Hypocritical?

Remove all ads!

Wow, good thing Aldeth didn't go to World Youth Day in Cologne; with over a million Catholics and Lent like 8 months away, there would have been nothing left of him...

 

How about some less-religiously/politically affiliated hypocrisy?

Like, say…. Looks. People who want their partner to look perfect, like, say the replica of Paris Hilton/Ashton Kutcher/whatever when they themselves most definitely are not perfect themselves?

There’s a lot of people out there who say “I just want someone who can love/like/have sex with me as I am” and yet, that “someone” should look like a supermodel.

 

That's fairly unfair, I grant you that. Surely a double standard, though perhaps someone wants a thin girl who won't mind his belly or an athletic guy who won't mind a fluffy girl? Is it just a question of preferring something you don't have, like a blond guy who likes only brunettes, or is it demanding from others but not from yourself? Hard to tell. Perhaps there's a little of both.

 

I don't know - I think most people are pretty on-target with their expectations of their mates, at least by the time they reach their early 20s. I mean, I know I'm an average looking guy, so I certainly didn't think I was going to land a super-model. While I find my wife attractive, I don't delude myself into thinking she's a super-model. Chances are unless you're a really good looking guy, you aren't going to land a really good looking woman. On the other hand, if you look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame, then you kind of have to take what you can get.

 

@ Chandos: Now it's not just representation, but that we want competent representation. Most can't do the job without alienating a significant portion of their constituents...

@ Rally: I'll be trying to teach my children similar to the way you teach yours, but it gets that much harder when the government is trying to shove something else down my children's throats. And as for Starbucks, it is simply a business, who's primary product is considered to be unhealthy. I won't be shunned or excommunicated for buying a bottle of water or something that doesn't violate the word of wisdom while socializing with friends there. AS long as I am not partaking of the forbidden substances, I would not be guilty of hypocracy.

@ AFI: No, sticking to their guns may earn a lot of derision, but one word that would be inaccurate is hypocrite. Paradoxes will always exist, but to consistently take one side and stand for that side, then you are no hypocrite.

@Ara: Excellent call. That of course is hypocritical. To hold someone to a standard that you are unwilling to meet would qualify.

@ Tal, it's not my intent to hijack this or any other thread. I simply respond to what is there. Sometimes I should probably either try to reign it back in to the topic at hand or simply question the relevence. My technique sucks sometimes. But I don't claim to be a great debater...

 

It's not hypocrisy to oppose something in principle, but to recognise the need for action to be taken with respect to that thing which may not coincide with your beliefs. Sometimes, the inflexibility of those who claim to be acting in the best interests of all concerned is the greatest source of hypocrisy, since it tends to prolong or exacerbate the problem while a group or faction beats its chest and proclaims its moral superiority.

(BTW, that's not a shot at religion; it applies to any group that behaves like that, for any reason.)

@ Chev: I don't know if you're familiar with some of Habermas' work, but I agree with that statement about democracy. It can't really exist in a society where the majority of people don't care enough to vote, or where choice/participation in the process is effectively an illusion.

@ Arabwel: I wouldn't necessarily call it hypocrisy - I'd certainly call it being delusional, unrealistic and having double standards.

 

Now this is hypocritical - Religious leader wants US to assasinate Hugo Chavez.

He does not think that war would be a good idea, as its cheaper to assasinate him!

I don't see why Americans should have anything against Chavez, but the poll on WPXI shows that:

31% say he is a threat to US
38% say he is not a threat (thank goodness) and,
32% don't even know who he is

source

[Please avoid posting the same thing in two forums in the future. -Tal]

[ August 23, 2005, 16:09: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

The best bit about that poll is they actually say he is the Venezuelan president in the question. And still 32% don't know who he is!

 

And what percent don't know why there is even debate over assassinating him?

 

Did anyone besides me notice that those numbers add up to 101%?


[Effect of rounding up on decimels - dmc]

[ August 24, 2005, 08:09: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Disagreeing with something and accepting the fact that others agree with it (and have right to do it) are two different things.

For us Europeans and Americans (I should generalize even more but nevermind), the law in Arabian/Muslim countries is often very shocking and we often seem to disagree with it (thieves lose therr hand if they steal twice in Saud-Arabia, and they are the death penalties, and whip etc.) because we say it is not democratic, it does not respect some human laws, it is barbaric etc.. I told this example to clarify what I mean:
I don't think Saria should be applied anywhere else than where it has been used for hundreds of years, in fact I don't agree at all with it -- but we should never forget that those people are not us, they have their own culture, and own law, which we shouldn't (always) interfere into. So before judging anything, indeed it's important to make difference between my opinion and their rights (someone's post about the homosexuals was also a good example of this)

 

People that call for the destruction of Muslim countries because they are 'barbarians' etc, but don't protest the light sentences of the scum of their own country.

Repeated beatings and murder

 

@Cuchulainn: Repeated beating resulting in the victim's death can only be murder if the fatal result had been intended or the possibility accepted. In that case, however, the latter is quite likely. Three months is a big joke even without a fatal result. It would still be a joke without any lasting result whatsoever. That's a classic example of hypocrisy, where people feel justified for what they do to other people but don't give them the same right. They are barbarians because they do brutal things to us and we do brutal things to them because they are barbarians. It's just a classic "we vs they" scenario where people desperately want to believe that they right in what violence their community is doing to another community. They want that belief, that feeling, so much that facts become an obstacle.

 

What makes me angry is that the public are not protesting this, even Guantanemo is okay for the majority of people, expecially bad is that they are raving about 'freedom and liberty'.

I do believe its murder, because subjecting one person to such beatings for a long period of time can only result in death. Those people are cowards "Dude that chained up Arab was no match against the 10 of us".

I suspect like George Armstrong Custer they will be tragic military heros and gentlemen who sacrificed their life for their country.