First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Everyone is a Hypocrite
Posted 7/18/11

longfenglim wrote:


Half-Bliss wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Well, I assume your intellect must be that of God to know what I am thinking of at the moment, and, as a bonus, you manage to tack on the most profound string of nonsense that I have ever read...I would be much obliged if you would devote your energy, instead, to communicate, either through this forum or telepathically, the reasoning behind your assessment of mankind, and the proofs for your conclusion, which, I would think, would be so unfathomably deep, I would have no choice but to say- 'tis true! 'Tis all true! Every word is true!


Because you are weak, and so is everyone else like you.

Dismissed!

-end


I say, such profundity indeed. Why, dear sir- I would assume sir, for women, generally, or at least the one I have been around, do not make a habit of producing such wisdom in the manner you have done so- dear sir, I am converted to your beliefs, if only by virtue of your arrogance towards your opponents. Sir, what I should then ask, having been enlightened, is what you mean by 'everyone like you'- everyone like me in what respect- my ethnicity? My gender? My age-group? A combination of the three? Tell me, so that I may know when I am in the company of someone as weak as I.


I'm sorry. I was too busy having delicious relations with your mother to reply. That was why the -end was placed.

Now, a hypocrite, as we well know, is someone who doesn't adhere to their own moral standards. Whether they claim to be good or evil, or somewhere in between. The thing is, you go as if you have no answer to the question of what your morality is. You might do things for the sake of doing them, pay the price, and move on.... or maybe you do not move on. Whatever the case, everyone is a hypocrite based on the fact that we constantly switch polarities. As a result, we have drama to spice up life.

You, I believe, comprehend this idea.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/19/11 , edited 7/19/11


Pettiness- isn't it grand. I would try to say something witty along the lines of suggesting a sexual laison with one of your kin, along with an insulation that that person engage in sexual activities for capital, but, I like to think I am above such follies.

To the point- No! You are wrong on all accounts- first, a hypocrite is one who feigns a standard, moral, or belief that he does not actually hold, and may even, in private, act against those professed belief. A hypocrite is, in short, an insincere creature. An example, from the top of my head- would be Tartuffe- he doesn't really believe in the devotion he preaches, and, in private, he is the most lusty and sinful beast imaginable, but in the public's eye and in the eyes of Orgon, he was the most devout creature to ever pray and preach. A man may hold moral beliefs and standards that he doesn't meet, and still not be a hypocrite if he sincerely believe in it himself, and knows he fall short, and sincerely try to live up to it. If you want it put more elegantly, here is what the Great Cham has to say about it:


Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; 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.


A man may be sincere in his belief today, and sincerely move on to another belief- that is not hypocrisy. What make hypocrisy what it is is the insincerity of it all.

Definition aside, you are still wrong to think that everyone behaves so-and-so way. You do not know if everyone truly does or does not 'switch polarities', and you have no proof that they do, nor can you ever prove it, as I said, unless you are able to travel into the depths of every mind that has ever attained existence. It is injudicious to think that everyone follows your pattern and provide no proof or semblence of a proof to that claim, especially on such a topic as the nature of man, his way and pattern of thinking.

Because one's thought is privy to oneself, one can hold moral beliefs, and be sincere about it, but let it have no consequence upon the world, we should, therefore, hold the physical manifestation of moral beliefs, that is, your action, to be higher than good intention, something that exist, warms the cockle of the heart, and, if not acted upon, dies.
Posted 7/19/11

longfenglim wrote:



Pettiness- isn't it grand. I would try to say something witty along the lines of suggesting a sexual laison with one of your kin, along with an insulation that that person engage in sexual activities for capital, but, I like to think I am above such follies.

To the point- No! You are wrong on all accounts- first, a hypocrite is one who feigns a standard, moral, or belief that he does not actually hold, and may even, in private, act against those professed belief. A hypocrite is, in short, an insincere creature. An example, from the top of my head- would be Tartuffe- he doesn't really believe in the devotion he preaches, and, in private, he is the most lusty and sinful beast imaginable, but in the public's eye and in the eyes of Orgon, he was the most devout creature to ever pray and preach. A man may hold moral beliefs and standards that he doesn't meet, and still not be a hypocrite if he sincerely believe in it himself, and knows he fall short, and sincerely try to live up to it. If you want it put more elegantly, here is what the Great Cham has to say about it:


Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; 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.


A man may be sincere in his belief today, and sincerely move on to another belief- that is not hypocrisy. What make hypocrisy what it is is the insincerity of it all.

