KO KO'd

[BT]

The hypocrisy has already been perpetrated.

Not according to Samuel Johnson

He wrote the  .
Dictionary of the English Language
dontcha know

[sirs]

Yea I do know....Condemn X --> Perform X --> Hypocrisy

Moving on.  Oh, and thanks for not being able to demonstrate, as I was able to, this misdirected misrepresentation accusation, aimed at me.  It's ok, I'm cool, we're cool.  I'll just figure it was a ....... needed release on your part, when I kept demonstrating where you were consistently wrong, on both this topic, the Mosque mess, and the liberal excuses thread

[BT]

You didn't demonstrate shit.

[sirs]

LOL....yea, those words of yours sure were non-existant.  Let's just close are eyes and pretend they never were typed.  "Move on, nothing here to see".  The fact that you STILL haven't demonstrated any such misrepresentation on my part, dare I say..........SPEAKS VOLUMES

It's ok, you're still forgiven.  Deep down, I know your heart's in the right place.   

[BT]

Criticize X + perform X = hypocrisy

so says the partisan conservative
Criticize X + perform X + continue to criticize without disclosure = hypocrisy so says BT

What you fail to recognize is the act is the crucial fork in the road, as my drug addict analogy and your agreement with same demonstrates.

[sirs]

The difference being that my cart's behind the horse.  The ACT is precisely the instigator.  Follow-up contrition, with your drug addict is what would lead to mitigating the hypocritical ACT, but the ACT has still been perpetrated

Then again, we've already been thru this.

[BT]

or the actor no longer criticizes. as i said the act is the fork in the road.

1. Criticize but disclose or
2. Not criticize.

That's is the actor choice as to the way forward without the scarlet letter of the oft over used hypocrite charge.

[sirs]

the ACT is the ACT, no fork or any other utensil needed.  It is the Cart

What they do AFTER the ACT demonstrates the sincerity (or not) to which they wish to remove said hypocrisy.  Contrary to popular deduced Bt opinion, once a Hypocrite doesn't equate to always a Hypocrite.

[BT]

The ACT may be the Act but that does not by itself constitute hypocrisy, what happens next tells that tale.

once a Hypocrite doesn't equate to always a Hypocrite

Why not?

[sirs]

The ACT may be the Act but that does not by itself constitute hypocrisy.

yes, in fact it does, if, in fact, the person was bashing the ACT previously.  Timeline...horse...cart.  This really isn't a hard concept, Bt

once a Hypocrite doesn't equate to always a Hypocrite

Why not?

Because you can demonstrate you were wrong to begin with in the original bashing.  You learned from your mistake, and you intend to ride a rather non-hypocritical path from that point on.  Taking actions to mitigate the original hypocrisy

Then again, this too has already been addressed.  Why oh why are we having to reference it again??

[BT]

Because you can demonstrate you were wrong to begin with in the original bashing.

Why would a drug abstinence advocate be wrong for advocating that folks stay away from drugs?
Even if they slip, does that make their original point no longer valid? I don't think so.

The ACT is the ACT, what happens next determines any hypocrisy.

[sirs]

I think we can safely deduce that Bt has been KO'd, especially since I NEVER claimed or even implied that a drug abstinence advocate is wrong for advocating that folks stay away from drugs

Why do you do that Bt?  You ask a question, it gets answered, and you jump to some alternate alterior nefarious motive/explanation, that you somehow uncovered within the answer.

I'm getting rather sick of it, especially considering how much credibility you've always had with me

[BT]

I don't see how i have been KO'd . We simply have different definitions of hypocrisy and when and how it is determined.

Thus my follow up questions. I'm simply trying to understand how your mind works, but apparently you can't be bothered to explain yourself sufficiently.

What really is tiring is your constant use of snark and snideness.

      

[sirs]

No Bt, the problem isn't my explaining myself more clearly...it's explaining myself clearly, then you twisting it to apparently fit some preconceived position, I must be harboring.  I mean....taking my clear cut answer to your question about why isn't a hypocrite always a hypocrite, and claiming that must mean I support the notion that it's not good for a drug addict to advocate that drugs are bad??

That's very unbecoming of your normally high level standard of responding.  Is it because we have so little liberals posting any more, that you need to drop down to that level of misrepresentation??

[BT]

So if KO doesn't bash Fox anymore for political contributions he is no longer a hypocrite?