Another Try At Understanding Definitions: "Hypocrite"

Great Debates
61

So just tell me, was the priest a hypocrite? Why won’t you just tell me?

I’ve noticed you provided lots of examples of people that AREN’T hypocrites, but zero examples of people that are (well, I guess you did provide one example but didn’t mean to).

I also noticed that you said, “I am a Roman Catholic.” What do you think that means, does it mean anything? Do you believe Jesus Christ is the one true savior? Are there any assumptions we’re allowed to make?

Hey look at me, I’m a Roman Catholic too. But I believe Mohammed, pbuh, was the true messenger of God, not Jesus. Does that make any sense to you?

What is the point of calling yourself something like Roman Catholic, if not to elicit a reaction, favorable or otherwise.

As to the Bennet case, that is the most perfect example of hypocrite I can think of, using the definition:

He would have to be a giant moron to not know people would lump problem gambling in with his crusade of virtues. He made a career of pretending to have virtues, and feigned a publicly approved attitude, in order to play to his constituency. He tried to block the building of a casino. Look at his list of books! He willfully played along with the idea that he was virtuous.

If you caught the president of PETA running an ostrich fighting ring, does he get to remain virtuous because neither he nor PETA explicitly mention ostrich fighting?

The mistake you’re making here is that you think this a court room. That acts of hypocrisy are punishable by law. In which case, even a crappy lawyer could show enough reasonable doubt that Bennet didn’t really mean gambling and thought everyone knew that.

Unfortunately, this is a message board, in the court of public opinion. This guy had no problem pretending he was virtuous, knowing full well that gambling would get included. It isn’t any different that Bill Clinton trying to pretend “sexual relations” didn’t include a blow job.

So yes, a defense lawyer could make the case that “traditional values” has many meanings and that Bennet was talking about the ones that didn’t include problem gambling. And Clinton’s lawyer could claim that he didn’t think a blow job counted as “sexual relations.”

But this isn’t a court of law. You, Bennet, and the priest can all sit stubbornly and profess to not being hypocrites until your faces turn blue. The rest of us don’t buy it.

62

First of all, it’s “Mrs. Johnson,” not “Mrs. Harper,” who is taken to task by the Harper Valley PTA. And maybe Mrs. Johnson was off base – and maybe not. She had the benefit of being in the town, and was privvy, perhaps, to behaviors that we didn’t see. For example, she may be well aware that her “short skirts, runnn’ ‘round with men and goin’ wild,” was simply the tip of the iceberg, and she may have been explictly told, face to face, that the problems with her behavior were deeper.

But even if we go by the song’s lyrics, there’s enough to find some hypocrisy in the PTA. Bobby Taylor’s willingness to date Mrs. Johnson suggests that he, at least, does not find her attire objectionable. And if Widow Jones believes that short skirts are unacceptable, how could she reconcile that view with the exhibition she’s presumably giving the world?

The bottom line, though, is there’s not enough information to tell if Mrs. Johnson is correct in calling the PTA hypocrites. She may be right, based on information we don’t know. And since the singer is Mrs. Johnson’s daughter, we can assume that she isn’t necessarily aware of everything her mom knows. So her failure to relate relevant information doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

63

Well, folks who say, I am a Christian, and then are caught humping their secretaries might not be hypocrites. They might just be sinners. They could quite well be hypocrites, but we don’t know their hearts.

A guy who say anyone who humps their secretaries is vile and abominable soul in the eyes of Christ is a hypocrite no matter what he does with his secretary. If he starts banging his secretary, then he is a hypocrite, and a sinner.

In the first example, folks who hate hypocrisy will consider him an unworthy exemplar of how to live in Christian faith. In the second they will consider him an unworthy exemplar of how to live in Christian faith. (His sins will remain a matter between him and the Lord.)

I don’t think I would vote for either of them, though.

Tris

64

I’ll give you that one.

Privy. :slight_smile:

Objection. Now you know that “suggests” doesn’t meet the pissant legal standard you’re trying to uphold.

Wearing racy clothing and alleged exhibitionism are two different things. By your standard, it would only be hypocrisy if Widow Jones ran around wearing short skirts. Try to be consistent.

But Mrs. Johnson knows.

