• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Hypocrisy a non issue?

Well, for me hypocrisy matters. If I find a person to be hypocritical on an issue then I stop taking their opinion on the matter seriously.
 
Did you just post a Daily Caller youtube video as evidence of leftist hypocrisy?

Three strikes you're out buddy. I think your posts are partisan propaganda, you're only acting like you're trying to understand, discuss, or debate.
In realty, you appear to just be pushing the party line.

Buddy, i didn't even check the source, i just found the first clip on you-tube which took 3 seconds. Do you not care about the content? I can post a different source of the same material. You are doing what i am talking about. So you don't care about hypocrisy?
 
Buddy, i didn't even check the source, i just found the first clip on you-tube which took 3 seconds. Do you not care about the content? I can post a different source of the same material. You are doing what i am talking about. So you don't care about hypocrisy?

Do I care about the content pushed to youtube by the Daily Caller? No.
 
Do I care about the content pushed to youtube by the Daily Caller? No.

Did the Daily caller put the words into the mouths of the people in the video? Address that.

If the content is true, why does it matter who it comes from? Take the truth and do with it what you would like, but to disregard it because you don't like who it comes from is ridiculous.
 
I won't go through the motions of citing hypocritical instances on both sides. My point is i always thought hypocrisy was cured when the perpetrator had to acknowledge it and adjust. It seems now though, that hypocrisy is a non issue, even when one is caught in it.

So my questions is in your opinion, does hypocrisy matter in this day and age, at least in politics?

For example, some of the rich are concerned with global warming while using private jets and consuming more than the average person. The left are for "social justice", until Asians start out performing them in SAT scores (Harvard), this has not been reconciled as far as i know.

The right are pro life, until the baby is born and then they don't care. I don't think that is necessarily hypocritical. Another example could be that the right says they care about the federal budget, but will blow it up for the military, again i don't think that is necessarily hypocritical because defense is necessary to survive.

In a nutshell, do you care about hypocrisy if you are a fan of the person in question otherwise? I thought being caught in hypocrisy required reflection and correction but it doesn't seem to be the case these days.

When it comes to my own beliefs, I love it when people point out my hypocrisy. It is a chance to reevaluate the things I've taken for granted and alter my beliefs to ensure that I do not continue to be a hypocrite. It has happened many times in my life and, god-willing, will continue to happen. When it comes to other people, I tend to hold a similar standard. For instance, when Hillary apologized years later for the 'superpredator' remark, I took that as her reevaluating her beliefs and coming to a different conclusion, and is therefore, in my mind, no longer a hypocrite when she accuses others of racism. When a politician or (DP poster) refuses to ever acknowledge he or she was wrong and either remains silent or changes the subject when confronted with their own hypocrisy he or she continues to be a hypocrite, and any who throw that in their face during an argument are right to do so.
 
When it comes to my own beliefs, I love it when people point out my hypocrisy. It is a chance to reevaluate the things I've taken for granted and alter my beliefs to ensure that I do not continue to be a hypocrite. It has happened many times in my life and, god-willing, will continue to happen. When it comes to other people, I tend to hold a similar standard. For instance, when Hillary apologized years later for the 'superpredator' remark, I took that as her reevaluating her beliefs and coming to a different conclusion, and is therefore, in my mind, no longer a hypocrite when she accuses others of racism. When a politician or (DP poster) refuses to ever acknowledge he or she was wrong and either remains silent or changes the subject when confronted with their own hypocrisy he or she continues to be a hypocrite, and any who throw that in their face during an argument are right to do so.

Right, more people should be like you. Self reflection is lacking these days, if you would have told me 10 years ago that people confronted with the truth and/or new information that flies in the face of their beliefs, would almost completely ignore it, you would have won that bet.

Hillary's apology was about 22 years, and thousands of broken families too late.
 
The definition of hypocrisy is saying one thing, and doing another.

In internet debate use, the definition of hypocrisy has been expanded to a ludicrous degree, and now means, "If you don't start your argument with a lengthy curriculum vitae outlining the consistency of your position first, then you can be assumed to be a hypocrite."
 
