Lucky... 0 #101 November 6, 2006 Quote>A double standard is hypocritical . . . You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It is not hypocritical for a gay man to have a gay relationship. It IS hypocritical for a priest who rails against the "sins of homosexuality" to have a gay relationship. It is not hypocritical for a lifetime criminal, who believes that he is smarter than most people and can use that intelligence to make a dishonest living off them, to steal from a bank. (It may be wrong, but it's not hypocritical.) It IS hypocritical for a man who espouses honesty and trust to steal from the bank he works at. It is not hypocritical for a skydiver to love skydiving and jump all the time. It is hypocritical for a DZO to jump regularly, then try to get another competing drop zone shut down by claiming "skydiving cannot be performed safely." See any difference in any of those? A masterpiece...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #102 November 6, 2006 Quote>It is not hypocritical for a lifetime criminal, who believes that he is smarter than most people and can use that intelligence to make a dishonest living off them, to steal from a bank. (It may be wrong, but it's not hypocritical.) It IS hypocritical for a man who espouses honesty and trust to steal from the bank he works at. but it is a double standard to say that the 1st man should be punished less severely just because he is a democrat it's also crappy to try and extend the individual's (clear) hyposcrisy to all bank workers and then say that's a good reason to fire all the bank workers and hire lifetime criminals as replacements. and then say that will make our money safer (in otherwords, the hyposcrisy argument is fun and full of outrage, but the REAL issue is stealing from banks and the hypocrisy argument takes the focus away from that) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #103 November 6, 2006 QuoteQuote>It is not hypocritical for a lifetime criminal, who believes that he is smarter than most people and can use that intelligence to make a dishonest living off them, to steal from a bank. (It may be wrong, but it's not hypocritical.) It IS hypocritical for a man who espouses honesty and trust to steal from the bank he works at. but it is a double standard to say that the 1st man should be punished less severely just because he is a democrat Who proposed that? Quote it's also crappy to try and extend the individual's (clear) hyposcrisy to all bank workers and then say that's a good reason to fire all the bank workers and hire lifetime criminals as replacements. But what if there's a clear pattern in the bank's leadership (a congressman is by definition a leader. A consultant to the President of the USA is by definition a leader)? Shouldn't the bank pay the price for not policing itself? Enron and Arthur Anderson both went down on account of a clear pattern of abuse in the leadership.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #104 November 6, 2006 >but it is a double standard to say that the 1st man should be >punished less severely just because he is a democrat. Agreed. He should be as legally liable as anyone else. >it's also crappy to try and extend the individual's (clear) hyposcrisy >to all bank workers and then say that's a good reason to fire all the >bank workers and hire lifetime criminals as replacements. Also agreed. However, if he was an acknowledged leader of "Bank Tellers for Honesty" people might validly question whether that organization was really all that honest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #105 November 6, 2006 Quote> >it's also crappy to try and extend the individual's (clear) hyposcrisy >to all bank workers and then say that's a good reason to fire all the >bank workers and hire lifetime criminals as replacements. Also agreed. However, if he was an acknowledged leader of "Bank Tellers for Honesty" people might validly question whether that organization was really all that honest. Absolutely! How you advertize yourself IS important. In 1983 I produced the world's first flight simulator for R/C model airplanes (sold some 50,000 of them before I quit). I wanted to call it "Fly-By-Night Software", but I was convinced by my distributor that this would give the wrong message.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #106 November 6, 2006 Quotebut it is a double standard to say that the 1st man should be punished less severely just because he is a democrat QuoteWho proposed that? Lucky did for one. He seems to be a pretty center of the road, non-partisan, democrat. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #107 November 6, 2006 QuoteQuotebut it is a double standard to say that the 1st man should be punished less severely just because he is a democrat QuoteWho proposed that? Lucky did for one. He seems to be a pretty center of the road, non-partisan, democrat. Sure.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #108 November 6, 2006 QuoteSure. you might be wearing your poker face, but I saw the corners of your eyes crickle just a little bit ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #109 November 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteSure. you might be wearing your poker face, but I saw the corners of your eyes crickle just a little bit Those crickly eyes are a dead giveaway, aren't they?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #110 November 6, 2006 Quotecorners of your eyes crickleUmmm --- kallend is like, really old -- those are just wrinkles Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #111 November 6, 2006 crickle is a funny word - it's a cross between crinkle, kringle, pringles, crackle and leprecaun ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #112 November 6, 2006 QuoteYou keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It is not hypocritical for a gay man to have a gay relationship. It IS hypocritical for a priest who rails against the "sins of homosexuality" to have a gay relationship So you don't think it is hypocritical for the dems who protected their own when he had sex with an under age page to go up in arms when a Republican did the same? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #113 November 6, 2006 QuoteSo you don't think it is hypocritical for the dems who protected their own when he had sex with an under age page to go up in arms when a Republican did the same? You people need to put your partisan politics to bed. You sound like a bunch of school children. "My Dad has a bigger #### than your Dad". When will you learn that politicians are scum no matter what political party they belong to. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #114 November 6, 2006 QuoteYou people need to put your partisan politics to bed. You sound like a bunch of school children. "My Dad has a bigger #### than your Dad". When will you learn that politicians are scum no matter what political party they belong to. That is kinda my point. I found it funny that one party makes an issue only when it suits them, and ignores it when it would hurt them. So I found it very funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #115 November 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou people need to put your partisan politics to bed. You sound like a bunch of school children. "My Dad has a bigger #### than your Dad". When will you learn that politicians are scum no matter what political party they belong to. That is kinda my point. I found it funny that one party makes an issue only when it suits them, and ignores it when it would hurt them. So I found it very funny. Hypocrisy is not the same as having a double standard. Seems to be a common error today among the supporters of the right.