RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession

RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/18/2012 10:05:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper My guess is though that OP is going for some kind of shock and awe thing and just can't get his head around how to lay it out effectively. Are you accusing me SternSkipper of playing Indian scout? Maybe shock and awe already happened and you got caught in a cave somewhere. But seriously, does it upset you that others can see what I'm talking about? Politesub53 raised a good point. The problem is it is a matter of checks and balances or put another way a cat and mouse game. You have law or some moral code which is invariably necessary. Both of which the United States, for example, along with Europe and a whole lot of countries were lacking. We will see if anyone has what it takes to get righteous. There was an article in Times magazine recently that indicated some progress on this point. Take what I wrote earlier, "My women! I desire more women than Chairman Mao!" Most women I anticipate would laugh saying, Good luck with that buddy. As a rule, transparency is not rewarded. Most women have no power of discernment. People are punished for doing the right thing. For all you Atheists out there, Socrates found this out. If you do what is right, they will crucify you. But we do have history to look back on to be our guide and teacher. Must we keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and over again? Sadly, we must be realistic and see things as they really are, to know the truth. Without truth, there is no hope.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/19/2012 1:25:29 AM)
Your most powerful instrument is solidarity. The finger pointing accomplishes nothing. It is weak.

SternSkipper -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/19/2012 4:21:10 AM)
quote: Are you accusing me SternSkipper of playing Indian scout? Maybe shock and awe already happened and you got caught in a cave somewhere. 1st off no someone in the 'Indian Scout' class would be cogent. Achieve his objective and get the fuck out. Long way from your performance. And as far as getting caught in some cave, you ought to do better research on whom you debate. My gang made Time's 'man of the year'... I'd be surprised if you were able to raise the local county mounties over harassing girls in a Sonic<tm> parking lot. DOING and fantasizing that you are are separate things. quote: But seriously, does it upset you that others can see what I'm talking about? No, and you know why? THAT'S not what is happening here. You started with a real vague braggadocio statement... And when someone comes along and calls you out on a particular aspect. You take the opportunity to learn from you earlier mistakes gaffs and add more backfill to make it sound like you had a substantial point in the first place. Make-believe depth isn't part of my repertoire.

SoftBonds -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/19/2012 9:23:03 AM)
To play devil's advocate, I can see two situations where someone could argue that their hypocrisy was in fact a good thing. 1. Even though I do this thing, I know it is wrong, so I will make it illegal so you won't. Sometimes applies to past mistakes too. 2. Maybe if I make this thing illegal it will help me quit. My suspicion is that in both cases the only reason someone who is doing what they think is wrong (e.g. S&M, or homosexuality), is some religious nuttery, so I oppose the results of the hypocritical lawmaker, but I guess I can see how they sometimes might not be Evil...

SternSkipper -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/19/2012 10:10:57 AM)
quote: so I oppose the results of the hypocritical lawmaker, but I guess I can see how they sometimes might not be Evil... I think my point is the second party you point to (subject to "religious nuttery"... well put btw) is someone I certainly DON'T wish to be governed by. And the only worse political fate I can imagine is some guy who takes his daily meds with a paper bag and an aerosol can who has determined that planned hypocrisy is perfected governance.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/19/2012 10:24:13 AM)
"I was talking about the radical environmentalists," Santorum said, suggesting that they believe man should protect the earth, rather than "steward its resources." "I think that is a phony ideal. I don't believe that's what we're here to do ... We're not here to serve the earth. That is not the objective, man is the objective." (NOT WOMEN>>>>) Earlier in the day on Saturday, Santorum had also said that health insurance plans shouldn't be required to cover prenatal testing, because that testing results in more abortions, as well as contending that government-run public education was "anachronistic." "Free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society," Santorum told the Ohio Christian Alliance conference. I dont see repubs subsidising them with more money to people for disability needs and healthcare do you? what if they are female? will they be sterilised? made to give birth? Asked by Schieffer about his claims that prenatal testing leads to more abortions, Santorum insisted that this was "a fact." (But no source..what a surprise) "We're talking about specifically prenatal testing, and specifically amniocentesis, which is a procedure that actually creates a risk of having a miscarriage when you have it, and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies of a child in the womb. And in many cases -- and in fact in most cases -- most physicians recommend, if there is a problem, they recommend abortion," Santorum said.

