That is an excellent illustrative hypothetical.
In that case, I would argue strongly that the prominent figure is NOT a hypocrite.
and I’d argue exactly the opposite. When I was a child, my father ‘handled’ the expenses, while mom ran the house. we had a substantial number of “meatless” meals due to lack of income. When I turned 20, I organized my dad’s business papers and discovered, yes, indeed, we were living near the poverty level during those years. Trust me, however, had I discovered that dad had been gambling every week while we ‘made do’ on the asumption that dad was providing the best he could - my mother would have been very vocal about the subject.
and I think you would agree if you thought about it. If she was told that was all he could afford, naturally at the time she’d be ‘not missing it’. one doesn’t “miss” what one doesn’t know they have.
and I assure you that when I realized my former husband was charging up a storm for his girlfriend while claiming to be broke so I paid for all of our dinners out etc, I was very pissed off. (would have had the same reaction if it was for gambling. had the same reaction when he decided to spent 90% of his ‘spendable’ cash (that not accounted for by bills) on a bracelet for himself, etc. did I mention “former”?
:: snort ::
Can we get back to the OP, by any chance? Are there no other interesting politicians who have preached one way and done another? Bennett’s getting awfully boring.
Except that the Bennetts were living a very lavish lifestyle already.
except of course, as you already noted, everything is relative. So, in her case, instead of “only get to go to McDonald’s once a month” it’s “only get to go Paris once a month”.
again- you claimed that it was likely that the wife didn’t mind. I suggest that it’s much more likely that she did. whatever their life style is/was, I’m fairly certain it could have been nicer w/the additional 8 mil. and I really believe she would be know that as well.
Hmm–so you think a frugal person can live a lavish lifestyle?
Those words are near opposites in my lexicon (“near” only because the former describes a person, the latter a lifestyle).
Daniel
I think I have a different definition of “frugality” than many other participants in this thread. “Frugal” to me means ‘characterized by or reflecting economy in the use of resources.’ If the resources in question are vast, the expenditures from those resources may be large without violating the principle of frugality. A frugal person lives within his means; if his means are extensive, he may live a lavish lifestyle successfully, yes.
It’s clear to me from this conversation, though, that many people believe “frugal” means something more along the lines of parsimonious, sparing or scant in giving or spending, mean. I don’t endorse this view, but it’s obvious that more than a few participants here hold it, and I am convinced it’s the source of our disagreement on this issue.
Bricker, how long would it take you to lose $8 million if you had enough money to lose it? How much gambling would you have to do to lose that much? I’m speaking hypothetically and out of curiosity.
THe problem is, I think this different definition of yours is less than 24 hours old. Your definition originally allowed you to write, in response to someone’s claim that Bennett’s endorsement of frugality and moderation made him a hypocrite:
As near as I can tell, originally you thought that if he was endorsing frugality, his gambling would show him to be a hypocrite re: this endorsement. It’s only once you’re shown that he endorses frugality that you decide the definition of frugality has the new definition.
I dunno. Moving the goalposts is one thing, but a reworking of a word’s definition to save the argument just makes me think you’re taking the anti-euthanasia stance too far. Put the poor argument out of its misery already.
Daniel
No - I merely incautiously quoted back the “frugality and moderation” line from another’s post; I didn’t take the time to explain that I thought frugality was not truly an issue. That was wrong of me, but it doesn’t show that I’ve modified my definition of ‘frugality’ - it merely means I was incautious in proposing a good test of the issue.
Does anybody else remember the novelty song I Know You Think You Understand What You Thought I Meant To Say But What I Said Wasn’t What I Meant? I’m pretty sure Bricker could hum a few bars if you haven’t.
Not surprising, as he previously rejected the meaning of hypocrisy as defined in the English language and by customary usage.
As long as he’s defining the terms according to **Bricker’s Dictionary of Life[sup]**TM[/sup], he fancies he’s winning the argument.