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #116 November 6, 2006 >So you don't think it is hypocritical for the dems who protected their > own when he had sex with an under age page to go up in arms > when a Republican did the same? It is not hypocritical when a man who advocates for gay rights has an affair with another gay man. It is hypocritical when a man who advocates for protecting children from internet predators becomes an internet predator. However, both men were wrong to do what they did. To put it more simply, they were bad. You know, I've noticed something here. People aren't using hypocritical to mean "saying one thing and doing another" any more. They're using it because it sounds really bad. Democrats are really bad, therefore they are hypocritical. It's like fascist, or extremist - the words have been overused and misused so much that they no longer have any meaning. Anyone who's bad is a hypocritical fascist extremist. Take that, stupid democrats! Take that, lying republicans! It's like watching an old Batman episode, except instead of "POW!" "KABLOOIE!" the little word balloons have "Hypocrite!" "Liar!" "Fascist!" "Extremist!" in them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #117 November 6, 2006 QuoteYou know, I've noticed something here. People aren't using hypocritical to mean "saying one thing and doing another" any more. They're using it because it sounds really bad. Democrats are really bad, therefore they are hypocritical. It's like fascist, or extremist - the words have been overused and misused so much that they no longer have any meaning. Anyone who's bad is a hypocritical fascist extremist. Take that, stupid democrats! Take that, lying republicans! Perhaps more people need to actually take a look at a dictionary. I tried putting that up.. and got shit for posting definitions... interesting so many would be so against learning what the words they are using actually are supposed to mean... I expect that from my cousins over around Ocala FL.. but I guess there are plenty of people out there who follow the " I am dumb as dirt, and proud of it" creed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #118 November 6, 2006 Quote>It's like watching an old Batman episode, except instead of "POW!" "KABLOOIE!" the little word balloons have "Hypocrite!" "Liar!" "Fascist!" "Extremist!" in them. THAT'S IT, That's exactly what I was trying to connect and it wasn't materializing until you put it right out there. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #119 November 7, 2006 QuoteYou know, I've noticed something here. People aren't using hypocritical to mean "saying one thing and doing another" any more. That is exactly what I mean. One side has a double standard (Good point) but then how they react to that double standard is what I see as hypocritical. They defend their own, but attack the other side. It is a double standard and quite hypocritical (using your explanation) to say how bad it is now, but not when their guys did it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #120 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuotebut it is a double standard to say that the 1st man should be punished less severely just because he is a democrat QuoteWho proposed that? Lucky did for one. He seems to be a pretty center of the road, non-partisan, democrat. If you look you'll see that I wrote there should be a double-standard for moral violations, but not crimes. That IS what I wrote, not that there should be criminal immunity as you claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #121 November 7, 2006 Quote"My Dad has a bigger #### than your Dad". Uh, I never bragged about my dad's cock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #122 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou people need to put your partisan politics to bed. You sound like a bunch of school children. "My Dad has a bigger #### than your Dad". When will you learn that politicians are scum no matter what political party they belong to. That is kinda my point. I found it funny that one party makes an issue only when it suits them, and ignores it when it would hurt them. So I found it very funny. You will never acknowledge that your party went as far as making it a Constitutional Amendment that marriage in only man/woman, so with that, everytime you even look at a person of teh same sex with a smirk, well, we'll be there to remind of the proposed 28th homophobe amendment. Get it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #123 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou people need to put your partisan politics to bed. You sound like a bunch of school children. "My Dad has a bigger #### than your Dad". When will you learn that politicians are scum no matter what political party they belong to. That is kinda my point. I found it funny that one party makes an issue only when it suits them, and ignores it when it would hurt them. So I found it very funny. Hypocrisy is not the same as having a double standard. Seems to be a common error today among the supporters of the right. Look at their leader and his take on english/grammar.... are ya so shocked? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #124 November 7, 2006 Quote>So you don't think it is hypocritical for the dems who protected their > own when he had sex with an under age page to go up in arms > when a Republican did the same? It is not hypocritical when a man who advocates for gay rights has an affair with another gay man. It is hypocritical when a man who advocates for protecting children from internet predators becomes an internet predator. However, both men were wrong to do what they did. To put it more simply, they were bad. You know, I've noticed something here. People aren't using hypocritical to mean "saying one thing and doing another" any more. They're using it because it sounds really bad. Democrats are really bad, therefore they are hypocritical. It's like fascist, or extremist - the words have been overused and misused so much that they no longer have any meaning. Anyone who's bad is a hypocritical fascist extremist. Take that, stupid democrats! Take that, lying republicans! It's like watching an old Batman episode, except instead of "POW!" "KABLOOIE!" the little word balloons have "Hypocrite!" "Liar!" "Fascist!" "Extremist!" in them. I agree for teh most part, but neo-fascism is here and alive, unlike Italian Fascsism of old. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #125 November 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou know, I've noticed something here. People aren't using hypocritical to mean "saying one thing and doing another" any more. That is exactly what I mean. One side has a double standard (Good point) but then how they react to that double standard is what I see as hypocritical. They defend their own, but attack the other side. It is a double standard and quite hypocritical (using your explanation) to say how bad it is now, but not when their guys did it. No, it'smore like: - How can you commit the acts that I consider to be reasonable, but you consider to be an abomination? Gay people think it's fine, I think it's fine if it is their consensual mutual choice, I think they should have rights equal to that of the hetero community, but you are the blocker. You claim they should have no place in society and I'm sure you would criminalize it if you could. So when a strong voice from your side is and has been one of the members you so adamently speak out against, WTF? Can you understand this? Are you just stuck on the misdirection mode and you really get it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
