I think you’re assuming that which you’re arguing, here. I believe that had he acted without violating any of hte principles he espoused, nobody would believe he was flagrantly violating them. You’ll note the vanishingly small number of accusations of hypocrisy against Bennett prior to the revelations of his gambling; if you were correct, he would have been accused of hypocrisy then as well.
Indeed; however, it would also be prudent to emphasize, in your announcement that you’re stopping the outings, the fact that you were behaving in a strictly ethical fashion.
If you announced your cessation of the outings by saying, “I have golfed with businessmen who do business with Virginia too often, and this is not an example I wish to set,” I would draw the straightforward conclusion that you believed you had done something wrong. I would draw this on three counts:
The absence of a defense for your behavior, a defense demonstrating that it was ethical.
The fact that you said you had engaged in this behavior “too much.”
THe fact that you said it was not an example you wished to set.
If Bennett’s gambling were consistent with his moralizing, he’s had ample opportunity to elaborate. The fact that he has not done so, but on the contrary has said that he gambled too much and set an undesirable example thereby, indicates that he himself does not believe his behavior was consistent with his moralizing.
Now, there is the possibility that he deliberately phrased it in a technically accurate but misleading fashion for some obscure purpose of his own. If so, we’d need to see whether he’s moralized against disingenuity in order to figure out whether he behaved hypocritically.
While I will grant that each word has a separate meaning- I seriously question whether they have such precise and distinct meanings in the minds of most people who use them which makes your side of this argument akin to splitting hairs increasingly finely.
I’m not entirely sure that you have the less logical side of the argument. Nor am I convinced that you have the side with which I am less inclined to agree. And I find accusations that you are using words in unique ways which other people do not bizarre and sometimes snarky. But at some point, I think you are trying to separate concepts that most people do not separate.
You know, this is a nice example of why it’s so frustrating to discuss things with you. I had thought it blazingly obvious that it was assumed everyone was paying their own way here. Yes, if someone gifted me with a mansion and sports car, I could live in luxury without ceasing to be frugal. Likewise, if the casino chip fairy had dropped $8 million into Bennet’s lap, he could gamble like he did without ceasing to be frugal (assuming that just cashing the chips wasn’t an option). But under what I thought was the entirely apparent assumption that everyone was paying their own way, it is not the case that I can live in luxury and be frugal, and it is not the case that Bennet can gamble $8 million and be frugal.
Now, I’d like you to clear something up for me. I spend about 25% of my income on housing. Bill Gates spends some unknown but much, much smaller percentage of his income on housing. I spend about 10% of my income on housing. If Bill Gates spent that much, all of Redmond would be one giant nonstop party, so it would seem he spends much, much less. According to your proportional theory of frugality, is it not the case, then, that Bill Gates is considerably more frugal than I am? If not, why not? And if so, how is that not a reductio of your position?
That’s not quite the way I understood “atmosphere of toleration.”
I see a distinction between the cases as follows:
Smoking pot – already illegal. Permitting it for those that can handle it is not a good idea because it will create at atmosphere of toleration for those that cannot.
Gambling within your means – completely legal. Permitting it for those that can handle it makes sense, even though there are some that cannot handle it. When an activity is legal, society has created the “atmosphere of toleration.”
Bennett’s statement of regret did not address the above distinction at all. His regret was linked not to creating an “atmosphere of toleration” but a situation which gave a target tho those who would accuse him of impropriety.
Do you really believe that the vast majority of voices that cried “Hypocrite!” at Bennett analyzed the situation in sufficient detail? I suspect that most of them would be surprised to learn he never condemned gambling specifically, because they button-holed him into the “Right wing religious nut” category and assumed he was working from the “standard” list of vices that all such right wing religious nuts condemn.
And Bennett made analgous statements about his gambling: that he lived with his means, could well afford what he gambled, and the like.
