KO KO'd

[BT]

And NOW that he has "done it", which is what the timeline demonstrates, and at which point the hypocrisy claim became a valid accusation, the hypocrisy is still not present, right?  You'll note there were no references to hypocrisy until AFTER he donated

Let me repeat my point slowly for the obtuse. He hasn't committed the heinous sin of hypocrisy until he bashes FOX for political donations after he himself has made them. Has he bashed FOX for political donations after 10-28-2010?

If the answer is yes, he is a hypocrite
If no, he isn't.
If the answer is i don't know, then the calling of hypocrite is premature.

[sirs]

I love this bubble you're calling home.  Word about reality....when a person criticizes/condemns X, it becomes hypocrisy as soon as they then do X.  THAT's the timeline.  Now, if they want to come out and advance a position following X, that either facilitates a position of contrition, or something along the lines of how in error they were to begin with, that could go towards emoving that mantle of hypocrisy. 

But the Hypocrisy itself occurs at the point X is done, when prior to that, it was bashing anyone else that supposedly did X

[BT]

I love this bubble you're calling home.  Word about reality....when a person criticizes/condemns X, it becomes hypocrisy as soon as they then do X.  THAT's the timeline.  Now, if they want to come out and advance a position following X, that either facilitates a position of contrition, or something along the lines of how in error they were to begin with, that could go towards emoving that mantle of hypocrisy. 

But the Hypocrisy itself occurs at the point X is done, when prior to that, it was bashing anyone else that supposedly did X

Nonsense. How can you be a hypocrite for bashing someone foor something you haven't done yourself. If you bash after you have done it, that is a different story.

Reality is there is no time machine. Points in time are points in time.
You can't consider future events, because the future hasn't happened.

[sirs]

I love this bubble you're calling home.  Word about reality....when a person criticizes/condemns X, it becomes hypocrisy as soon as they then do X.  THAT's the timeline.  Now, if they want to come out and advance a position following X, that either facilitates a position of contrition, or something along the lines of how in error they were to begin with, that could go towards emoving that mantle of hypocrisy. 

But the Hypocrisy itself occurs at the point X is done, when prior to that, it was bashing anyone else that supposedly did X

Nonsense. How can you be a hypocrite for bashing someone foor something you haven't done yourself.

But it WAS done.  You have this need to put the cart in front of the horse.  The horse is the bashing.  At that point, at least the reality I've lived thru all my life, hypocrisy occurs at that very point you do X, when previously you condemned X.  Unless there's a qualifier attached to the person doing X, that explains there "change of heart", that's hypocrisy

Now in your bubble, I guess I could see how its not.  KO can just go on making all kinds of donations, never once having to explain is earlier condemnations for that he now gets suspended for.  All is perfectly swell in the land of Bt

[Christians4LessGvt]

And as far I am concerned it isn't hypocritical to chide the competition for doing something that you hadn't done YET. That is why the time-line is important.

Come on BT....you know you are playing games.
I know it's slow in 3DHS...but REALLY?

Your logic is....
John Doe rails against how terrible homosexuality is...
Then a week, a month, 6 months later....John Doe has homo sex
Thats not hypocritical?

If Bill Smith condemns bank robbers,
then later is caught in a bank robbery
thats not hypocritical?

 

[BT]

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:

    Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.[1]

Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy so long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

[BT]

Think about it for a minute.

If i rail against drugs, and i don't use them, am I a hypocrite?

If down the road i get tipsy and someone offers me a line of coke and i try it would i then be a hypocrite?

or would i need to continue to rail against drugs, without mentioning the fact that i had tried them myself.

[sirs]

Think about it for a minute.

Already did.  In this reality, if you rail against drugs, then you take them...at that point you took them, you're a hypocrite

If you then come out AFTER the event and claim you were tipsy, didn't know better, were WRONG to begin with, then not so much.  The effort at that point is to mitigate the hypocrisy

[BT]

Already did.  In this reality, if you rail against drugs, then you take them...at that point you took them, you're a hypocrite

At that point i have taken drugs. If i don't rail against anyone else for using drugs then there is no hypocrisy.

[Christians4LessGvt]

SIRS...it's sometimes like talking to a wall.
BT enjoys arguing 2 + 2 does not equal 4....fun game ha ha ha  
In Yahoo Chat I used to rarely do the same in race debates when I was sometimes bored
It is/was a form of honing skills.....but if it becomes your primary MOO....then it's really kind of a bore.
If he wants to pretend that someone can rail against bank robbery on Monday
and then rob a bank on Tues and thats not hypocritical....so be it.
He is becoming more and more like UP.
The whole debate becomes "define is".
The whole debate becomes "when you say it's hot outside in Phoenix right now"
"Well it's not "hot" compared to the surface of Venus...so is it really "hot"?" "Define hot?"

[sirs]

Already did.  In this reality, if you rail against drugs, then you take them...at that point you took them, you're a hypocrite

At that point i have taken drugs. .....

....it becomes blatant hypocrisy, if you had been railing against them before.  Timeline thing again, I'm afraid, Bt

[BT]

Then you will have to redefine hypocrisy to meet this scenario.

I don't see how an action, even if contrary to previous stated positions, could be considered hypocrisy UNLESS you continue to call out people for the same transgression that you yourself committed without disclosing that same transgression.

Former drug addicts are sometimes the best advocates for a no drugs policy, simply because they have been there and know the dangers involved. Are they hypocrites for advocating against drugs? I don't think so as long as they acknowledge they are former addicts.

[sirs]

Then you will have to redefine hypocrisy to meet this scenario.

I don't have to.......Criticize X + perform X = hypocrisy

But at the very least, you're now dealing with the issue, that it's always been, hypocrisy, and not still perpetuating an issue that it never was, free speech.  At least we have that concession.  Now it's merely dealing with your continued efforts to put the cart in front of the horse

Former drug addicts are sometimes the best advocates for a no drugs policy, simply because they have been there and know the dangers involved.

You provide precisely the parameters I provided before, in that these addicts have come forth to reference the error in their ways, thus mitigating the hypocrisy they would have had, without any such advocation.  I guess will have to wait to see any such "confession/contrition" from KO now, won't we

[BT]

I guess will have to wait to see any such "confession/contrition" from KO now, won't we

Only if he continues to rail at FOX for their political contributions, without prefacing the rail to admit he has contributed to pols also. He doesn't need to apologize for making that contribution, hell it's his right to do so.

Because the political contribution is not the issue as we all have conceded that the MSNBC rules are for the birds.

And he wasn't being hypocritical when he railed at FOX previously because at that point he hadn't donated to anyone himself. And making the contribution in itself is not hypocritical because the ACT of contributing has nothing to do with judging others for their contributions.

So we are stuck with watching to see whether he is hypocritical in the future and I'm sure the hypocrite hunters will let us know if that is the case.

[sirs]

I guess will have to wait to see any such "confession/contrition" from KO now, won't we

Only if he continues to rail at FOX for their political contributions

no, sorry, the cart still is going to be behind the horse here.  The hypocrisy has already been perpetrated.  You demonstrated precisely the parameters, literally repeating those I referenced before, that would be required to diffuse any hypocrisy on KO's part, by using the former drug addicts.  Much appreciated, by the way.

I think we can all agree this has been run into the ground.  Let's move on to the non-existant MSM bias and the Obama manipulation of reports