Posted: 4/22/2005 2:14:58 AM EDT
|
There's one thing that has always gotten under my craw, and that's when people's morality or philosophy defends their choices, but condemns everyone else's. Liberals are famous for this, but I find that conservatives are sometimes just as guilty. I'm an individualist, so to me anything that attempts to usurp my ability to choose things for myself is wrong. So, it's easy for me to be soured by the left/right political landscape. What I hate is hypocricy, as it is indefensible. For instance, Liberals famously want freedom to do drugs, choose to have abortions, etc, but are the first to scream for nanny-state intervention on anything that could ever harm anyone....like seatbelt laws or bans on scooters and model rockets. When pressed, they cite "greater good" rhetoric yet that greater good is harmed by many of the personal choices they want left intact.... but fuck everyone else...because only they matter. Conservatives, to my chagrin, often preach personal responsiblity and want zero government interference in their lives - but have no problem wanting government legislated morality to govern their TV sets. They would cry foul if told that children playing with toy guns teaches violence, yet are completely dogged arguing that racy TV is a corruption of society and will teach children to fornicate like porn stars. Video games don't teach irresponsible behavior, but South Park teaches kids to kill their playmates. Graphic pictures of death are preferable, morally, to the form of a naked woman. Even this site thinks so. That seems awfully hypocritical. I think, on a psychological level, that people nurture a hypocricy when they lose their ability to empathize or to imagine that the conditions they would put upon their fellow man could be turned against them....or they just are bastards and don't care if their wants oppress others. Either way, it saddens me that people don't think beyond their own self interest. If you are like me, an individualist, you believe that people are responsible for themselves, and society is responsible for making sure that they are. Laws would be for guarding against your rights being violated by someone else, and that your choices don't violate others. Is it always perfect, this model? Probably not, but it's consistent. If I show my neighbor's young son midget porn, I'm in the wrong. If I show it to neighbors who ask to see it, I'm in the right. Under a conservative model, I'm a porn purveyor and bound for jail even if they asked for it. Consenting adults don't count when the "morality of the greater good" is at stake....which is fascism. Another example, if I own an operational M1 Abrams tank and ordinance for it, and use it to mow down my neighbor's french car, I'm in the wrong (even if it's funny). If I use it for target practice on my own private tank range and no one is harmed, I am in the right. Yet, under the left's model, I'm dangerous and have no need for my tank, and I go to federal prison. Under my model, I can drive my tank, look at midget porn (I don't really, honest), and enjoy my life in a scary, ugly freedom. My neighbors can come play with my tank, or ignore it, share in my porn or be disgusted at the idea. Providing I keep my weirdness to myself, and they keep theirs to theirs, the individualist model provides maximum freedom....with minimum oppression from your government. What say you? Does your personal philosophy have a hypocritical hole in it? If so, where? |
|
I think I'm pretty consistent. I live as I preach. Oh, there's probably a hole or two somewhere in there, but at the moment I can't find it. The activities that I don't want to see others doing, I don't do, either. I don't drink, smoke, never tried drugs, and never will, and have never voted Democrat except on one occasion when the Democrat was really a Republican and didn't know it, and the Republican candidate was a flat-out asshole. I believe totally in the concept of "no harm, no foul". If someone is speeding on a deserted road and nobody comes to any harm, what's the problem? You should be allowed to own anything you want and do anything with it that you want, as long as you do no harm to others or their property without their consent. In this respect, I'm more forgiving than the law is...and the law needs changing to restore lost freedoms. CJ |
Choice. There's that buzz word. Can we separate the act of choosing from what is being chosen? If one has a firm system of morality (living by what one believes is the opposite of hypocrisy) the the object of the choice must be considered. People who have a firm, reasoned, logical system of morality and act on it daily, whether in personal debates, letters to the editor, writing their Congressman, or picketing are taking a stand for what they believe. Taking a stand means taking a stand against something or for something. There are many "choices" that I stand in opposition to. The first one that comes to mind is this "choice" to get rid of a perfectly healthy baby because it is inconvenient. We can't separate choice from what is being chosen. Choice does not stand alone apart from the object or action it is directed toward. |
You have a complete derailing of logic here friend. You have fallen for a great mistruth believing that "Conservatives" want ZERO government involvement in private affairs. Libertarians and/or Anarchists want ZERO government involvement in private affairs. Conservatives want government to be bound to its duty which is to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of property/happiness. The defense of life ie abortion arguments, euthenasia etc are well within the arguable realm of government. Have a nice day. Planerench out. |
I can make the same argument using the defense of life to outlaw guns, alcohol, and automobiles. Any of those cases you have to look at the balancing act between personal freedom and the protection of the rest of society. In every case I think personal freedom wins out. There are those who don't see it that way on one (or more) of those issues. Being an anti-abortion isn't any more moral of a choice than being anti-gun. Both groups are motivated by the same desire, to protect life. |
|
As a "Conservative Christian" I operate from a set of principles: 1. I have a right to defend myself, and taught my children the same. I taught my son and daughters to shoot, but I only encouraged my son to play Army. I encouraged my daughters to play with makeup and dolls. (Call me crazy.)  2. I want my kids to be emotionally and physically healthy, so I've taught them that sex is meant for marriage, not the "hobby" it is presented as on TV. 3. I've taught my kids that violence should never be the first response, but that it does serve a purpose. I've also discouraged them from watching slasher movies, and movies that glorify violence. My politics and interests are based on similar principles. I do see the type of hypocrisy that you are talking about though. Conservatives and Liberals are both guilty at times. One of my favorites: Libs want "tolerance" for every lifestyle and religion......except Christianity. They don't see the irony in that? 
