"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell"

wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family

But that wasn't my point. My point is the ratio between the parties.

Oh, I see. I'll give you 20 sex deviate conservatives for 10
bribe-taking, womanizing, gay prostituting liberals. Neither side has a
claim on proper behavior. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

Don't bother to reply. We've thrashed this thread to the point of
ridiculousness.


Naw.

Who is going to be the next hypocritical right-wing politician or preacher
who tells us to behave sexually while he isn't?


How about the Rev. Jesse Jackson, erstwhile presidential candidate, general
gadfly, and father of the Democratic Congressman from Illinois?

Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell"

wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family

But that wasn't my point. My point is the ratio between the parties.

Oh, I see. I'll give you 20 sex deviate conservatives for 10
bribe-taking, womanizing, gay prostituting liberals. Neither side has
a claim on proper behavior. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

Don't bother to reply. We've thrashed this thread to the point of
ridiculousness.


Naw.

Who is going to be the next hypocritical right-wing politician or
preacher who tells us to behave sexually while he isn't?


How about the Rev. Jesse Jackson, erstwhile presidential candidate,
general gadfly, and father of the Democratic Congressman from Illinois?





I wasn't aware that Jackson has been out in the public lately,
condemning the lack of marital morality among national politicians while
following a different set of rules himself.

You still don't get it, Lu-ser. I don't give a damn who Republican
politicians **** on a personal basis. It's their penchant for
castigating others for behaving as they do sexually that I find
hypocritical...and so very Republican.

Thus, long lists of Republicans/Democrats don't matter to me. It's the
preaching of Republican hypocrites on matters sexual I'm discussing.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:07:05 -0400, HK wrote:

Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell"

wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family

But that wasn't my point. My point is the ratio between the parties.

Oh, I see. I'll give you 20 sex deviate conservatives for 10
bribe-taking, womanizing, gay prostituting liberals. Neither side has
a claim on proper behavior. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

Don't bother to reply. We've thrashed this thread to the point of
ridiculousness.


Naw.

Who is going to be the next hypocritical right-wing politician or
preacher who tells us to behave sexually while he isn't?


How about the Rev. Jesse Jackson, erstwhile presidential candidate,
general gadfly, and father of the Democratic Congressman from Illinois?





I wasn't aware that Jackson has been out in the public lately,
condemning the lack of marital morality among national politicians while
following a different set of rules himself.

You still don't get it, Lu-ser. I don't give a damn who Republican
politicians **** on a personal basis. It's their penchant for
castigating others for behaving as they do sexually that I find
hypocritical...and so very Republican.

Thus, long lists of Republicans/Democrats don't matter to me. It's the
preaching of Republican hypocrites on matters sexual I'm discussing.

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.

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

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:07:05 -0400, HK wrote:

Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell"

wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family
snipped for brevity

Thus, long lists of Republicans/Democrats don't matter to me. It's the
preaching of Republican hypocrites on matters sexual I'm discussing.

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.

Correction: No Republican can take another Republican to task if
there is no ethical line (such as the moral suasion that Republicans
generally adhere to) for the other to cross.

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

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:23:44 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:07:05 -0400, HK wrote:

Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell"

wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family
snipped for brevity

Thus, long lists of Republicans/Democrats don't matter to me. It's the
preaching of Republican hypocrites on matters sexual I'm discussing.

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.

Correction: No Republican can take another Republican to task if
there is no ethical line (such as the moral suasion that Republicans
generally adhere to) for the other to cross.

You're arguing on behalf of that ethical line, right?

It just so happens that for many candidates drawing that ethical line
is a source for money and votes.

It's not the ethical line that they're being castigated for, it's the
cynical use of it for advantage and profit.

Right?

GC Boater wrote:
Krausie wrote:
Hehehe...it just goes on and on for these family value Republicans.


Yessiree Krausie. Speaking of family values, jus' wondering why your
name isn't on the deed to home you live in? Your wifelet deem you to
be deficient in "family values?"


You know that is true, right?

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Lu Powell wrote:

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:51:29 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 21:46:52 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:


"jps" wrote in message
news On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 19:06:17 -0400, "Lu Powell"

wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...
Lu Powell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
Ensign paid $96k to mistress's family

But that wasn't my point. My point is the ratio between the parties.

Oh, I see. I'll give you 20 sex deviate conservatives for 10
bribe-taking, womanizing, gay prostituting liberals. Neither side has a
claim on proper behavior. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

Don't bother to reply. We've thrashed this thread to the point of
ridiculousness.


Naw.

Who is going to be the next hypocritical right-wing politician or preacher
who tells us to behave sexually while he isn't?


Sort of like a President and Congress that wants to make the military smoke
free, but not Legislative Branch people or Executive Branch people?
Liberals with a government health plan for the masses, but exempt
themselves? That is HYPOCRITICAL!

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:19:15 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:23:44 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, wrote:

Refer to previous post for previous postings

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.

Correction: No Republican can take another Republican to task if
there is no ethical line (such as the moral suasion that Republicans
generally adhere to) for the other to cross.

You're arguing on behalf of that ethical line, right?

It just so happens that for many candidates drawing that ethical line
is a source for money and votes.

It's not the ethical line that they're being castigated for, it's the
cynical use of it for advantage and profit.

Right?


If the focii of the argument were simply avaricious candidates and
venal politico's, then that discussion might have merit. In an
examination of value systems for groups of persons of a particular
political persuasion, it doesn't.

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

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:04:33 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:19:15 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:23:44 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:18:04 -0500, wrote:

Refer to previous post for previous postings

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.

Correction: No Republican can take another Republican to task if
there is no ethical line (such as the moral suasion that Republicans
generally adhere to) for the other to cross.

You're arguing on behalf of that ethical line, right?

It just so happens that for many candidates drawing that ethical line
is a source for money and votes.

It's not the ethical line that they're being castigated for, it's the
cynical use of it for advantage and profit.

Right?


If the focii of the argument were simply avaricious candidates and
venal politico's, then that discussion might have merit. In an
examination of value systems for groups of persons of a particular
political persuasion, it doesn't.

In your opinion.

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