Definition aside, you are still wrong to think that everyone behaves so-and-so way. You do not know if everyone truly does or does not 'switch polarities', and you have no proof that they do, nor can you ever prove it, as I said, unless you are able to travel into the depths of every mind that has ever attained existence. It is injudicious to think that everyone follows your pattern and provide no proof or semblence of a proof to that claim, especially on such a topic as the nature of man, his way and pattern of thinking.

Because one's thought is privy to oneself, one can hold moral beliefs, and be sincere about it, but let it have no consequence upon the world, we should, therefore, hold the physical manifestation of moral beliefs, that is, your action, to be higher than good intention, something that exist, warms the cockle of the heart, and, if not acted upon, dies.


Sincerity is your morality. Really? How about being insincere one moment about something and then backing away from that to have sincerity about something else the next? I call that adaptive morality. Now, I am going to point out how you continuously waste your time waxing poetically like a douche. It isn't becoming, nor is it even remotely adult. You love to use your tongue prettier than a $20 hooker, but the truth is, you aren't even fully aware of the world you so naively perceive.

I'll be back. I'm going to go dig up your grandmother...
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/19/11

Half-Bliss wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Pettiness- isn't it grand. I would try to say something witty along the lines of suggesting a sexual laison with one of your kin, along with an insulation that that person engage in sexual activities for capital, but, I like to think I am above such follies.

To the point- No! You are wrong on all accounts- first, a hypocrite is one who feigns a standard, moral, or belief that he does not actually hold, and may even, in private, act against those professed belief. A hypocrite is, in short, an insincere creature. An example, from the top of my head- would be Tartuffe- he doesn't really believe in the devotion he preaches, and, in private, he is the most lusty and sinful beast imaginable, but in the public's eye and in the eyes of Orgon, he was the most devout creature to ever pray and preach. A man may hold moral beliefs and standards that he doesn't meet, and still not be a hypocrite if he sincerely believe in it himself, and knows he fall short, and sincerely try to live up to it. If you want it put more elegantly, here is what the Great Cham has to say about it:


Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; 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.


A man may be sincere in his belief today, and sincerely move on to another belief- that is not hypocrisy. What make hypocrisy what it is is the insincerity of it all.

Definition aside, you are still wrong to think that everyone behaves so-and-so way. You do not know if everyone truly does or does not 'switch polarities', and you have no proof that they do, nor can you ever prove it, as I said, unless you are able to travel into the depths of every mind that has ever attained existence. It is injudicious to think that everyone follows your pattern and provide no proof or semblence of a proof to that claim, especially on such a topic as the nature of man, his way and pattern of thinking.

Because one's thought is privy to oneself, one can hold moral beliefs, and be sincere about it, but let it have no consequence upon the world, we should, therefore, hold the physical manifestation of moral beliefs, that is, your action, to be higher than good intention, something that exist, warms the cockle of the heart, and, if not acted upon, dies.


Sincerity is your morality. Really? How about being insincere one moment about something and then backing away from that to have sincerity about something else the next? I call that adaptive morality. Now, I am going to point out how you continuously waste your time waxing poetically like a douche. It isn't becoming, nor is it even remotely adult. You love to use your tongue prettier than a $20 hooker, but the truth is, you aren't even fully aware of the world you so naively perceive.

I'll be back. I'm going to go dig up your grandmother...


Sincerity is not my 'morality'- though, to be honest, I doubt that that is even grammatically correct...No, I am not saying the sincerity is my perception of 'morality', rather, that you are wrong in your definition of a hypocrite- if a man is sincere in the virtues he is expounding, but does not live up to them, he is not a hypocrite. When a man put on the false mask of virtue, and preach some form of Goodness without sincerely believing it himself, that, then, is hypocrisy. If you do not know what 'hypocrisy' is, you are not qualified to tell us mankind is thus. Being ignorant of the subject, you still insist on assuming man behaves as you believe, with no evidence, scientific or otherwise. Unless you are in full comprehension of what goes through every human mind, which, being bound by a little something known as reality, you do not, you have no business making such unfounded proclamation and applying that to an entire race.

But, what I think being moral is- which is most certainly not sincerity, as you claim, and, if you did read my post, instead of complaining about how ‘poetic’ it is and how it resembles a ‘$20 hooker’- ‘Oh! By th’ Mass, ‘tis like a $20 hooker indeed! And very like a whale too!’- is to do what is good, in so far as it is practical. It’s right there in the last paragraph, that is, if you did me the honour of actually reading my post instead of moaning about, every so often with some petty comment upon my kin. On this last account, I commend you, for your most exemplary example of maturity and adulthood, and I shall strive to emulate you.
Posted 7/19/11

longfenglim wrote:


Half-Bliss wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Pettiness- isn't it grand. I would try to say something witty along the lines of suggesting a sexual laison with one of your kin, along with an insulation that that person engage in sexual activities for capital, but, I like to think I am above such follies.