|
I have not fallen for anything, partner. What I hear are people who claim to be conservative - mostly on this board, who claim they want the government to mind it's own business when it's an issue that they feel strongly about, yet are completely happy to have the government step in and outlaw or govern actions that do not directly or adversely affect them....usually for moral or religious reasons. That's the whole point, it's about hypocricy not about conservatives. I'm neither left nor right, every issue is it's own dilemna requiring rational thought and both liberals and conservatives, if they are to follow the party line, jump right off the sane thinking trolley car to uphold their political views. Now, you have a nice day. |
Wrong again. Firearms, ability to worship, assemble etc. were specifically exempted from this Federal mandate for a reason, that being what you said, anything can be made to be a danger to life including putting up a fight to an invader. I do believe that if you were to try to float your above comparison with abortion and firearms one or two hundred years ago they would have locked you up in a mental ward. I don't believe the motivations of the leaders of the pro-life movements or the anti gun movement are even remotely similar. The first is championing the rights of the innocent American, the latter is socialist at its core. The anti gun movement is no less communist at its foundation than the ACLU. Planerench out. |
|
There's 2 ways to approach it: You can take a religion (or philosophy) and mold it around the the lifestyle you find comfortable. Or you can take your life, and mold it inside the religion (or philosophy) you believe in. 1 is hypocritical, 1 is extremely difficult, and the 2 are sometimes hard to distinguish. |
What I perceive is the crossing of Libertarianism and Conservativism. Some one who believes in conservative application of government does not believe in NO application of government. In the case of firearms the Constitution is specific. In issues such as abortion some believe that is not a person's personal liberty to kill what is believed to be a sovereign human being. If I know that next door a man is raping a strangling his two year old girl, that is my problem. I cannot feign ignorance or defer to my own individual liberty to mind my own business. I do believe that if you want to smoke, drink or consume yourself to death (including any substance use) that is your business. It is stupid, but your business. I am completely consistent. The borders should be guarded and defended, human life should be protected at all levels of developement, and the States should be allowed to tailor themselves to suit their populations within the Federal boundaries. If you are talking about those that whine when a hurricane knocks down their home and demand Federal money (specific welfare, instead of general welfare) or want drugs outlawed but hunting protected, I hear and assent. Continue with your nice day unless you have made other plans. Planerench out. |
I did, and changed my stance on currently illegal drugs not too long ago. Substance use of any kind is a violation of my personal beliefs and not an issue of governmental application. I believe that substance use does not insulate you from public or private actions you do while impared. If you are drunk and drive and kill someone... Murder 2 minimum. No accident was involved. You impared yourself and risked another's life not just your own. Planerench out. |
Such an open-ended question requires the following answer: Probably, but I try very hard not to have any, and I close them when I do find them. Normally, such holes are caused by not having thought a problem all the way through, or not having experience with which to support an opinion. ETA: Planerench's example of drug policy is applicable to me, as well. Either fight them like you mean it, or (preferably) just de-criminalize them and be done with it. Make people responsible for their own actions and watch how fast it changes. |
Life is not about choices. Its about right and wrong. I rigorously scrutinize that which purports to be truth, doing my best to check its validity. Once I come to what I regard as the truth, I'll defend that truth. DO I have all truth? No. But I'll defend the truth best as I can, without apology. If someone elses life doesn't measure up to "truth" I may or not point it out. But I'm under no obligation to respect someones "choices" when they don't, to the best of my knowledge, measure up to truth. I donlt expect others to respect my wrong choices. I ask no quater, and I give none. |
|
The real issue is the fine line that decides "what’s going too far" and once that determined who has the right to speak up or stop it. If everything was dealt with at a personal level, how could a neighbor stop you from blowing up their car with your tank?? I could come over and ask nicely or in anger to stop, but either way you’re not going to listen. If you cared, you wouldn't have done it in the first place. Other then ending your life, the issue is not going to get resolved. This is where .gov steps in. Of course I don't want .gov interfering in my life, but in this case, I'd tell myself to be careful what I wish for. |
The Dictionary is your friend. www.merriam-webster.com stick in one's craw : to irritate, nag at, or obsess one craw: crop of a bird or insect, or the intestines of a lower animal |
and in 50 years or 100 years when the right to reproductive choice is added, will that change your mind? Just because its not in the BOR doesn't mean its not a right. [sarcasm] i'm struggling to remember here but I'm pretty sure we have an amendment that specifically spells that out [/sarcasm] The FF's would also be shocked if you had suggested treating negros as equals. They would also be shocked at a large standing army. We owe the FF's a great debt, but that doesn't mean they were perfect. p.s. If idea that the ACLU is a communist organization is fucking moronic. The ACLU defends you and I be making sure assholes like Larry Flynt, the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and Nambla can exercise their rights. If scum like that get rights, they are guaranteed to all of us. If the conservatives hadn't been on the wrong side of the race war, maybe we wouldn't have a primarily liberal ACLU and they would be defending our gun rights as well as they defend our other rights. We'll never know because most conservatives in the formative years were racists. |
+1, I couldn't agree with you more. The Founding Fathers were not infallible gods, the right wing has its share of fuckups throughout history, and the left isn't always our enemy. |
The Founding Fathers were closer to you and me than most people think. |
