative, people give themselves different rules to live up to.

I don't think I have met anyone on this thread who isn't a hypocrite in some way, even I am a hypocrite.

What about a Hippocrat? That would be a horse politician. :)

Don't you get fairly of tired of those who will happily point out the hypocrisies of their enemies and then do the things which their enemies are hypocrites for? For example, one who is a global warming skeptic and does nothing to aid in combatting it, and yet will complain about the hypocrisy of those who speak out against global warming and privately act hypocritically.
Whilst their hypocrisy is indeed reprehensible, at least it can be said of them that they attempt to aid in the fight for their cause a bit. In the case of global warming believers, they are at least trying to make other people cut down and thus reduce emissions.
This doesn't pardon their hypocrisy, but I feel that it's better to be selfish and yet spread the word of danger than it is to bury one's head in the sand completely.

Thus ends my short rant.
Thoughts?

Ilaer

Hmm...perhaps I'm missing something, but that's not hypocritical. At all. If you don't believe in global warming, why would you do something about it? You wouldn't, because you either don't believe in it or don't believe that humanity is the cause. I'm not speaking on the verity of this point, just pointing out that its not really hypocritical.

I'm a hypno-crit. I put thin girls into a trance and suggest they eat lots of fatty foods. When they get fat, I swoop in while their confidence is low. Then I re-hypnotize them into losing the weight and being all hot again.

Hmm...perhaps I'm missing something, but that's not hypocritical. At all. If you don't believe in global warming, why would you do something about it? You wouldn't, because you either don't believe in it or don't believe that humanity is the cause. I'm not speaking on the verity of this point, just pointing out that its not really hypocritical.

Agreed. It's not hypocritical. It's worse. It's stupidity, which is a nearly incurable, highly contagious, and (fortunately, but not commonly enough) often fatal disease. Symptoms inlcude, amoung other things, bible-thumping, belief in ID over evolution, watching MTV, voting for Bush, being Pat Robertson, and using gun smileys in your first post.

What about a Hippocrat? That would be a horse politician. :)

Caligula's horse Incitatus was one of those. (Well, almost. Caligula apparently planned to make the horse a senator, but never got around to it.)

Incidentally, given the tone of this thread, I suppose it should be noted that Senator Incitatus would presumably have always voted "neigh." ;)

Incidentally, given the tone of this thread, I suppose it should be noted that Senator Incitatus would presumably have always voted "neigh." ;)

Incitatus was never sworn in because he ate the oats of office.

I don't think I have met anyone on this thread who isn't a hypocrite in some way, even I am a hypocrite.

I'm not a hypocrite, but I admit to double standards.

Don't you get fairly of tired of those who will happily point out the hypocrisies of their enemies and then do the things which their enemies are hypocrites for? For example, one who is a global warming skeptic and does nothing to aid in combatting it, and yet will complain about the hypocrisy of those who speak out against global warming and privately act hypocritically.
Whilst their hypocrisy is indeed reprehensible, at least it can be said of them that they attempt to aid in the fight for their cause a bit. In the case of global warming believers, they are at least trying to make other people cut down and thus reduce emissions.
This doesn't pardon their hypocrisy, but I feel that it's better to be selfish and yet spread the word of danger than it is to bury one's head in the sand completely.

Thus ends my short rant.
Thoughts?

Ilaer

Let me try to rephrase this so I know I understand the situation:

Person X believes in global warming, yet drives a car.
Person Y does not believe in global warming, and drives a car.

Person Y points out what they perceive to be Person X's hypocrisy.

Are you're asking if Person Y is now a hypocrite?
I think not; Person Y is not claiming to have any beliefs that they do not have.

Let me try to rephrase this so I know I understand the situation:

Person X believes in global warming, yet drives a car.
Person Y does not believe in global warming, and drives a car.

Person Y points out what they perceive to be Person X's hypocrisy.

Are you're asking if Person Y is now a hypocrite?
I think not; Person Y is not claiming to have any beliefs that they do not have.

Hmm...perhaps I'm missing something, but that's not hypocritical. At all. If you don't believe in global warming, why would you do something about it? You wouldn't, because you either don't believe in it or don't believe that humanity is the cause. I'm not speaking on the verity of this point, just pointing out that its not really hypocritical.

I'm not calling them a hypocrite; I'm saying that (taking the global warming example again) if they're a skeptic then surely they have no right to chide a person, no matter how hypocritical the person is, for something which they do themselves.
Or something like that. It's complicated; try reading all my posts in the thread.

Ilaer
P.S. German Nightmare: I'll sign my posts regardless of your feelings. :p

I'm not calling them a hypocrite; I'm saying that (taking the global warming example again) if they're a skeptic then surely they have no right to chide a person, no matter how hypocritical the person is, for something which they do themselves.
Or something like that. It's complicated; try reading all my posts in the thread.

Ilaer
P.S. German Nightmare: I'll sign my posts regardless of your feelings. :p

so, in your opinion then, atheists don't have standing to question the hypocrisies of Christians?

just trying to understand.

I'm not calling them a hypocrite; I'm saying that (taking the global warming example again) if they're a skeptic then surely they have no right to chide a person, no matter how hypocritical the person is, for something which they do themselves.
Or something like that. It's complicated; try reading all my posts in the thread.

Ilaer
P.S. German Nightmare: I'll sign my posts regardless of your feelings. :p

The difference is that, in your example, person X is presuming to tell person Y how to conduct his or her affairs. If person X insists that driving cars harms teh environment and demands that person Y sell his or her SUV, then person X had damn well better be driving a hybrid or their credibility evaporates.

so, in your opinion then, atheists don't have standing to question the hypocrisies of Christians?

just trying to understand.