And your insistence that widely accepted definitions of hypocrisy are invalid on your say-so is still idiotic, based on political expediency and the fact that you’re still smarting over being ridiculed about your own gambling habit on this board years ago.

Sheesh, let it go. We’ll assume for the sake of face-saving that you’ve had a grand time and made a bunch of money. :dubious:

65

Of course. The reason I say “suggests” is that this is all we can do, based on the limited onformation in the song. Bobby Taylor might forthrightly say, “I asked her for a date because I thought that she had potential; I might, by my influence, steer her away from the short skirts, running ‘round, and goin’ wild she’s been known for.”

How credible such an explanation would be is well beyond our ability to judge. Obviously Mrs. Johnson ascribes baser motives to Bobby than this; equally obviously, she’s not an unprejudiced observer. From a neutral standpoint, I;d say such an explanation is unlikely, given my general experience with the human race.

But if it were true – if you knew Bobby Taylor, and you were personally convinced that he was just the kind of classic “nice guy” that would seek to save someone from herself – then surely you’d agree he’s not a hypocrite.

Again, it all depends. Widow Jones might be a nudist, someone whose objection to the wearing of short skirts extended to the wearing of ANY skirts, and that we’re all God’s children and should feel free to let all see His handiwork in each of our bodies. Again, unlikely, but if it were so, if you KNEW that Widow Jones spent weekends at the Harper Valley Sunshine Club, was completely bereft of all tan lines, and had a column that ran monthly in “Nudist Outlook” magazine, then surely you’d concede that she was not a hypocrite.

66

You seem to be going against your very definition. In all the examples you gave from that song it was YOU that retroactively applied conditions to their expressed beliefs.
“What if she’s a registered nudists…”
“What if he’s trying to make her change…”
“What if you don’t know the council very well…”

At some point, the onus should fall on the speaker to convey his/her actual belief. It’s the realities of the English language that separate day to day speech from legalese. It’s what I hate so much about the Bennet situation and the Bill Clinton* situation. They were both using phrases they knew to convey a certain meaning.

Clinton knew if he said, “I didn’t get a blow job from her” he’d be lying. So he said, “I didn’t have sexual relations.” And when asked if he had sexual relations he said, “no.” He did it will full intent of misrepresenting his actions, knowing that he could later say, “I didn’t think blow jobs counted.”

You’re wrongly trying to apply a legal standard to the English language.

So in court/senate hearings, Clinton and his legal team can argue, as you are, that we can’t truly know what Clinton thought sexual relations meant. And in the legal system they’re right. Unless we can find a record of Clinton stating, “I think sexual relations includes blow jobs,” he gets acquitted.

Nobody in their right mind would believe that any man over the age of 12 would think “sexual relations” doesn’t include blow jobs. The only plausible excuse would be if he was ESL and when he asked what sexual relations meant the teacher did the little “finger through the circle” motion instead of the “hand to the mouth with the tongue in cheek” motion.

Do you see how a lawyer can make a case in court, but that it’s bullshit outside of court?

The other reason you’re wrong is that you’re giving the word much more power than it should have. And I think part of this is how frequently Republicans are guilty of such behavior, and as a result you’re taking it too personally.

You’ve elevated being called a hypocrite to the level of being called a racists. You’re giving it a much more derogatory and inflammatory meaning.

People that make a lot of grandiose gestures, imply that they are virtuous, attempt to convey that they are of moral superiority NEED to hear that their actions are not consistent with their expressed beliefs. The word hypocrite is short hand for that. Instead of formally typing, “your actions do not reflect your expressed belief,” we say, “hypocrite.”

There are just way too many politicians (from both sides of the aisle) making claims like, “Homosexuality is a sin, and abomination against God, an affront to justice, and destroying the sanctity of marriage. Vote for me, I am a man of superior moral character, my opponent wants to destroy the traditional definition of marriage.”

These guys are too consistently caught either banging a male prostitute or taking their mistress to Aruba.

They talk about defending marriage while at the same time destroying it.

They talk about the virtues of smaller government, while making government bigger.

They talk about the importance of ensuring freedoms, while at the same time restricting them.

I’m sure in each case you can argue that we’ll never truly know what they mean. I say bullshit, at some point the onus is on them to tell us what they mean.

And by calling them hypocrites, we force others to put down their sweet sweet kool-aid and question what these fuckers are actually saying.