It’s positively Bill Clintonian.
Bill could never be called a hypocrite, and it was thanks to his own skills in redefining the language (the meaning of “sex”, “is” etc.).
Hypocrite: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
Frugal: characterized by or reflecting economy in the use of resources
Both definitions that I made up, just to suit me.
Oh, wait.
Both definitions from Merriam-Webster: www.m-w.org
Try again, genius.
Well, looking up economy sends us back into ‘thrifty’ and ‘efficient’, so it looks like value judgements all around. It also looks like you’re the only one who believes that ‘frugality’ and ‘millions of dollars spent gambling’ intersect anywhere.
I am correct in asserting this, yes? Does anyone else think that these two concepts are a teensy bit mutually exclusive?
It does no good to ignore the meaning of the word or make querulous comments about our excessive “literal”-ness in calling a spade a spade.
You can parrot the dictionary definitions of “hypocrite” and "frugal’ all you want, but until you demonstrate understanding of the words and stop trying to weasel out of their implications, you are, well — a weasel.
“The inventiveness of (Bricker) is certainly … robust.”
No foolin’.
That would depend on whether he’s publicly stated (for example) that the existence of people who can eat a dozen Big Macs and then run a marathon to burn them off is irrelevant to the question of whether gluttony is a sin.
We;ve already established on this thread that Bennett holds that viewpoint.
I am confident that I understand the words. I’m not confident that you do.
But that difference of understanding may be due to fundamental assumptions that neither of us are willing to shake.
If someone has $50 billion in the bank, I think many people here would argue that he has an obligation and duty to share that money with the less fortunate. Some people have argued in other threads that there’s a limit on how much money people should be permitted to accumulate, period - “How much money does one person need?” type of thing. Others have argued that such a person should be heavily taxed, forcing him to disgorge hs money for the betterment of society. In general, the crowd here is not sympathetic to the position that an extremely wealthy person’s money should be their own, to do with as they please.
I generally agree with the sentiment that moderation and frugality are good things. I grew up poor. I saved money, and did not buy things on credit, so I lived a poorer lifestyle in my early years than anyone else I know in real life now.
But that allowed me to accumulate resources. Now I live a comfortabel lifestyle. I cushions, nest eggs, reserves. And I believe that is the result of moderation and frugality. But as the result of living those virtues, I NOW have the financial freedom to do things like gamble, and buy season tickets to the opera. I view expenditures like that as a REWARD for exercising moderation and frugality. Continuing to pinch every penny until it screams, in every instance NOW in my life, would be foolish.
So I believe I can safely extoll the virtues of moderation and frugality without being a hypocrite.
I believe Bennett’s position is analogous to mine.
Puh-leeze. Not wasting eight million dollars at video poker machines hardly requires one to be “scant” or “mean”.
My sinuses are acting up; please remove your straw man.
The difference, Bricker, is that you may now be rewarding yourself. Bennett, however, was writing books and making a living as a moral scold decrying the debauchery and debasing of society. You’ve not set yourself up as a moralizer. He did. The hyprocrisy lies not with touting frugality in order to build a nest egg. It lies in the pompous, moralistic windbaggery of his public life while practicing an indulgent private one.
I think we’re getting closer.
But I think the appropriate condemnation for the man is as you say: he’s a pompous, moralistic windbag. I agree with that. Where I kick back my heels and resist is when you suggest that “hypocrite” be added to the score, because I think Bennett doesn’t deserve that charge.
It seems to me that, in your view, when someone sets himself up as a “moral scold” he is vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy should he commit ANY sin. I don’t agree. I think, in order to be a hypocrite, you put on a false appearance of virtue or religion. His appeance of virtue was not false. it was sanctimonious, preachy, pompous, the lot. But he excluded gambling from his attacks. He preached about moderation, yes, and frugality, but as a means to an end, not as a permanant, monastic choice of lifestyle.