I don’t agree. If you drew that conclusion, you’d be making an inferential leap unwarrented by the evidence. Golfing is legal. There’s no specific allegation of any wrongdoing. I suppose yours is a conclusion that would be shared by many listeners; that does not make it any more warrented.
No, he knows when he’s beat. Continuing to fight this battle against people that hate him, people that will seize on any opportunity to smear him, when he’s on the defensive is not wise. Better to simply give up the activity that creates the vulnerability.
Look how much vituperation I’ve gotten here for defending him – I’ve been called a weasel, and a turtle, and all manner of other insults hurled my way, on a board supposedly devoted to fighting ignorance… and I’m not even Bennett; I’m just a guy defending one aspect of Bennett’s behavior. Could Bennett himself expect a more hospitable reaction in the “real world,” where presumably the standard isn’t even focused on eradication of ignorance and the players even less constrained by a neutral desire to find the truth?
Bricker for YOU gambling is entertainment, but for many, many others it’s a addiction and a money pit and that can’t be frugal. If you note, Bennett explained that his gambling wasn’t a problem because he didn’t use the milk money, his family didn’t do without, he could “control” it. Why? Why would he say that unless he realizes that for many people gambling is considered a dangerous vice, no different than drinking too much or having sex with too many strangers? And lots of people do use the milk money.
Even if HE could handle it, even if HE could afford to wire over a million dollars to cover his debt, even if his wife didn’t notice the lack of funds. That doesn remove the burden of what gambling does to the society and why he got tagged with being a hypocrite. You can’t rail and claim to defend society while engaging in a practice that helps to injure it, especially to the tune of millions of dollars or do you not believe that gambling has a negative effect on society as whole? Yes I know you think in order to be a hypocrite one must specifically list the issue.
If you believe that things that injure society should be railed against, it looks very convenient not to rail against one of the obvious ones or to say that “I’m different, than those degenerate guys who do spend the milk money”.
You don’t hear too many stories of Mr. Johnson losing his family’s business or even his family, because he spent too much seeing The Magic Flute or watching the Lakers. There is a finite amount of funds required to see the Opera; there’s not a lot of “sell your cars for tickets” lots on Broadway, to allow you to keep seeing the Opera, once you’ve run out of cash. I’ve never heard of a guy getting a “tune up”, because he missed the intermission.
Gambling is not the same as seeing the Opera, except in the broadest sense of the term entertainment. For you it may be and so this may not apply to you personally. I believe you when you say you consider the your money the price of admission; I also trust you realize that most people gamble for the sole purpose of beating a system that was designed not to be beaten, at least by the majority of it’s players and that is a waste of time and resources, even if they enjoy it. Just because a person enjoys a thing, doesn’t mean it’s good for them.
Again that doesn’t make them bad people, but they can’t be considered frugal. You seem to have this idea, that I think that being frugal means you eat crackers and sit in a dark room. I don’t. The amount of money or time or whatever you spend doesn’t make you frugal or not, it’s how you spend and the choices you make that does. You can’t gamble and be frugal, because the chances are you’re going to lose that money, even if you enjoy the process.
How can that be a frugal act? If it’s not frugal, then it’s waste.
[QUOTE=holmesEven if HE could handle it, even if HE could afford to wire over a million dollars to cover his debt, even if his wife didn’t notice the lack of funds. That doesn remove the burden of what gambling does to the society and why he got tagged with being a hypocrite. You can’t rail and claim to defend society while engaging in a practice that helps to injure it, especially to the tune of millions of dollars or do you not believe that gambling has a negative effect on society as whole? [/QUOTE]
I know this question – *Is Bennett a hypocrite? * has in effect hijacked a thread that was devoted to the more general point of pointing and laughing and hypocrites caught out in public. While a hijack, I believed it was close enough to the general point of the thread to continue.
You’ve brought up a point that (a) is hotly debatable in its own right, and (b) deserves its own thread.