Expressions like, I’m a good Christian, I have traditional values, I believe in family values, I am environmentally responsible (see it goes both ways), are intended to convey a specific message.

As Grumman so eloquently pointed out in the health care debate, if you don’t stop them, they’ll continue to do it, and there by encourage others to do the same.

*No, Clinton wasn’t a hypocrite, he lied under oath.

67

I think this is what our disagreement comes down to. But from my perspective, if I heard someone say, “I am environmentally responsible,” and then discovered they routinely used styrofoam cups and plates, and disposed of them in the local incinerator… I wouldn’t think “hypocrite.” Because I would recognize that “environmentally responsible” doesn’t really have much of a defined meaning, and that he may have been speaking of his interest in preserving old-growth forests.

But I get what you’re saying, I think – that for many people, hearing the phrase DOES create a certain set of expectations.

I just don’t think it’s fair, as a general principle, to impute the responsibility of those expectations to the speaker, if it’s at all reasonable to believe he didn’t intended to convey them.

68

Well how about that, I think we just came to an understanding.

There is no doubt use of the term has gotten out of hand.

My only complaint now is that you’ve made it harder to CALL someone a hypocrite, but you haven’t made it hard for someone to BE a hypocrite.

69

…he can possibly wriggle out of them by claiming that’s not what he meant, and/or if his supporters/enablers attempt to create a loophole by arguing that the hypocrite isn’t really a hypocrite because he didn’t do exactly the same activity that he is noted for publicly abhorring.

Another illustration of what commonly and correctly would be viewed hypocrisy - from an episode of City Confidential that aired a couple nights ago: a prostitution ring in Fort Lauderdale turned out to have the Vice Mayor (heh) as one of its customers - the very same person who’d been leading an effort to shut down strip clubs and porn in the city. I’m sure Bricker could present what he’d think was a compelling argument that this guy wasn’t a flaming hypocrite.

Such arguments remain bullshit that only the most deluded hypocrites’ supporters will buy.

70

Yup, which is where it’s similar to use of the word racist. It always seems to be the hypocrites that are most loudly deploring the word’s use.

71

I didn’t see the show, but again this comes down to the “code words” argument emacknight offers: by condemning strip clubs and porn shops, the Vice Mayor is also automatically condemning prostitution. But that simply may not be true. Someone can argue that the established shops lead to late-night traffic and a rise in crime, claims easily (presumably) substantiated by statistics, to say that the city should not permit the strip clubs and porn shops to operate. But those same objections don’t apply to low-key call-girl type prostitution operations, with no fixed base and a screening system of appointments.

Now, perhaps the show made clear that the Vice Mayor’s attack was a general one on the immorality of all sex work. I don’t know. But I remain reluctant to tell someone, “You’re responsible for what I inferred you were saying!” instead of being responsible only for what he said.

72

You know, perhaps the easiest system here is to simply ask, ahead of a disclosure, what a person’s stance is on an issue. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I am, in general, a social conservative, and I’d say that in general I favor traditional values.

By your lights, Jackmannii, that might give you license to call me a hypocrite when I am found at the Atlantic City blackjack tables.

But what if I’ve already said, “I don’t consider gambling to be remotely wrong?”

Then am I still a hypocrite?

In other words, can explicit words override the “code words?”

73

You’d be a hypocrite in training by using the wiggle words “in general”.

74

Let’s use precise language.

He’s not wiggling, he’s weaseling. And to think that I’d gotten to the point of being able to see Bricker posting in a thread without thinking of creatures from the genus Mustela.

Throwing one’s money away in casinos strikes me first as idiotic rather than hypocritical.

Poor Bill Bennett could have avoided charges of hypocrisy by titling his book:

The Book Of Virtues*

*as applied to other people, unless I specifically refer to myself, and then only in connection with precisely defined virtues with the understanding that personal behavior that seems to violate my own standards is not necessarily a violation depending on the particular language used and anyway you’d have to talk to my lawyer about that.

The amended title probably wouldn’t have fit on bestseller lists, though. :frowning:

75

Well, either you’re a hypocrite, or you don’t believe in “traditional values.”

Like saying, “I’m a Roman Catholic, but I don’t believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and our lord and savior, or that he died on the cross for our sins.”

