14
   

Who is your favorite hypocrite?

 
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 08:41 am
@dlowan,
dlowan wrote:

Heh...I'll trump your German exceptionalism version of coolness, and say Bob Santamaria.

Is that the guy with the beard and the red suit? Weird pets, only shows up seasonally?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 21 Aug, 2008 08:43 am
Al Gore Smile
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Aug, 2008 10:47 am
@dagmaraka,
I'll go with ros on this.

We could start with a roll call of the preachers.

or, as Denis Diderot wrote:
Mankind will never truly be free until the last king has been strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 08:53 pm
There are hypocrites everywhere. When I first went on Facebook (at the urging of my kids), I took some of their polls. Well, I personally hate the word "boob," which I find distasteful. I think a woman ought to call her breasts breasts. So, some woman who is against nursing in public said she hated the sight of a "boob hanging out." Frankly, I think she felt uncomfortable with her own body and/or only saw breasts as sexualized.

I also disagree with labeling Laurie David and Time and other mags hypocritical.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 09:01 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
I'd have to say Konrad Adenauer for saying Wir blicken in einen Abrund von Landesverrat (We are looking into an abyss of treason). I'd explain, but I don't think many American readers know who Konrad Adenauer was.
I remember who he was; please explain.





David
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 09:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, did you read my reply to DrewDad?

http://able2know.org/topic/121243-1#post-3367702

If so, is there any specific point on which you need a more thorough explanation?
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 10:19 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas - your chronology isn't accurate: Franz Josef Strauss (I really liked him, btw) objected to the Spiegel issue in October 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis. Adenauer's speech covered a great deal more than the magazine report - think of the dates, both in the US and in Europe governments had just had to face a very real chance of nuclear annihilation - and in that sense wasn't hypocritical. Besides Strauss was subsequently exonerated by the appeals court - it found that he had acted in the belief his orders were lawful.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 10:28 pm
@High Seas,
Yes, that was a typo on my part. It was 1962, not 1961.

Do you seriously believe in Strauss's belief that he as the defense minister could give orders to embassies behind the foreign ministers back, and that he could tell police to raid a magazine's offices? If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Actually it's a derivative on a derivative on that bridge.

In either case, the "favorite hypocrite" in question was Adenauer, not Strauss.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 10:32 pm
@Thomas,
Yes, Adenauer gave the speech, and yes, I don't believe that in the circumstances the speech was hypocritical. As to Strauss, it's not what I believe, it's what the German appeals court (Bundesgerichtshof) decided - it found that Strauss was acting in Verbotsirrtum (erroneous but honest belief he was acting lawfully) and so was not guilty, period.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 11:00 pm
@High Seas,
Are you familiar with the concept of Staatsraison? Are you aware that this concept sometimes causes courts to drop cases that might otherwise lead to things like, I dunno, putting a defense minister in jail? If you can point me to a copy of the Bundesgerichtshof's ruling, I'll be happy to take a look at it and see what reasons it gives for its decision. Otherwise I'll keep presuming that the Bundesgerichtshof closed the case out of Staatsraison. (For American readers: the literal translation is "Reason of State". I'm not sure if there's a good translation of the term.)
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Mar, 2010 11:32 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Are you familiar with the concept of Staatsraison?,,,,, (For American readers: the literal translation is "Reason of State". I'm not sure if there's a good translation of the term.)

Usually in English it's written as just plain "raison d'etat" and I'm eminently familiar with it. I'm also certain the Bundesgerichtshof's decision was based on Verbotsirrtum, not Staatsraison, though I can't find a link right now. I did however find something else that contributed to Adenauer's genuine fear - on top of the Cuban missile crisis, which sure scared everybody - and to his talk of treason:
Quote:
Der Spiegel-Artikel "Bedingt Abwehrbereit" enthalte 37 zum Teil äußerst wichtige militärische Geheimnisse.

http://www.dradio.de/dlr/sendungen/merkmal/145740/

"37 military secrets in the Spiegel article"obviously struck Franz Josef as sufficient grounds for blocking the publication. A similar attempt to stop publication was tried in the US also during the Vietnam war with the Pentagon Papers, but they were published by the NYT and the Washington Post.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 12:07 am
@High Seas,
Raison d'Etat is not a legal category, so the court's opinion wouldn't have referred to it. It's a political category; it's a reason that would make a judge find some reason to drop the case.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 06:26 am
@Thomas,
True but irrelevant - motives of judges can't be proven either way. Now as to the actual court decision, this is all I came up with - though I'm sure Walter will be able to do a whole lot better:
Quote:
On May 13, 1965, the Bundesgerichtshof (highest German court of appeals) refused to open trial against Augstein and Ahlers, ruling that during the affair Strauss had violated the boundaries and committed Freiheitsberaubung (deprivation of personal freedom); however, because of his belief of acting lawfully (Verbotsirrtum), he was exempt from punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_scandal
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 09:29 am
@High Seas,
Guess we reached an impasse, and neither of us can persuade the other. No problem.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 01:13 pm
@Thomas,
Ah, but our famous legal eagle, Walter, has just put in an appearance - let's hope he spots this thread and settles this difference of opinion Smile
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Mar, 2010 01:18 pm
i'm not a doctor, but i do pretend to be one on the internet, i even took the hypocritical oath


wait, that doesn't sound right
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Massachusetts - WTF? - Discussion by McGentrix
The Forgiveness Dance - Discussion by snood
What I believed about religion as a young man. - Discussion by Alan McDougall
Obunga on Discrimination - Discussion by gungasnake
THE NEED FOR SPEED . . . - Discussion by Setanta
Moderat Molly does just curious - Question by SpawnOfGod
US Hypocrisy - A solid foundation - Discussion by JTT
Can you believe the hypocrisy? - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/24/2019 at 11:17:16