First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Everyone is a Hypocrite
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / library
Offline
Posted 7/23/11

longfenglim wrote:



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.


yep i agree thank you..... what people consider moral is result which they consider beneficial.
but in the end because people feel pain, sadness, disappointment, depression, etc. the division between moral and immoral is created.
if you were to say we have the right to think in freedom, i think it's not entirely right. pressure of (perhaps) pride, losing, doing the wrong thing....sometimes leaves us with no other choice.
Posted 7/24/11 , edited 7/24/11

ginkou-san wrote:


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.
I think it's more about being so insensitive with their own vulnerabilities, they told white lies of "perfection" and "superiority" just to pretend that they care.

... what are we doing with vulnerability. Why do we struggle with it so much? Am I alone in struggling with vulnerability? No. So this is what I learned. We numb vulnerability -- when we're waiting for the call. It was funny, I sent something out on Twitter and on Facebook that says, "How would you define vulnerability? What makes you feel vulnerable?" And within an hour and a half, I had a 150 responses. Because I wanted to know what's out there. Having to ask my husband for help, because I'm sick, and we're newly married; initiating sex with my husband; initiating sex with my wife; being turned down; asking someone out; waiting for the doctor to call back; getting laid-off; laying-off people -- this is the world we live in. We live in a vulnerable world. And one of the ways we deal with it is we numb vulnerability.

And I think there's evidence -- and it's not the only reason this evidence exists, but I think it's a huge cause -- we are the most in-debt, obese, addicted and medicated adult cohort in U.S. history. The problem is -- and I learned this from the research -- that you cannot selectively numb emotion. You can't say, here's the bad stuff. Here's vulnerability, here's grief, here's shame, here's fear, here's disappointment, I don't want to feel these. I'm going to have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. I don't want to feel these. And I know that's knowing laughter. I hack into your lives for a living. God. You can't numb those hard feelings without numbing the affects, our emotions. You cannot selectively numb. So when we numb those, we numb joy, we numb gratitude, we numb happiness. And then we are miserable, and we are looking for purpose and meaning, and then we feel vulnerable, so then we have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. And it becomes this dangerous cycle.

One of the things that I think we need to think about is why and how we numb. And it doesn't just have to be addiction. The other thing we do is we make everything that's uncertain certain. Religion has gone from a belief in faith and mystery to certainty. I'm right, you're wrong. Shut up. That's it. Just certain. The more afraid we are, the more vulnerable we are, the more afraid we are. This is what politics looks like today. There's no discourse anymore. There's no conversation. There's just blame. You know how blame is described in the research? A way to discharge pain and discomfort. We perfect. If there's anyone who wants their life to look like this it would be me, but it doesn't work. Because what we do is we take fat from our butts and put it in our cheeks. Which just, I hope in a hundred years, people will look back and go, "Wow."

And we perfect, most dangerously, our children. Let me tell you what we think about children. They're hardwired for struggle when they get here. And when you hold those perfect little babies in your hand, our job is not so say, "Look at her, she's perfect. My job is just to keep her perfect -- make sure she makes the tennis team by fifth grade and Yale by seventh grade." That's not our job. Our job is to look and say, "You know what? You're imperfect, and you're wired for struggle, but you are worthy of love and belonging." That's our job. Show me a generation of kids raised like that, and we'll end the problems I think that we see today. We pretend that what we do doesn't have an effect on people. We do that in our personal lives. We do that corporate -- whether it's a bailout, an oil spill, a recall -- we pretend like what we're doing doesn't have a huge impact on other people. I would say to companies, this is not our first rodeo people. We just need you to be authentic and real and say, "We're sorry. We'll fix it."

But there's another way, and I leave you with this. This is what I have found: to let ourselves be seen, deeply seen, vulnerably seen; to love with our whole hearts, even though there's no guarantee -- and that's really hard, and I can tell you as a parent, that's excruciatingly difficult -- to practice gratitude and joy in those moments of terror, when we're wondering, "Can I love you this much? Can I believe in this this passionately? Can I be this fierce about this?" just to be able to stop and, instead of catastrophizing what might happen, to say, "I'm just so grateful, because to feel this vulnerable means I'm alive." And the last, which I think is probably the most important, is to believe that we're enough. Because when we work from a place I believe that says, "I'm enough," then we stop screaming and start listening, we're kinder and gentler to the people around us, and we're kinder and gentler to ourselves.(citation)

Moreover, this psychosocial insensitivity can be seen in a lot of "I-It" impersonal communication style. Which is basically a virtual social networking is all about.

