| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#32
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
More Republican Family Values
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. |
|
#33
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#34
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Republican Family Values
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: refer to previous post for previously posted 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. Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#35
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Republican Family Values
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: refer to previous post for previously posted 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. Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Better to be solipsistically exuberant than bogged down by the hypocrisy of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking off from Crete. Maybe not. |
|
#36
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Republican Family Values
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:57:36 -0400, H the K
wrote: 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: refer to previous post for previously posted 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. Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Better to be solipsistically exuberant than bogged down by the hypocrisy of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking off from Crete. Maybe not. Not. It was Leo Gorcey  -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#37
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Republican Family Values
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:17:32 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:57:36 -0400, H the K wrote: 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: refer to previous post for previously posted 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. Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Better to be solipsistically exuberant than bogged down by the hypocrisy of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking off from Crete. Maybe not. Not. It was Leo Gorcey Jesus Christ, take it to a men's room stall you two. |
|
#38
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Republican Family Values
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:57:36 -0400, H the K wrote: 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: refer to previous post for previously posted 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. Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Better to be solipsistically exuberant than bogged down by the hypocrisy of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking off from Crete. Maybe not. Not. It was Leo Gorcey I remember Leo and the rest of the boys from the 25-cent Saturday matinees...George W. Bush took his place as the king of the malaprop. |
|
#39
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Republican Family Values
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:35:10 -0400, H the K
wrote: wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:57:36 -0400, H the K wrote: 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: refer to previous post for previously posted 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. Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Better to be solipsistically exuberant than bogged down by the hypocrisy of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking off from Crete. Maybe not. Not. It was Leo Gorcey I remember Leo and the rest of the boys from the 25-cent Saturday matinees...George W. Bush took his place as the king of the malaprop. Actually, I'm not quite that old. I remember watching the Bowery Boys on saturday afternoon network television when I was a kid. To be honest, and I mean no offense, your "solipsisticaly exuberant" phrase brought Slip Mahoney to mind. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
|
#40
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Republican Family Values
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:27:57 -0700, jps wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:17:32 -0500, wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:57:36 -0400, H the K wrote: 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: refer to previous post for previously posted 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. Solipsism suits you, you little nym-shifter you. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access Better to be solipsistically exuberant than bogged down by the hypocrisy of Republican "family values." I think Daedalus said that before taking off from Crete. Maybe not. Not. It was Leo Gorcey Jesus Christ, take it to a men's room stall you two. Spoken like an experienced politician. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| More family values... | General | |||
| Family Values | General | |||
| More of those GOP family values... | General | |||
| Family Values | General | |||
| Family Values | General | |||
Linear Mode
