Left-wing hypocrisy

[Jack_Batty]

@Shagnasty

I would actually agree with that although the reason has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Marriage is for having kids only. If you just want a long-term love interest, you can do that just fine without getting married and are probably wise to avoid it.

I’m not sure if you aware of how this works or not, but you can have kids without being married either. Just ask my children.

[Ludovic]

I agree that while the nuclear position of some is wrong, it is not hypocritical.

A lot of these examples (but not necessarily nuclear) are really “some liberals think X, other liberals think Y, so therefore I’m going to pretend like it’s a hypocritical position and that many liberals hold both positions simultaenously.”

For instance, farming subsidies and conservatives. I’m sure that most self-described conservatives that are not from corn states would tell you that they’re against farm subsidies, yet you don’t see any serious moves to end them from Congress. You could argue that conservatives are hypocritical on this issue, but it’s really only a subset of them who are (i.e. the majority of corn-state conservatives.) ETA and the majority of GOP Congress members, who don’t touch farm subsidies for political reasons.

[phxjcc]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I’ll take, “who gives a shit?” for $500, Alex. He said:

So he didn’t use the word “genocide”. Big deal.

So, say it.
He said he was going to.
He has not.

[Ludovic]

@phxjcc

So, say it.
He said he was going to.
He has not.

This would only count if he were criticizing people for not literally using the word “genocide”. I’m not interested enough to find out, since it didn’t appear that he dimished the importance of the event at any rate.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@phxjcc

So, say it.
He said he was going to.
He has not.

Obama has also not condemned the Armenians for their far more recent, and in fact current, actions in Azerbaijan.
Moreover while the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians was a great tragedy(though heavily exagerated by propogandists) it occurred in the midst of a Civil War following during which the Armenian leaders had engaged in brutal atrocities of their own and when the Ottoman Empire was fighting for its very life.

Vastly worse atrocities were committed against Muslims in late 19th Century and early 20th Century Europe at the hands of Christians which haven’t garnered one 100th the attention to what happened to the Armenians.

Since you feel the Armenians were subjected to genocide you must feel the same if the Muslims of various parts of SouthEastern Europe who faced even worse treatment.

Do you condemn Obama for not condemning the “genocides” committed against those Muslims.

[VinylTurnip]

@Shagnasty

I would actually agree with that although the reason has nothing to do with same sex marriage. Marriage is for having kids only. If you just want a long-term love interest, you can do that just fine without getting married and are probably wise to avoid it.

My wife of 15 years will, I fear, be inconsolable this evening when I inform her that Shagnasty of the Straight Dope Message Board thinks we had no business getting married.

[Jack_Batty]

Not for nothing, but I’m pretty sure that Armenia v Turkey A Hundred Years Ago is pretty far down on the depth chart when it comes to campaign issues. Fuck, I’m shocked he addressed it at all.

[phxjcc]

@Ibn_Warraq

Obama has also not condemned the Armenians for their far more recent, and in fact current, actions in Azerbaijan.
Moreover while the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians was a great tragedy(though heavily exagerated by propogandists) it occurred in the midst of a Civil War following during which the Armenian leaders had engaged in brutal atrocities of their own and when the Ottoman Empire was fighting for its very life.

Vastly worse atrocities were committed against Muslims in late 19th Century and early 20th Century Europe at the hands of Christians which haven’t garnered one 100th the attention to what happened to the Armenians.

Since you feel the Armenians were subjected to genocide you must feel the same if the Muslims of various parts of SouthEastern Europe who faced even worse treatment.

Do you condemn Obama for not condemning the “genocides” committed against those Muslims.

Ah yes–the tactic known as deflection by redirection.

The original point still stands and is not dependent upon other subsequent or antecedent points, per his own statement.

He said he would.
He has not.

[Ludovic]

@phxjcc

He said he would.
He has not.

He said he would condemn the Armenian genocide. He did so. Did he say “I’m going to specifically call it a genocide!”?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@phxjcc

Ah yes–the tactic known as deflection by redirection.

The original point still stands and is not dependent upon other subsequent or antecedent points, per his own statement.

He said he would.
He has not.

Er… He did condemn it. In fact, he actually exagerated fairly dramatically what happened claiming that 1.5 million Armenians died, when the actual number was more like half that(not that this makes the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia more palatable.

So, since you feel so strongly about this issue, please tell me how you feel about Armenia’s atrocities in Azerbaijan and are you also upset at Obama for refusing g to condemn similar atrocities committed against Muslims?

If not, then why?

[Kyrie_Eleison]

@phxjcc

The original point still stands and is not dependent upon other subsequent or antecedent points, per his own statement.

He said he would.
He has not.

Even so, how is this an example of left-wing hypocrisy? Obama’s campaign promises aside, I’m not aware of any significant segment on the left that says, “Genocide is bad and ought to be condemned. Except for that Armenian thing. We’re okay with that one.”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@puddleglum

Historically marriage has been about making a solid base for a family. That is why the marriage vows are till death, for richer or poorer, sickness and health, etc. because children always need an intact family if possible. The idea that two or three men are able to get “married” because they love each other just as much as a man and a woman do, undermines marriage because people fall in and out of love all the time. Thus a marriage definition based on love instead of family is inherently less stable.

