BoatBanter.com - More Republican Family Values

jps wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:34:24 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:08:46 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

snipped for brevity
|If a Republican or Republicans subscribe to a particular set of moral
|strictures, tenets, precepts, and disapprobations, then those persons
|have a system by which a violator of those strictures can be judged
|for having done so. If there is no value system, there can be no
|condemnation. If one can condemn hypocrisy, one has a value system
|and is summarily evaluated by that same system. To accuse Republicans
|of hypocrisy is itself a hypocrisy. No Republican can take another
|Republican to task if the other has crossed the ethical line that
|Republicans generally adhere to. The argument decrying Republican
|hypocrisy is specious at best.

Hmmm.... let's see. That is really some "special" logic!

First, let's state the definition of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues,
feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have.
Hypocrisy typically comes from a desire to mask actual motives or
feelings, or from a person's inability to conform to standards they
espouse.

So.... nerdo-crombesians believe that it is morally reprehensible to
climb trees. In addition to this, they loudly proclaim their superior
moral principles, define themselves in terms of these principles, and
evaluate other people based on their adherence to the nerdo-crombesian
value system.

Anarchy:
An anarchist notes the discrepancy in nerdo-crombesian specific
morality vs behavior and condemns the perp for transgressing his own
nerdo-crombesian laws. (Do as I say, not as I do?) The anarchist
doesn't believe there should be ANY laws, certainly those about
climbing trees, but does see a problem with "pretending to have
beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one
does not actually have." So that makes him a hypocrite?

Anti-nerdo-crombesians:
Anti-nerdo-crombesians generally believe that it is morally
reprehensible to climb trees, but do not loudly proclaim their
superior moral principles, nor do they define themselves in terms of
these principles, and tend to evaluate other people based criteria not
tied so tightly to the Anti-nerdo-crombesian value system. The typical
Anti-nerdo-crombesian does see a problem with "pretending to have
beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one
does not actually have." So that makes him a hypocrite?

Please return to Logic 101 and retake. Do not pass Go do not collect
$200, go directly to Logic 101.....
Having a remonstrated problem with hypocrisy is "not loudly
proclaiming a superior moral principle," and decrying hypocrisy is not
"evaluating other people based on the criteria of 'your' own,
inimitable value system"?

How convenient. I must commend this poster for submitting such a
stellar rebuttal while yet retreating from any efficacious refutation.

Definitions for a reasonable dialectic;

Hypocrisy - a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one
does not.

And to help lift this poster out of the domain of pretense and
sanctimony (perhaps the poster will be able to determine why this is
being included);

Abstract: Converse Accident or hasty generalization is the fallacy of
drawing a general conclusion based on one or several atypical
instances.

I. Converse Accident: (hasty generalization) the fallacy of
considering certain exceptional cases and generalizing to a rule that
fits them alone. Note that the fallacy of converse accident is the
opposite of accident.

1. Thus, a general statement is made on the basis of insufficient
evidence or on the basis of only a few examples.

1. E.g., "Wow! Did you see that teenager run that red light?
Teenage drivers are really pathetic."

2. E.g., The following argument is raised to oppose the view
that boys have greater inherent mathematical ability. "When I was
four, my father taught me the beauty of numbers, and I have excelled
in mathematics ever since. My conclusion? The males who grew up with
a high aptitude for math are not spending enough time with their
daughters." Nancy Whelan Reese, "Letters," Time, (Vol. 117, No. 1),
6.

2. The generalization is sometimes made on the basis of carelessly
selected evidence

1. E.g., "I interviewed ten people on Main Street in
Greenwood on Friday night, and they all stated they would rather be
there than watching TV. I conclude that the folks in Greenwood don't
like to watch TV on Friday night."

2. E.g., "As I drove to school this morning, not one car
which was turning had its turn signal on. Thus, I conclude that
drivers in South Carolina are not trained to drive very well."

3. E.g., "The induction problem forever haunts us. How many
instances of a class must be observed before one can be really sure?
Having experience two uncoordinated woman-drivers, am I justified in
making a generalization about woman-drivers? (For too many man, a
sampling of two seems to justify such a generalization. Women, of
course, never make this sort of error.)" James L. Christian,
Philosophy (HBJ College, 1998).

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

The short answer is far simpler: There are no Republican family values.

I think we can assume there's a subset of Republicans who do value
family and hold fast to those values. However, there are also a good
many who use the family values association to curry favor with donors
and voters while feigning standard "Christian" postures.

It seems the closer they get to success and the higher the office, the
more likely they are to inflict mortal wounds on themselves. Perhaps
it's a crisis of conscience that pushes so many of these liars to
eviscerate their own careers.

I'm sure there are Republicans who value family, as there are Democrats
who value family. But there really are no "institutional" Republican
Party or Democratic Party family values. The Republican Party
"leadership" uses the phrase because it believes it differentiates them
from the Democrats. With all the scandals involving top Republicans,
they're only fooling themselves.

My life's experience tells me that the more someone professes the
typical right-wing interpretation of "christian values," the less likely
they are to follow the teachings of jesus.