JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 02:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
This applies to SOME conservative legislators.
I am very conservative, but I don 't support sexually repressive laws.
I don 't believe that Barry Goldwater supported such laws.
As conservatives we are for freedom and those hypocrits are NOT conservative,
tho thay might be conservative about other distinct matters.


Your logic crumbles each time you speak, Om. Sexually repressive laws are the apple pies of conservatives, so much so that you could pull out 'repressive', stick in 'conservative' and no one would miss a beat.

[****]

There, I've provided you with a phony excuse to ignore your own hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 02:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
This applies to SOME conservative legislators.
Yes...

Quote:
I am very conservative, but I don 't support sexually repressive laws.


I have no idea what a sexually repressive law is...not quibbling, just asking

Quote:
I don 't believe that Barry Goldwater supported such laws.


From what I know, Goldwater was not a hypocrite when it came to sexual mores

Quote:
As conservatives we are for freedom and those hypocrits are NOT conservative,


Many of the named conservatives above seemed to think they were free to be hypocrites about sexual mores.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 02:27 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I am very conservative, but I don 't support sexually repressive laws.

I have no idea what a sexually repressive law is...not quibbling, just asking


i believe david is advocating this type of behaviour



0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 03:13 pm
The only behavior that I am advocating is voting against collectivism
and against authoritarianism, in favor of personal freedom at election time.

I challenge a definition of conservatism that includes sexually repressive law,
unless that principle can be found in the filosofy of the Founders
of the Republic, as expressed in the US Constitution.
I have not found it there.

I am not aware that any of the Founders advocated that.

It is a question of domestic jurisdiction.
It does not exist, so far as I have been able to detect,
as to such personal matters as consensual sex.

Therefore, to the extent that legislators allege (falsely) that
such jurisdiction exists, thay deviate from the historical, jurisprudential fact,
and hence thay are liberals, because of that deviation.

An example of a sexually repressive law is criminalizing
any consensual sexual contact.


Another example of liberal interference in personal freedom
is the war on drugs. There is no jurisdictional predicate
for that in the Constitution. Any person who supports that,
is not a conservative as to that issue, regardless of what he claims.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 03:24 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:
Quote:
Many of the named conservatives above
seemed to think they were free to be hypocrites about sexual mores.

Do u think that has anything to do
with running for office and getting elected ?

Has hypocrisy ever been detected in a political campaign ?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 03:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I challenge a definition of conservatism that includes sexually repressive law, unless that principle can be found in the filosofy of the Founders of the Republic, as expressed in the US Constitution.
I have not found it there.

I am not aware that any of the Founders advocated that.


The founders wouldn't have even deigned to discuss such issues. But had you lived then and expressed what you're expressing now, you'd have been in a, a ... what's that thing that held a person's head and arms, it's been so long since I had to use one, in the town common being pelted with rotten tomatoes.

The founders would have left the common folk to have their way with you while they traipsed off to boink their slaves and mistresses, likely even young boys and girls.

That a moral relativist, [in the negative sense], like you can find anything he wants in anything he reads hardly comes as shock.

Quote:
Another example of liberal interference in personal freedom
is the war on drugs.


You are, a study in confusion.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 05:47 pm
@revel,
revel wrote:

genoves wrote:

Why is it not hypocritical for a Democrat to cheat on their spouse? Because that sort of behavior is expected of them? Because they never criticize anyone's morality?


In general for years now the republican party has campaigned and given speeches on being the party of morality. In general the democrat party does not give speeches on morality, nor is it their main party's platform.


What I find incredible is that many Dems seem to think the hypocrisy is a greater sin than the adultery itself. Seems to me that many Democratic politicians have simply taken a politically expedient position wherein, if they're so inclined, they can engage in various immoral activities as long as it is done covertly. But even if discovered, this politician takes comfort that many of his constituents will forgive him, because "what is done in the privacy of one's bedroom has no relationship with one's job performance" and furthermore he's completely immunized himself from any charges of that deadly sin of hypocrisy. I, for one, strongly prefer politicians who establish and demand high standards for themselves, both professionally and morally. While this does not excuse them when they fail, it is a far more courageous position (and one I can respect more) then another politican who cynically avoids making any moral claims for themselves.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 07:12 pm
@slkshock7,
Quote:
What I find incredible is that many Dems seem to think the hypocrisy is a greater sin than the adultery itself


That's precisely the point; adultery isn't a sin. Therein lies the hypocrisy. Stop trying, as conservatives do, to foist your narrow-minded beliefs upon others.

eoe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 08:08 pm
@slkshock7,
whew! you spin it pretty good! Laughing
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 08:12 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
That's precisely the point; adultery isn't a sin. Therein lies the hypocrisy. Stop trying, as conservatives do, to foist your narrow-minded beliefs upon others.