Rubbish. Historically, marriage has generally been about the transfer of property (among the upper class) and the transfer of social control over women (among the lower). Historically (and presently), there have been numerous societies in which plural marriage is the norm. Hell, there are even a few in which fathers have no contact with their mates or children after childbirth and the kids are raised by the mother’s extended family.

@Kyrie_Eleison

Even so, how is this an example of left-wing hypocrisy? Obama’s campaign promises aside, I’m not aware of any significant segment on the left that says, “Genocide is bad and ought to be condemned. Except for that Armenian thing. We’re okay with that one.”

Well, assuming Obama was saying, “it’s bad that people don’t call it genocide”, and then refused to call it genocide himself, that would be hypocritical. There are, of course, certain other issues, such as whether Obama is actually a liberal or that other liberals thought it was bad that people didn’t call it genocide.

[Kyrie_Eleison]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Well, assuming Obama was saying, “it’s bad that people don’t call it genocide”, and then refused to call it genocide himself, that would be hypocritical. There are, of course, certain other issues, such as whether Obama is actually a liberal or that other liberals thought it was bad that people didn’t call it genocide.

Those other issues are the ones I have a problem with. Even if I grant that Obama’s action on this was hypocritical, I don’t think it’s fair to ascribe some bit of hypocrisy on Obama’s part to leftists as a whole.

[phxjcc]

Let’s reset…

1. Define hypocrisy (OP term)
2. Define all members of the set “left-wing” (OP term)
3. Define the threshold number of hypocritical [left-wing individuals] sufficient to ascribe hypocrisy to the entire left-wing. Please show all work.
4. Define the level of hypocrisy required to warrant consideration including, but not limited to: economic impact, number of individuals affected, percent of a group affected, absolute and/or relative individual personal and/or [left-wing as a set] gain.

I just hit two nine irons 150 yards, and now I find out that we are playing Baseball, not Golf and I have have now lost my balls and have not scored any runs.

[Learjeff]

@puddleglum

Historically marriage has been about making a solid base for a family. That is why the marriage vows are till death, for richer or poorer, sickness and health, etc. because children always need an intact family if possible. The idea that two or three men are able to get “married” because they love each other just as much as a man and a woman do, undermines marriage because people fall in and out of love all the time. Thus a marriage definition based on love instead of family is inherently less stable.

Why can’t two men choose to form a family? Because they can’t have kids? Then what about a man and a woman, where one or both are sterile?

Also, are you saying that marriage shouldn’t be founded on love?

In any case, you didn’t back up your assertion that SSM reduces protections for women and children.

[Sitnam]

Yeah Learjeff, draw a number and have a seat over here with the rest of us that just asked him that.

[Learjeff]

In any case, it’s not hypocrisy unless the liberals themselves (I don’t count myself one) believe that SSM reduces protections for women and children.

[Learjeff]

@Sitnam

Yeah Learjeff, draw a number and have a seat over here with the rest of us that just asked him that.

hey, I don’t wanna sit with a buncha damn liberals!

[Ibn_Warraq]

@phxjcc

Let’s reset…

1. Define hypocrisy (OP term)
2. Define all members of the set “left-wing” (OP term)
3. Define the threshold number of hypocritical [left-wing individuals] sufficient to ascribe hypocrisy to the entire left-wing. Please show all work.
4. Define the level of hypocrisy required to warrant consideration including, but not limited to: economic impact, number of individuals affected, percent of a group affected, absolute and/or relative individual personal and/or [left-wing as a set] gain.

I just hit two nine irons 150 yards, and now I find out that we are playing Baseball, not Golf and I have have now lost my balls and have not scored any runs.

So anyway, you’re apparently outraged that Barack Obama condemned the Armenian ethnic cleansing which happened nearly 100 years ago, and even exaggerated the extent of it because he didn’t use the word “genocide” to describe.

Once again, are you equally outraged that he hasn’t condemned the current atrocities committed against Azerbaijanis by Armenians and also furious that Obama didn’t condemn the various atrocities that you presumably consider “genocides” that occcured against Muslims during the late 19th and early 20th Centuries?

If not, please explain your position.

Thanks.

[Learjeff]

Here’s a left-wing hypocrisy. Can’t imagine how it slipped my mind earlier.

Liberals whine about “fairness” in the tax code, when the top 50% of taxpayers pay 95% (or more) of all taxes, and the top 5% pay over 50%, and these numbers are significantly higher than the income or net value of those categories.

Liberals propose improving “fairness” by increasing the burden on the top taxpayers.

That’s not fairness; it’s not even close.

The problem isn’t the tax code; the problem is the alarmingly sloped wealth distribution, but that’s another subject entirely (and no doubt covered in some threads here already!)