They do have the right, yes; it's not admirable to exercise it, though. Just as it is not admirable for a Christian to attempt to convert everyone and chide everyone for things that are sins within their own religion but are not to atheists.

Ilaer

They do have the right, yes; it's not admirable to exercise it, though. Just as it is not admirable for a Christian to attempt to convert everyone and chide everyone for things that are sins within their own religion but are not to atheists.

Ilaer

let's say that I am a Christian(okay, that's true) and I think that being intoxicated is bad (not entirely true, but close) and an atheist sees me drinking a glass of wine and I comment that he shouldn't order wine with his dinner because being drunk is wrong, does he have the right to call me on my own glass of wine? even if he doesn't believe that drinking is wrong?

let's say that I am a Christian(okay, that's true) and I think that being intoxicated is bad (not entirely true, but close) and an atheist sees me drinking a glass of wine and I comment that he shouldn't order wine with his dinner because being drunk is wrong, does he have the right to call me on my own glass of wine? even if he doesn't believe that drinking is wrong?

me i would be telling you where to go

let's say that I am a Christian(okay, that's true) and I think that being intoxicated is bad (not entirely true, but close) and an atheist sees me drinking a glass of wine and I comment that he shouldn't order wine with his dinner because being drunk is wrong, does he have the right to call me on my own glass of wine? even if he doesn't believe that drinking is wrong?

Yes, he does have the right; I'm not saying that people don't have the right to point out hypocrises. To be honest, it was mainly a thinly-veiled complaint about global warming skeptics (like you all didn't know) and the fact that they rejoice in pointing it out when someone, though of a different viewpoint, does something that they themselves do without any kind of remorse.

Ilaer

P.S. German Nightmare: I'll sign my posts regardless of your feelings. :p
;) I figured that much - but I needed that off my chest. :p

Carry on! :D

Yes, he does have the right; I'm not saying that people don't have the right to point out hypocrises. To be honest, it was mainly a thinly-veiled complaint about global warming skeptics (like you all didn't know) and the fact that they rejoice in pointing it out when someone, though of a different viewpoint, does something that they themselves do without any kind of remorse.

Ilaer

a lot of people call me out on things that they do, because they think I shouldn't , what's your point?

let's say that I am a Christian(okay, that's true) and I think that being intoxicated is bad (not entirely true, but close) and an atheist sees me drinking a glass of wine and I comment that he shouldn't order wine with his dinner because being drunk is wrong, does he have the right to call me on my own glass of wine? even if he doesn't believe that drinking is wrong?

Yes. If you personally feel (and he is aware) of your belief that consuming alcohol is morally wrong, and you criticize his choice to consume alcohol, he is well within his rights to call you a hypocrite for consuming wine yourself.

a lot of people call me out on things that they do, because they think I shouldn't , what's your point?

My point? To get something that's been bugging me off my chest.
Perhaps helping German Nightmare get his concerns over my signing of posts off his in the process.

Ilaer

Yes. If you personally feel (and he is aware) of your belief that consuming alcohol is morally wrong, and you criticize his choice to consume alcohol, he is well within his rights to call you a hypocrite for consuming wine yourself.

I thought so.

My point? To get something that's been bugging me off my chest.
Perhaps helping German Nightmare get his concerns over my signing of posts off his in the process.

Ilaer

well, you have an interesting threshold for annoyances.

well, you have an interesting threshold for annoyances.

Yep.

Ilaer

Caligula's horse Incitatus was one of those. (Well, almost. Caligula apparently planned to make the horse a senator, but never got around to it.)

Incidentally, given the tone of this thread, I suppose it should be noted that Senator Incitatus would presumably have always voted "neigh." ;)

It could've been worse. Incitatus could've been an ass.

I wonder if he voted for any rider amendments?

Too bad he never made it to the Senate. He could have gone on to be emperor and had a long "rein."

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

On topic (once again, sorry), hypocrisy is difficult to define. I believe that climate change is a serious, anthropogenic problem. I do certain things to reduce my impact. There are a number of other things that I could possibly do but don't because of too much inconvenience or expense (as a college student, time and money are both quite precious to me). Is not doing everything I could possibly be doing, while arguing that more needs to be done, hypocrisy? And how far does the effort I do make (which is considerable) counter that?

Ilaer:
" I'm not calling them a hypocrite; I'm saying that (taking the global warming example again) if they're a skeptic then surely they have no right to chide a person, no matter how hypocritical the person is, for something which they do themselves."

They aren't chiding the person for driving the car. They're chiding the person for being a hypocrite. Yes, the "surely have a right" to do so. A person's right to voice their opinion does not end because others don't like the opinion.

" It's complicated; try reading all my posts in the thread."

If you can't bother explaining your thought in the original thread post, why should I bother to search for that thought?

And no, it's not complicated, you've just poorly worded it.

Ilaer:
" I'm not calling them a hypocrite; I'm saying that (taking the global warming example again) if they're a skeptic then surely they have no right to chide a person, no matter how hypocritical the person is, for something which they do themselves."

They aren't chiding the person for driving the car. They're chiding the person for being a hypocrite. Yes, the "surely have a right" to do so. A person's right to voice their opinion does not end because others don't like the opinion.

" It's complicated; try reading all my posts in the thread."

If you can't bother explaining your thought in the original thread post, why should I bother to search for that thought?

And no, it's not complicated, you've just poorly worded it.

I meant it's complicated to put in words, at least for me.
And I apologise if my opinion disagreed with yours.

Ilaer