To the point- No! You are wrong on all accounts- first, a hypocrite is one who feigns a standard, moral, or belief that he does not actually hold, and may even, in private, act against those professed belief. A hypocrite is, in short, an insincere creature. An example, from the top of my head- would be Tartuffe- he doesn't really believe in the devotion he preaches, and, in private, he is the most lusty and sinful beast imaginable, but in the public's eye and in the eyes of Orgon, he was the most devout creature to ever pray and preach. A man may hold moral beliefs and standards that he doesn't meet, and still not be a hypocrite if he sincerely believe in it himself, and knows he fall short, and sincerely try to live up to it. If you want it put more elegantly, here is what the Great Cham has to say about it:


Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; 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.


A man may be sincere in his belief today, and sincerely move on to another belief- that is not hypocrisy. What make hypocrisy what it is is the insincerity of it all.

Definition aside, you are still wrong to think that everyone behaves so-and-so way. You do not know if everyone truly does or does not 'switch polarities', and you have no proof that they do, nor can you ever prove it, as I said, unless you are able to travel into the depths of every mind that has ever attained existence. It is injudicious to think that everyone follows your pattern and provide no proof or semblence of a proof to that claim, especially on such a topic as the nature of man, his way and pattern of thinking.

Because one's thought is privy to oneself, one can hold moral beliefs, and be sincere about it, but let it have no consequence upon the world, we should, therefore, hold the physical manifestation of moral beliefs, that is, your action, to be higher than good intention, something that exist, warms the cockle of the heart, and, if not acted upon, dies.


Sincerity is your morality. Really? How about being insincere one moment about something and then backing away from that to have sincerity about something else the next? I call that adaptive morality. Now, I am going to point out how you continuously waste your time waxing poetically like a douche. It isn't becoming, nor is it even remotely adult. You love to use your tongue prettier than a $20 hooker, but the truth is, you aren't even fully aware of the world you so naively perceive.

I'll be back. I'm going to go dig up your grandmother...


Sincerity is not my 'morality'- though, to be honest, I doubt that that is even grammatically correct...No, I am not saying the sincerity is my perception of 'morality', rather, that you are wrong in your definition of a hypocrite- if a man is sincere in the virtues he is expounding, but does not live up to them, he is not a hypocrite. When a man put on the false mask of virtue, and preach some form of Goodness without sincerely believing it himself, that, then, is hypocrisy. If you do not know what 'hypocrisy' is, you are not qualified to tell us mankind is thus. Being ignorant of the subject, you still insist on assuming man behaves as you believe, with no evidence, scientific or otherwise. Unless you are in full comprehension of what goes through every human mind, which, being bound by a little something known as reality, you do not, you have no business making such unfounded proclamation and applying that to an entire race.

But, what I think being moral is- which is most certainly not sincerity, as you claim, and, if you did read my post, instead of complaining about how ‘poetic’ it is and how it resembles a ‘$20 hooker’- ‘Oh! By th’ Mass, ‘tis like a $20 hooker indeed! And very like a whale too!’- is to do what is good, in so far as it is practical. It’s right there in the last paragraph, that is, if you did me the honour of actually reading my post instead of moaning about, every so often with some petty comment upon my kin. On this last account, I commend you, for your most exemplary example of maturity and adulthood, and I shall strive to emulate you.


Damned right, you will. If not for me, there wouldn't be humanity. That's right. I created you all.

Alas, there isn't a faded chance within a recollection of the dismal hell you know as you existence to be me. There can't even be a vivid dream. Not a heroic fantasy of usurping me from my celestial throne, nor defiling a temple dedicated to my worship. You have nothing but your insipid words. A tongue lashing won't suffice to upend my ship driving through the ether of the cosmos. You failed at every attempt to disprove my omniscience and influence on humanity. Why, I would go so far as to say that your very words are just a curse upon yourself. There wasn't a chance for you in the beginning, because I didn't will it to be so.

I steer the wheel guiding fate. That is what I ordained and you would do best to kneel to my supremacy for mercy. I am morality defined, my son. I am the law.
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / library
Offline
Posted 7/20/11
you don't even know what you're doing is against moral or not.
we don't know whether we should do things morally or not. we want the good things, but in what base do we consider things good?
if there is such thing as moral, consider the moral dilemma, white lie is one of the big thing.
what you're doing is just to satisfy yourself, and to satisfy yourself because you satisfy others.

oh well this is just my one opinion, i have no facts or anything.
Posted 7/20/11

ginkou-san wrote:

you don't even know what you're doing is against moral or not.
we don't know whether we should do things morally or not. we want the good things, but in what base do we consider things good?
if there is such thing as moral, consider the moral dilemma, white lie is one of the big thing.
what you're doing is just to satisfy yourself, and to satisfy yourself because you satisfy others.


oh well this is just my one opinion, i have no facts or anything.
But that can also be seen as the most humane thing to do, like telling someone who's dying that they will be reunited with their loved ones.