Is gambling destructive to society? is a GD thread I have created to address this rather large question. Needless to say, I absolutely reject your proposition that legal gambling represents a social ill of any kind.
If it does, then I agree that Bennett was a hypocrite. But I don’t believe that it does. Parties interested in examining that question in detail are cordially invited to the GD thread to do so.
I don’t believe that’s a relevant question: the lack of calls of “hypocrite” prior to the revelation of his gambling is sufficient to show that people weren’t making the charge before they had evidence that they believed warranted making the charge.
It’s very possible I’ve missed these statements over the course of this very long thread; could you repeat them, or at least tell me which posts contain them?
Indeed you’re not. You don’t even have a dog in this fight, and yet you’re able to withstand the accusations and silly insults against you in order to stand up for what you believe is correct. Is Bennett such a shrinking violet that, when it’s his own neck on the line, he folds long before you do?
I’m still having trouble understanding how you can read, “I’ve gambled too much” as meaning, “I gave my enemies too much ammunition.” That’s simply not a straightforward interpretation of the words.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I don’t believe that’s a relevant question: the lack of calls of “hypocrite” prior to the revelation of his gambling is sufficient to show that people weren’t making the charge before they had evidence that they believed warranted making the charge.
It shows they had something to hang the charge on – something that at first blush, unexamined in detail, may fly.
Before the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth published, there were relatively few calling Senator Kerry a coward under fire. After the SBVFT came along, there were many. What may we infer about the truth of the SBVFT claims?
It costs me little to have my reasonably anonymous persona vilified on a message board by posters well-known by most readers to be idiots. It would cost Bennett much more to expose his real-life image to similar attack.
Read it in harmony with his other statements:
[ul]
[li]I adhere to the law. [/li][li]I don’t play the ‘milk money.’ [/li][li]I don’t put my family at risk.[/li][li]I don’t owe anyone anything.[/li][/ul]
What, then, caused the “too much” threshhold to be reached? You say it’s an admission of the gambling itself being the problem; I say he’s eliminated that by virtue of his other statements, and he is referring to the public perception, fueled by his opponents’ irresponsible charaterizations OF his gambling.
Precisely the reason, then, to defend his real-life image from similar attacks with at least as much vigor as you’re doing.
Well, the way I see it, there’s at least two possibilities:
-“Too much” means “too much”. It means that he gambled more than he should have done. This suggests that his understanding of the virtue of frugality is more in keeping with mine than with yours: it suggests that he believes one might meet all one’s familial and legal obligations and still not be behaving in a frugal fashion. Or, at the least, that one might fail in some moral obligation (by behaving in an excessive manner), even though one meets other, related moral obligations.
-“Too much” means “too much for for the good of my public persona.” I simply don’t see that as a reasonable meaning of “too much.” If he meant that, he could have easily said, “Nevertheless, my gambling has detracted from my public message, given fuel to my opponents, and so I will stop.” But that’s not what he said; it’s not even close to what he said.
Public debate is not the same as message board debate, especially when the message you’re trying to get out is nuanced and complex – a lesson Senator Kerry learned during the elections. Merely being right is not sufficient ammunition to win a public debate.
You’re willing to engage in ad hoc exploration of what the words suggest to support your thesis, but not mine?
“Too much” means “too much.” Period. If we assume it means “too much for the maintenance of frugality” that’s an assumption. “Too much for the ability to meet other, related moral obligations” is an assumption. Both of these, you’re willing to make.
“Too much, that allowed by opponents to capitalize on it and distort my message” - that one, that’s the crazy one.
At least my interpretation has the virtue of being consistent with his other statements - statements that did not attach any opprobious meaning to his gambling. Your view would have us believe that he collapsed; that he first characterized his gambling as harmless, and then changed his mind.
OK, I’ve been following this thread for a while, and, Bricker, while I’ve just finished agreeing with you about gambling over in GD, my opinion of you isn’t quite as high as it once was.
