Here’s the wiki on hypocrisy that one might benefit from.
I went there to see if there was anything on the following … claims of hypocrisy when comparing things that are somewhat related but in no way even close to being equivalent.
Anybody got anything?
Yes. If that were all that were going on, the claims would be quite unwarranted.
I think you might benefit from looking up “hypocrisy” in a dictionary or two (although at a quick glance, your Wikipedia link gets it well enough). I do not think it means what you think it means.
What you are talking about my be a form of fallacious reasoning, but it is not, in itself, anything to do with hypocrisy.
Well, isn’t that ironic.*
*No, no, it’s not.
Feel free to explain to me what you think that I think it means. 
Also feel free to suggest dictionary meanings that are better than the wiki and how the latter may have it wrong.
… do you need an example of the scenario I was interested in?
You can Google dictionaries yourself, but as I said, at a cursory glance the Wiki seems fine.
The point is that the scenario you describe in your OP has nothing to do with hypocrisy. It is possible that if you described what you have in mind in more detail it might (or might not) become apparent that some some hypocrisy is involved in what you are envisaging, but the features of the situation you have mentioned would not be the relevant ones. As those were the ones you gave, it seems fairly clear that you are suffering from some sort of misapprehension about the word’s meaning. I am not sure what you do think it means, but whatever it is, you seem to have it wrong. I suggest you educate yourself. With the internet, for something like this, it is not hard to do.
Try this link. Read a few of the definitions, and perhaps things will become clear.
The nice thing about hypocrisy is, once you accept it in yourself, you are still free to condemn it in others.
Looks.like your desire to be superior is getting in the way of your attempt at being helpful.
I understand that my scenario isn’t an example of hypocrisy. I’m wondering, among other finer points, how close the comparisons need to be.
IMO hypocisy is best defined as inconsistency between word and action., so that he who publicly pronounces a moral behavioral standard does not in private adhere to it.
Hypocrisy isn’t about comparisons at all. It’s only hypocrisy if the person saying that something is wrong is also doing that *same *something. If it’s a comparison, it’s not hypocrisy.
Angela says stealing is wrong and thieves are going to hell, but she didn’t pay for that eyeliner she took from the store. <----hypocrisy
Brad says stealing is wrong and thieves are going to hell, but he talks in movie theaters and kills puppies. <----not hypocrisy. Loathsome and foul, but not hypocrisy.
I’m not so sure this is hypocrisy unless Angela also claims to be virtuous herself. That is, if she freely admits she herself is going to hell, she’s not being hypocritical there; it’s only if she exempts herself from that categorical assertion that she becomes hypocritical.
I think Samuel Johnson’s distinction in the Wiki article is useful; it’s a finer shade of distinction that is not often considered.
Secrecy or lying are necessary too. I’m a heavy smoker and saying “smoking is bad” doesn’t makes me a hypocrite, as long as I don’t hide the fact that I smoke.
Your question as it stands is incoherent, and the only way I can make any sense of it is through the assumption that you do not know what the word “hypocrisy” means. You appear to think it has something to do with illegitimate comparisons, but as WhyNot has said, hypocrisy does not have anything to do with comparisons at all.
Perhaps if you told us what you think it means and why you think “comparing things that are somewhat related but in no way even close to being equivalent” might have anything to do with it, someone could help you, but I still think you would probably benefit most from clearing you r mind of your preconceptions about the matter (whatever they may be) and consulting a dictionary (or even reading the Wikipedia entry with an open mind).
I think your question is getting in the way of people’s attempts to be helpful. I honestly have no idea what you’re asking here:
No, secrecy or lying are not essential. In your scenario, what would make it hypocrisy would be a refusal to admit that your own smoking constituted a moral failing on your part. If anything, concealing the fact that you smoke would suggest that you recognize that your smoking constitutes a moral failing on your part, are ashamed of it, and thus are not a hypocrite.
“Smoking is wrong. I am ashamed to say that I still smoke.” –> Not hypocrisy, just weakness of will.
“Smoking is wrong. I smoke. Nothing wrong with that, I’m a good person” –> Hypocrisy.
(of course any of this only applies in the event that, in your example, you are condemning smoking as morally wrong, or as a sign of moral weakness. If you are just saying it is wrong in the sense of unhealthy, hypocrisy does not come into it.)
But in this case the gay-bashing preacher who secretely sleeps with other men wouldn’t be a hypocrite either, right?
If the example were expanded, such that Brad’s statements related to a larger range of actions like being good in general, then you could have a situation where the specific actions are not similar but both are in the same category resulting in hypocrisy.
I suppose, but that’s where you get into arguments about whether or not someone is a hypocrite. Generally, like “ironic”, I find this is a word whose technical definition is warped to become an accusation, whether it’s actually the right word or not.
“Category” tends to be subjective, is the problem. Is someone who feels stealing is wrong being a hypocrite because they lie? Some people might put lying in the same “category” as stealing, because it’s “stealing” the truth away from a person. A bit torturous for my logic.
This is the Strawman Fallacy:
For the win!
Hypocrisy is lying about what you think, feel, or believe. It is not sufficient that you do things that you condemn, you must actually not condemn them in private. The gay-bashing preacher, to use clairobscur’s example, is not a hypocrite merely because he secretly sleeps with men – not if he is ashamed of himself and is doing it out of “weakness.” He is a hypocrite if he sleeps with men because he thinks it’s OK, and only condemns gays in public because he has political ambitions or wants the protective coloration. He is also a hypocrite if he claims that homosexuality is not genetic, when in fact he believes that it is, or if he condemns gay marriage but also performs them.
Regarding secrecy, I will disagree with njtt to this extent: what he is describing sounds more like a mental disorder than hypocrisy. If a man condemns smoking, smokes himself, and sincerely asserts that there’s nothing wrong with it when he does it, he’s not a hypocrite, he’s either displaying a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance or unable to perceive it. More likely, of course, he has some rationalization, and again it’s sincerity that makes the difference: hypocrisy, by definition, is never sincere.