And this is where my story starts. When I was a young researcher, doctoral student, my first year I had a research professor who said to us, "Here's the thing, if you cannot measure it, it does not exist." And I thought he was just sweet-talking me. I was like, "Really?" and he was like, "Absolutely." And so you have to understand that I have a bachelor's in social work, a master's in social work, and I was getting my Ph.D. in social work, so my entire academic career was surrounded by people who kind of believed the life's messy, love it. And I'm more of the, life's messy, clean it up, organize it and put it into a bento box. And so to think that I had found my way, to found a career that takes me -- really, one of the big sayings in social work is lean into the discomfort of the work. And I'm like, knock discomfort upside the head and move it over and get all A's. That was my mantra. So I was very excited about this. And so I thought, you know what, this is the career for me, because I am interested in some messy topics. But I want to be able to make them not messy. I want to understand them. I want to hack into these things I know are important and lay the code out for everyone to see.

So where I started was with connection. Because, by the time you're a social worker for 10 years, what you realize is that connection is why we're here. It's what gives purpose and meaning to our lives. This is what it's all about. It doesn't matter whether you talk to people who work in social justice and mental health and abuse and neglect, what we know is that connection, the ability to feel connected, is -- neurobiologically that's how we're wired -- it's why we're here. So I thought, you know what, I'm going to start with connection. Well you know that situation where you get an evaluation from your boss, and she tells you 37 things you do really awesome, and one thing -- an opportunity for growth? And all you can think about is that opportunity for growth, right. Well apparently this is the way my work went as well, because, when you ask people about love, they tell you about heartbreak. When you ask people about belonging, they'll tell you their most excruciating experiences of being excluded. And when you ask people about connection, the stories they told me were about disconnection. (citation)
In scientific pursuit of knowledge and facts, we sacrificed our false sense of security based on superstitions that we believed that were true. But unless we're born sociopaths and/or psychopaths, we're all vulnerable for disconnection. Our rationalization for telling white lies is the prove of it.
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / library
Offline
Posted 7/20/11

DomFortress wrote:


ginkou-san wrote:

you don't even know what you're doing is against moral or not.
we don't know whether we should do things morally or not. we want the good things, but in what base do we consider things good?
if there is such thing as moral, consider the moral dilemma, white lie is one of the big thing.
what you're doing is just to satisfy yourself, and to satisfy yourself because you satisfy others.


oh well this is just my one opinion, i have no facts or anything.


But that can also be seen as the most humane thing to do, like telling someone who's dying that they will be reunited with their loved ones.


then in this case telling white lies follows 'moral', although there are times where you tell someone white lie, and when they realize it they think you give them sympathy they don't like.
there are also beliefs/principles to never tell a lie, which means it's against moral of the belief/principle.

anyway i never think of any of this sht in real life. in other words, being hypocrite xD
Posted 7/21/11

ginkou-san wrote:



then in this case telling white lies follows 'moral', although there are times where you tell someone white lie, and when they realize it they think you give them sympathy they don't like.
there are also beliefs/principles to never tell a lie, which means it's against moral of the belief/principle.

anyway i never think of any of this sht in real life. in other words, being hypocrite xD
Sounds more like mixed messages if you ask me, because genuine sympathetic understanding isn't white lie. While there are those who would patronize with others, in order for them to form superficial and shallow bonds.
196 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / here
Offline
Posted 7/21/11
yup
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/21/11

ginkou-san wrote:

you don't even know what you're doing is against moral or not.
we don't know whether we should do things morally or not. we want the good things, but in what base do we consider things good?
if there is such thing as moral, consider the moral dilemma, white lie is one of the big thing.
what you're doing is just to satisfy yourself, and to satisfy yourself because you satisfy others.

oh well this is just my one opinion, i have no facts or anything.