SternSkipper -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/19/2012 10:34:00 AM)
quote: Earlier in the day on Saturday, Santorum had also said that health insurance plans shouldn't be required to cover prenatal testing, because that testing results in more abortions, as well as contending that government-run public education was "anachronistic." "Free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done, because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society," Santorum told the Ohio Christian Alliance conference. I dont see repubs subsidising them with more money to people for disability needs and healthcare do you? what if they are female? will they be sterilised? made to give birth? Heh ... You realize that in order for the this brand of republican to achieve his goal, we have to almost go toa zero tax base entirely and put mandatory price control in place. Because if we have to pay for all the individual things government transacting with private entities operating under supply and demand laws. We not only have to pay for the shit, we also have to pay 'ethereal' costs based on someone else's personal enrichment as opposed to the INTRINSIC value of goods resources and services. Maybe that's what they want to do though... "Trouble in town? Just give the "man Without A Name" from "High Plains Drifter" "all your money.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/19/2012 10:59:44 AM)
DUnno The only thing they seem to want to do is control all women, but they sure as hell dont seem to want to run the country. Santorum is the perfect guy to get millions of dems and reasonable people out voting.

SternSkipper -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/19/2012 11:05:19 AM)
quote: DUnno The only thing they seem to want to do is control all women, but they sure as hell dont seem to want to run the country. Santorum is the perfect guy to get millions of dems and reasonable people out voting. Jesus ... if Santorum ACTUALLY gets the nomination I am going to steal a page right out of the Florida GOP Election Guide and start hunting for dead people's voter registration cards.

BenevolentM -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 1:28:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds To play devil's advocate, I can see two situations where someone could argue that their hypocrisy was in fact a good thing. 1. Even though I do this thing, I know it is wrong, so I will make it illegal so you won't. Sometimes applies to past mistakes too. 2. Maybe if I make this thing illegal it will help me quit. My suspicion is that in both cases the only reason someone who is doing what they think is wrong (e.g. S&M, or homosexuality), is some religious nuttery, so I oppose the results of the hypocritical lawmaker, but I guess I can see how they sometimes might not be Evil... I wrote out a reply, but I lost interest in finishing what I wrote. I suspect I lost interest because you prefer to believe that their is no social benefit. You are cherry picking. I naively initially took what you wrote as intellectually honest. I suppose this caused me to lose heart.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 5:14:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic "I was talking about the radical environmentalists," Santorum said, suggesting that they believe man should protect the earth, rather than "steward its resources." "I think that is a phony ideal. I don't believe that's what we're here to do ... We're not here to serve the earth. That is not the objective, man is the objective." (NOT WOMEN>>>>) Perhaps the writer mis-typed the quote. The quote could very well be, "That is not the objective, Man is the objective." Capitalizing the "M" makes it stand for Mankind, and not simply males. Couldn't that be possible? Thought so.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 7:25:28 AM)
and IF your grandmother had testicles she would be your grandfather. Please feel free to postulate all you wish.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 8:04:08 AM)
Lucylastic, why the hate? Is it not common to use the capital "M" in Man to stand for humans, in general, and not just males of the race? Do we now have to go and punish Neil Armstrong for not uttering "...giant leap for Mankind and Womankind?" You can gripe that capitalizing Man to stand for all humans isn't PC, but accept that it is common practice at this point in time. If that changes, you'll also see changes in how we speak. You shouldn't hammer any politician for using accepted speaking terms because you don't like the terms. Change the terms, if you don't like them, but don't denigrate someone using them when they are accepted as common usage.

Lucylastic -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 8:24:13 AM)
Hate? feeling a little sensitive are you? thats what you call hate? you said IF, you dont know he made a typo, or "what he meant", you are making strawmen and a soggy rotton one, the addition I made was mostly tongue in cheek, , because of the idiocy of his rhetoric, nothing to do with the "typo". I dont CARE about the "PC" ness of it , you are making assumptions based on your OWN views not mine, I was NOT being a herstory/womenkind feminist.But nice try. You completely missed the mark please dont try again, until you can stop making assumptions that im a feminazi or a PC queen. sheesh

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 11:07:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Hate? feeling a little sensitive are you? thats what you call hate? you said IF, you dont know he made a typo, or "what he meant", you are making strawmen and a soggy rotton one, the addition I made was mostly tongue in cheek, , because of the idiocy of his rhetoric, nothing to do with the "typo". I dont CARE about the "PC" ness of it , you are making assumptions based on your OWN views not mine, I was NOT being a herstory/womenkind feminist.But nice try. You completely missed the mark please dont try again, until you can stop making assumptions that im a feminazi or a PC queen. sheesh So, you acknowledge that he could have meant Man with the "all humanity"meaning? Or no? The post I initially responded to left absolutely no possibility for that. Thus, I pointed it out. And, you may have come back with sarcasm, but ya know, there you didn't use the sarcasm font, and my ability to read your facial expressions and body language are severely limited in an online messageboard. You'll simply have to excuse my misinterpretation. So, what was your point of pointing out the misogyny in your quote? You don't know if your source typed it correctly, either. And, when someone points it out, you get sarcastic? You do realize that sarcasm is usually a defense mechanism, right?