The definition of hypocrisy is saying one thing, and doing another.

In internet debate use, the definition of hypocrisy has been expanded to a ludicrous degree, and now means, "If you don't start your argument with a lengthy curriculum vitae outlining the consistency of your position first, then you can be assumed to be a hypocrite."

So, you are saying we throw the word hypocrite around too loosely? Is my immigration example with video evidence not valid in your opinion? I haven't charged anyone here as being a hypocrite, only asking if when it comes down to it, is it a non issue in the grand scheme, and if so, ill leave it alone.

Whats the point of pointing out the hypocrisy of someone or a group if they don't care. We can all use our energy and efforts more efficiently instead of racking our brains trying to make sense of the nonsensical.
 
So, you are saying we throw the word hypocrite around too loosely?

To say the least.

Is my immigration example with video evidence not valid in your opinion?

I'm not sure what that video is proving, exactly.

I haven't charged anyone here as being a hypocrite, only asking if when it comes down to it, is it a non issue in the grand scheme, and if so, ill leave it alone.

Sure, it's an issue and should be, but as I already implied it's often abused to the point of meaninglessness. Which may be the point. I don't know.

Whats the point of pointing out the hypocrisy of someone or a group if they don't care. We can all use our energy and efforts more efficiently instead of racking our brains trying to make sense of the nonsensical.

If actual, legitimate hypocrisy is demonstrated, it shows that the person lobbing an accusation or criticism doesn't have the moral currency to direct that criticism. The hypocrite may still continue to criticize, of course (free speech and all that), but everybody else will know that that person has no standing to be taken seriously.
 
To say the least.



I'm not sure what that video is proving, exactly.



Sure, it's an issue and should be, but as I already implied it's often abused to the point of meaninglessness. Which may be the point. I don't know.



If actual, legitimate hypocrisy is demonstrated, it shows that the person lobbing an accusation or criticism doesn't have the moral currency to direct that criticism. The hypocrite may still continue to criticize, of course (free speech and all that), but everybody else will know that that person has no standing to be taken seriously.

But legitimate hypocrisy is demonstrated on both sides almost on a daily basis, the left is for social justice but damn the high scoring Asians at Harvard, this is happening right now, that is the opposite of social justice. Not an example of hypocrisy at the highest level, but an example none the less.

I've never heard of an argument from the left in regards to why they believe this is okay. I only point out this example because it fly's in the face of social justice, but seems to be met with silence.
 
But legitimate hypocrisy is demonstrated on both sides almost on a daily basis,

Is it "demonstrated"? Really? Be careful of what you mean by "demonstrated," because that word also has a meaning, and if you don't use it precisely then you're not using it correctly.

the left is for social justice but damn the high scoring Asians at Harvard, this is happening right now, that is the opposite of social justice. Not an example of hypocrisy at the highest level, but an example none the less.

I've never heard of an argument from the left in regards to why they believe this is okay. I only point out this example because it fly's in the face of social justice, but seems to be met with silence.

You're speaking ambiguously and without examples, and therefore I have no idea of what you're talking about.
 
Anti-Trump people self identify as anti-Trump, its not an accusation. It sounded like you backed off your beliefs because the people on the fringes rubbed you the wrong way. If you don't mind elaborating, what did you like about Ron Paul that changed? As far i know he hasn't changed much. He may be one of the least hypocritical people in government.

I don't like anything about the old russian stooge now. I've researched him and his dirty campaign tactics and links to Russians. I'm over it, and decidedly not a libertarian. Which for some reason libertarians don't seem to understand. The supporters said that if I didn't believe everything in what they believed in then I shouldn't be supporting him. So, I stopped!
 
The definition of hypocrisy is saying one thing, and doing another.

In internet debate use, the definition of hypocrisy has been expanded to a ludicrous degree, and now means, "If you don't start your argument with a lengthy curriculum vitae outlining the consistency of your position first, then you can be assumed to be a hypocrite."

An interesting point. I would say it has been expanded to include "If you support X when R does it, you ought to support X when D does it."
 
Back
Top Bottom