I do know when I am behaving morally or not base upon this single principle- if what I do is a benefit to others, it is moral, if what I do is harmful to others, it is immoral, and if I do what is neither beneficial or harmful, then it is neutral. Does it really matter who I am satisfying or what dark and nefarious intention I have so long as the result is that which is good to others, even if it is at my expense? All that aside, I am prepared to make this unfounded statement, because most culture share the basic principles of what is good, bad, right, wrong, immoral, moral, &c., despite seperation and independent development of their civilisation, it is therefore innate- unfounded, and the merit of which is still being argued by scientists and philosophers in the relevant fields. Being, as it is, innate, you know what is moral. It is, then, best left up to the individual to decide, for themselves, what is moral and immoral based upon these first principles of morality, and let the world judge them based on the result that decision produces.
Posted 7/21/11


Perfect. This right here. A simple confirmation without any further discussion.
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / library
Offline
Posted 7/21/11

longfenglim wrote:


ginkou-san wrote:

you don't even know what you're doing is against moral or not.
we don't know whether we should do things morally or not. we want the good things, but in what base do we consider things good?
if there is such thing as moral, consider the moral dilemma, white lie is one of the big thing.
what you're doing is just to satisfy yourself, and to satisfy yourself because you satisfy others.

oh well this is just my one opinion, i have no facts or anything.


I do know when I am behaving morally or not base upon this single principle- if what I do is a benefit to others, it is moral, if what I do is harmful to others, it is immoral, and if I do what is neither beneficial or harmful, then it is neutral. Does it really matter who I am satisfying or what dark and nefarious intention I have so long as the result is that which is good to others, even if it is at my expense? All that aside, I am prepared to make this unfounded statement, because most culture share the basic principles of what is good, bad, right, wrong, immoral, moral, &c., despite seperation and independent development of their civilisation, it is therefore innate- unfounded, and the merit of which is still being argued by scientists and philosophers in the relevant fields. Being, as it is, innate, you know what is moral. It is, then, best left up to the individual to decide, for themselves, what is moral and immoral based upon these first principles of morality, and let the world judge them based on the result that decision produces.


did i say im being hypocritical when writing these posts? irrelevant but i just wanted to tell this.

basically what i wanted to point out is how moral is considered objective, when it is actually most people's subjectiveness (or whatever, ppl's opinion, i guess?) that divides moral and immoral things.
so moral is just (a principle that is already there since long) to differentiate your doings, whether it makes yourself and people around you happy.

-and, for text i turned into bold-
but there are times where you want to benefit a certain number of people. for example, sacrificing someone that is quite close to you for the sake of more people. if what you think more is the result (without thinking much about what you're doing) then there would be 3 types: care-based, rule-based, utilitarianism *that example is this*.
therefore it returns to 'is what you're doing considered immoral', when the good thing you did is to satisfy others, but you did it wrong morally.
when you want to do good things to satisfy others, you do it immorally. um, does this considered hypocritical?

and yeah, i agree with the last sentences xD
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / library
Offline
Posted 7/21/11

DomFortress wrote:


ginkou-san wrote:



then in this case telling white lies follows 'moral', although there are times where you tell someone white lie, and when they realize it they think you give them sympathy they don't like.
there are also beliefs/principles to never tell a lie, which means it's against moral of the belief/principle.

anyway i never think of any of this sht in real life. in other words, being hypocrite xD
Sounds more like mixed messages if you ask me, because genuine sympathetic understanding isn't white lie. While there are those who would patronize with others, in order for them to form superficial and shallow bonds.


ah i see. but it's just people's own opinions, sometimes they are just being too sensitive.

i hate that. being close to others with such intentions.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/22/11 , edited 7/22/11


Which is what I am trying to argue against- Morality is indeed objective, in that there is a universal 'right' and 'wrong' based upon its goodness and badness, innate in all humans and independent of of society. The moral disagreement which you describe are usually not a difference in morals (though, sometimes it is, as these tend to rely on artificial morals created by religion and society), difference in opinion on the application of those same set of morals- is it good to push a person to certain death if it saves lives? Each choice is wrong, morally speaking, but if the good is greater than the evil, then, it stands to reason that the lesser evil should be done for the purpose of the greater good. But, which is the greater good? I would go further to say that there is a universal moral that is independent of human and society, which the good is good and bad is bad because it is a in and of itself thus, independent of anything else, and thus, there is a definitive answer to whether your choice was right or wrong, and is reflected in the common morals that exist in every human society, and, I would think, in every person. Therefore, there is one objective and universal rule to morality: what is good, instristically, and what is objectively moral is that which increases the benefit and happiness of others, what is objectively bad is what is worked to the disadvantage and to the ill of others. Thus, we may judge what the action produces and rate it as either good or evil, good being what is that which maximises what is beneficial and minimises what is ill, evil being the contrary. We should be judged based upon this. My intentions for doing good, however you like to think of human nature, should be held outside the result of my actions, as the intention does not affect the effect of the action. But, we are all entitled to freedom of thought, and I am probably wrong.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.