Lucylastic -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 11:48:03 AM)
YOU made the assumption.. your problem your issue. Tongue in cheek and sarcasm are two different critters, I think you could compare it to irony... but along with parody, satire, cynicism, and sarcasm I use them all..tuff. Go ahead, make assumptions on my reasons.. you will be wrong... along with using a fem hominem and strawmen, you dont seem to be able to have much insight on the difference between feminism, feminazis, or misandrists let alone the difference between irony and sarcasm. It must suck.[8\|] yours is a "what if it was a typo", please forgive me[8\|] that I find it to be nonsensical for ANY kind of"proof" that he meant to "mean" mankind, or MAN as a species. He certainly doesnt seem keen to be giving women the benefit of being able to decide for themselves what happens to their bodies and the results. Stop trying to make it about semantics. it dilutes the IMPORTANT facts of his "ideals" with pointless bickering. play by yourself.

SternSkipper -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 12:01:49 PM)
quote: So, what was your point of pointing out the misogyny in your quote? You don't know if your source typed it correctly, either. And, when someone points it out, you get sarcastic? You do realize that sarcasm is usually a defense mechanism, right? Wooooooah ... Easy on the "Dr. Phil" Time for Skipper's parable of the Week: Once upon a time there was a boy named Bobby. Bobby didn't fit the normal description of a Boy in that his entire being consisted JUST of a large head... with no body below to allow him free movement. Each day, Bobby's mom would put him on the windowsill facing out so he could watch the other children play. This made Bobby YEARN for the thrill of having a body that he could run and jump with and join the kids across the street in play. His mother feeling bad and not wishing to dash his hopes said "Bobby, just pray hard each night for a Body. And if God wants you to have one, he'll give it to you". So Bobby prayed, and he prayed, and he prayed... And one miraculous morning, Bobby woke up and had a BEAUTIFUL ATHLETIC BODY! He jumped around the room and was in total ecstasy. He ran to the door and burst out heading down the walk and across the street to play with the other children. Unfortunately an 18 Wheeler with a rather tired driver behind the wheel picked that very moment to come down Bobby's street. Poor Bobby was crushed and killed by the bus instantly. Moral of story D o w n ...... A little more Quit While You're Ahead! I'm SternSkipper and I approve of this post. Qu

SternSkipper -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 12:30:40 PM)
quote: and IF your grandmother had testicles she would be your grandfather. Please feel free to postulate all you wish. When I was 12 and I started my 4H Rabbit Hutch Project. I mistook the sex on a Rabbit who later became known as "Buck Fuck" by my older brothers and sisters who laughed like banshees as the onetime population of 13 grew to 300 in under a year. The only saving grace was that he and his 'girlfriends' were nearly all Angoras, so I was able to pull a Jon Lovitz

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 12:44:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic yours is a "what if it was a typo", please forgive me[8\|] that I find it to be nonsensical for ANY kind of"proof" that he meant to "mean" mankind, or MAN as a species. He certainly doesnt seem keen to be giving women the benefit of being able to decide for themselves what happens to their bodies and the results. Stop trying to make it about semantics. it dilutes the IMPORTANT facts of his "ideals" with pointless bickering. play by yourself. At what point did I say Santorum mean it one way or another? You were the one to point out that he left out women. I simply pointed out that the usage could have been Man, as in all of Mankind. At no point in time did say that is what he meant. All I did was give an opposing possibility. Without it, how could someone actually decide for him or herself? So, what are his "ideals?" I'd rather play with a partner, thanks. It's much more fun. No idea who said it or where I heard it, but I heard a long time ago, "If you're the only one talking, you only learn what you already know." I prefer to see both sides and decide for myself. @Skipper: I'll skip the Dr. Phil <shivers> when it takes a professional to discern the truth.

SternSkipper -> RE: Hypocrisy or Obsession (2/20/2012 1:04:49 PM)
Just try to stay on topic.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875