Either your a hypocrite, or not a Roman Catholic. I remember when I first learned the term “cafeteria Catholic.” You don’t get to just pick and choose. Either you subscribe to the followings of the Catholic church, or you don’t.

When I’m catering and someone says, “I’m a vegetarian,” it’s safe to assume they eat eggs, cheese, and dairy. I always check to see if they eat fish (most do). But I never ask, “well, the function is on a Wednesday, are you a vegetarian on Wednesdays?”

Likewise, when someone indicates that they’re kosher, they are referring to a rather general definition meaning that they don’t eat pork or shell fish, and don’t mix milk and meat. I don’t go on to further ask, “do I need a Rabi to bless the kitchen, is it okay if I only have one dishwasher?” There are accepted conventions that we follow.

Someone that eats bacon cheese burgers isn’t necessarily a hypocrite, but they certainly aren’t kosher. Same goes from gambling and "traditional values; blow jobs and “sexual relations;” burning tires and “environmentally responsible.” If you don’t want to be called a hypocrite, avoid terms of this nature, or watch your actions more closely.

76

{underlining mine}
Wow, you’re a really good lawyer.

I think the point you’re trying to make here is that IF you made it clear you think gambling is okay (not morally wrong). But then said, “In general I support traditional values.”

We would instead say, “LIAR!” You don’t believe in or support traditional values. There may be some traditional values you support, but if you’re not going to support them all, why bother saying it in the first place. Just man up and say you don’t like women/blacks/Jews/gays/immigrants, dispense with the code words that are obviously meant to play to your base of people that also don’t like women/blacks/Jews/gays/immigrants.

It’s that aspect of “pretending to have virtues” and “feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude” that makes a person a hypocrite.

77

The RC church does not condemn gambling. Why do you think much of their fundraising is by holding bingo nights and 50/50 raffles? If he says he’s an RC and holds to traditional RC values, you can reasonably assume that gambling is OK in his book, unless he actually says otherwise.

78

And that’s a great example, since the Catholic Church is nothing if not precise about its dogma.

So I could, for example, say, “I am a Roman Catholic, but I don’t believe that Mary appeared at Fatima.” Even though the Church has pronounced that apparition of Mary genuine, it does not lay an onus of belief on its members for that fact. So an individual Catholic is free to reject that story and remain in all respects a faithful Catholic.

There are certain things that the Church does require you believe. Christ dying on the cross is one of them. So a person cannot reject that truth and still claim to be a faithful Catholic.

But you see the benefit of examining Catholic doctrine in this example? It’s all written down. Not one aspect of the basic dogma of Catholicism exists that has not been debated endlessly in the 2,000 years of the Church’s existence.

But there is no such definitive list for “traditonal values.” Who are you to say that “traditonal values” includes gambling? I say it doesn’t. I can point to evidence for my proposition: that the largest Christian sects do not consider it sinful. How do you arrogate to yourself the unquestioned right to decide what constitutes a “traditional value” against evidence to the contrary?

Of course. Because there’s nowhere near any kind of broad, widespread belief that Wednesdays are non-vegetarian days. If someone said, “I’m not a vegetarian on Wednesdays,” the most obvious reaction would be along the lines of, “I’ve never heard of that before.”

But that’s not enough to cater an Orthodox function. You cannot serve leg of lamb to someone keeping kosher unless you have removed the gid hanasheh, the sciatic nerve. This is in commemoration of when Jacob wrestled the angel by the brook. And so this becomes a good example of the problem with your claim. You assert confidently that you’re safe saying “kosher” by not serving pork and sheelfish and not mixing meat and diary. And, perhaps, for a Reform Jew, you’ve just outlined acceptable kosher rules. But a practicing Orthodox Jew couldn’t even drink a glass of wine served at your event if it was poured by a gentile, becaue it would be stam yainom, unless the wine was mevushal.

So… someone who says, “I keep kosher,” and then eats leg of lamb at your event, followed by a couple of glasses of a tasty burgandy wine… are they hypocrites? Why not? They claimed to be kosher but don’t even care enough to worry about the the gid hanasheh and wine that’s yayin nesekh or stam yainom. Right?

This is the point: you wouldn’t call such a person a hypocrite. becasue you don’t get to define what they are thinking when they say they keep kosher. And if someone DID call them a hypocrite, you’d deride that person as an overly frum, pious, nut. Right?