A man acting like a woman is...the creep has to be cashiered.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 08:22 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye, just had a mental blankout on the title, but have you ever read the book wherein the writer details what he believes is the infantilization of adolescents. His premise is that thru most of history, there never was a period of adolescence.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 08:26 pm
@revel,
You and pan have done I nice job of identifying Republican hypocrites, but I've not argued that they don't exist, or that it is hypocritcal, in many cases, fro them to engage in any illicit sexual activity.

But I would still like to know why it is not hypocritical for Democrat to cheat on their spouse.

Is infidelity expected of them?
Do they never use the images of their families to their political advantage?
Do they never criticize anyone for being immoral?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 08:32 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Is infidelity expected of them?
Do they never use the images of their families to their political advantage?
Do they never criticize anyone for being immoral?


You're not this thick, Finn, I know you aren't.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 08:49 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
Hawkeye, just had a mental blankout on the title, but have you ever read the book wherein the writer details what he believes is the infantilization of adolescents. His premise is that thru most of history, there never was a period of adolescence.


No, not that that has anything to do with the thread subject. During most of history there has never been a period of childhood either, everyone works and contributes to the collective as best they can. Those who are small and mentally unformed can do less, but they must do what they can. Compare that to our ideal of childhood, where the adults feel that they must protect and nurture the young. This idea a protective zone of pre adulthood is not very old in fact, because while it was unusual in that it was a generation after it mostly departed the American way, my dad back in the forties was well familiarized with getting the back of the hand from the father when mistakes were made. Coddling children is quite new, and not always an improvement. In the old days the imperative was that the children must learn, Learning in a way that did not hurt was better when possible, but learning must take place pain or no pain.

I realize that both sides of the political spectrum wail at history, and claim that we have done better. Watching the American youth, their ignorance, their sloth, their inability to tell right from wrong/ good from bad for ten minutes is should be enough to cause reconsideration of our certainty that we know better how to raise adults than our elders did.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 08:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
No, not that that has anything to do with the thread subject.


The parameters of these threads at A2K are hardly sacrosanct. You'd enjoy the book.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 09:30 pm
@slkshock7,
Agreed.

The thing is that most of them can't be hypocrites about illicit sexual activity because they don't really believe there is much that amounts to illicit sex.

If one has low or no standards for one's personal life, it is difficult to criticize anyone for failing to meet their own, but since witholding criticism is not an option, charges of hypocrisy must do, and since people who argue for high standards are never perfect, they are particularly vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy.

Without being willing to criticize anyone for failing to live up to standards, lest they be criticized themselves, the sin of hypocrisy must be elevated to its standing among the very worst: intolerance, certainty, human exceptionalism, American exceptionalism, and consumption.

Nevertheless I don't believe they have immunized themselves to charges of hypocrisy

With a little effort I'm sure I could come up with a list of Democratic hypocrites comparable to revels.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jun, 2009 10:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
With a little effort I'm sure I could come up with a list of Democratic hypocrites comparable to revels.


Knock yerself out, Finn.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 07:10 pm
@JTT,
Tell that to Mrs. Ensign or Mrs. Sanford....
slkshock7
 
  0  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 07:15 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn wrote:
If one has low or no standards for one's personal life, it is difficult to criticize anyone for failing to meet their own, but since witholding criticism is not an option, charges of hypocrisy must do...


Well said...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Jun, 2009 07:17 pm
@slkshock7,
Quote:
Tell that to Mrs. Ensign or Mrs. Sanford....


Why? Are they the gods du jour?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/15/2024 at 04:46:15