During the Monica Lewinsky mess, I watched politicians lambaste Clinton over his adultery while not saying a word about their own. Rick Santorum, who believes homosexuals are a threat to marriage spoke up in defense of a conservative legislator who’s been caught in an adulterous affair. Ronald Reagan, the great Family Values politician, was divorced.
Politically, I appear liberal in that I support gay marriage and am firmly for the separation of church and state, including keeping school-sponsored prayer out of public schools (I not only support private prayer – during exams, I expect it!). On the other hand, I don’t believe divorce or adultery to be right, although divorce can be justifiable. That doesn’t apply to adultery Nevertheless, because I appear liberal, have not been born again, and thought the war in Iraq would turn out to be the damn fool exercise it’s turned out to be, I get accused of supporting immorality and being unpatriotic. I am sick of politicians doing whatever the hell they want and then trying to tell me how to run my life.
I’m sorry to hear that… but I’ve read the rest of your post, and I’m not sure I can suss out why.
That’s certainly hypocrisy in action. Anyone who lambasted Clinton over his adultery while being themselves an adulterer is absolutely a hypocrite. I’m right with you.
I’m not sure I see the problem with Reagan. So far as I know, he wasn’t alleged to have been a cheater - merely a divorcee. I’m sure there are some people who say divorce is never an option, but I don’t think Reagan took that position either before or after his divorce.
Well, that would certainly mean you oppose politicians that are sanctimonious, or meddlesome, or holier-than-thou, or busybodies. No problem from me on that score.
But in this thread, my entire thrust has been that it’s inaccurate to call Bennett a hypocrite. Sure, he tried to tell you how to live, and sure, he gambled large sums of money. But he never tried to tell you that you shouldn’t gamble large sums of money. That makes him a lot of things: a sanctimonious, meddlesome, holier-than-thou busybody. I agree completely to all those charges.
But damnit, THAT’S NOT HYPOCRISY. The word means something. And that ain’t it.
Yes, I agree that he doesn’t regret what he did. And I think he regrets getting “caught” only insofar as it gave his opponents ammunition to use in falsely labelling him a hypocrite.
Actually, he may also regret getting caught because among his actual supporters were many people who do disapprove of gambling. As long as they didn;t know he gambled, they supported him based on his stated positionson other issues. When his gambling came to light, he probably lost their support. He may well regret that, so I suppose it is fair to say that he regrets being caught.
Does that constitute any sort of dishonesty? I don’t think so, unless he was actively promoting an image of himself as a non-gambler. He was simply silent on the issue.
It’s ripping up money rather than burning it, but according to Rock Stars Do The Dumbest Things*, Michael Jackson once entertained himself by tearing up $100 bills, throwing them in the air and saying, “Isn’t it prety? Money makes the best confetti.”
We now return you to your regular scheduled debate.
*OK, it’s probably not the most reliable of references, but what were you expecting? Encyclopedia Britannica?
Yes, but refusing to defend oneself doesn’t win a public debate, either.
No. When someone says that they did something “too much,” they generally mean that it was excessive for practical reasons or for moral reasons. Bennett has already said, as you point out, that he didn’t gamble too much for normal practical reasons. That leaves either the moral reasons, or a really obscure practical reason that he doesn’t elaborate and that you draw from his words.
Rather than do that, I assume he means for moral reasons.
Sort of. My view would have you believe that at first he was trying to defend his action by throwing up distractions, but finally he owned up to the fact that he was behaving in a manner inconsistent with the message of moderation that he espoused, and setting a bad moral example for other people, and decided to stop doing so.
That action is entirely in keeping with how people normally behave. Your view would have us believe that he started off defending his actions, but then, having decided he was giving his critics too much ammunition, decided to stop gambling without giving his reason for stopping, and indeed making a statement that most people would interpret as admitting to wrongdoing.
That action is not at all in keeping with how people normally behave.