Impersonal communication is a kind of communication that we normally have next to sales persons. It is actually a form of I-It Communication where on earth the person who you are communicating to, is taken as an object.

The interaction is purely based on their social roles. The conversation is superficial and impersonal. It is merely business talk and is limited to bare necessities.(citation)
I mean think about it, what's your social interaction with an impersonal object is like? Well it's a relationship between yourself and a tool, a piece of technology, one that's without its own thoughts and feelings for you to consider and empathize. And as soon as we start treating others as just that, we're dangerously close at becoming one of the three "Dark Triad" antisocial personalities in psychology research: narcissism, machiavellianism, and psychopathy.

In this 4 part series we look at personality types of a different kind, specifically personality types which people would generally define as undesirable. Psychologists have dubbed these personality traits as “The Dark Triad”. The Dark Triad consists of three personality deficiencies Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy.

Narcissists are driven by one motive: dreams of glory. Narcissists flourish when they are facing a difficult challenge, they shine when performance under stress counts the most. However they have little capacity for empathy and the more impaired a person’s ability to consider others, the less healthy their narcissism.

For the Machiavellian the ends justify the means, no matter what human pain he may cause. They tend to be cynically calculating and arrogant, readily behaving in ways that undermine trust and cooperation.

The hallmarks of the Psychopath’s behavior are deceit and reckless disregard for others. The Psychopath also lacks empathy and are completely indifferent to the emotional pain others may suffer because of his actions.

To varying degrees, all three personality types entail a dark, interpersonally destructive character with tendencies toward grandiosity, emotional callousness, manipulation and dominance. Psychopaths and Machiavellians have high self- esteem, and are charming and fun but psychopaths are also impulsive and cunning. Narcissists are grandiose and have high self esteem, and may also be intellectually gifted.

A common theme that underlies The Dark Triad is a preoccupation with dominance and power. The problem with this preoccupation with power is that it suppresses the development of empathy. When empathy is not practiced, it diminishes. We are designed this way because assertion of dominance often necessitates overt or covert aggression. Can we be aggressive towards someone we have empathy for? Of course not, thus the most loving people are the least aggressive and the least domineering.(citation)
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / library
Offline
Posted 7/24/11

DomFortress wrote:


ginkou-san wrote:


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.
I think it's more about being so insensitive with their own vulnerabilities, they told white lies of "perfection" and "superiority" just to pretend that they care.


in the case i told you, it is where the person who told the white lie is not wrong (he's only trying to help the other, anyways good intentions), where the person who is told the white lie is the one who misunderstood.
then the paradox of insensitive and sensitive can be said at the same time in this case, where the person who misunderstood is insensitive with their own vulnerabilities, and being sensitive to just point people that they pity the guy.

....i don't know if that makes sense... i was kind of 'bubbly', couldn't write it through sorry.
Posted 7/24/11

ginkou-san wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


ginkou-san wrote:


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.
I think it's more about being so insensitive with their own vulnerabilities, they told white lies of "perfection" and "superiority" just to pretend that they care.


in the case i told you, it is where the person who told the white lie is not wrong (he's only trying to help the other, anyways good intentions), where the person who is told the white lie is the one who misunderstood.
then the paradox of insensitive and sensitive can be said at the same time in this case, where the person who misunderstood is insensitive with their own vulnerabilities, and being sensitive to just point people that they pity the guy.

....i don't know if that makes sense... i was kind of 'bubbly', couldn't write it through sorry.
However pity isn't the same as genuine compassion.

But compassion, from my vantage point, has a problem. As essential as it is across our traditions, as real as so many of us know it to be in particular lives, the word "compassion" is hollowed out in our culture, and it is suspect in my field of journalism. It's seen as a squishy kumbaya thing. Or it's seen as potentially depressing. Karen Armstrong has told what I think is an iconic story of giving a speech in Holland and, after the fact, the word "compassion" was translated as pity.

Now compassion, when it enters the news, too often comes in the form of feel-good feature pieces or sidebars about heroic people you could never be like or happy endings or examples of self-sacrifice that would seem to be too good to be true most of the time. Our cultural imagination about compassion has been deadened by idealistic images. And so what I'd like to do this morning for the next few minutes is perform a linguistic resurrection. And I hope you'll come with me on my basic premise that words matter, that they shape the way we understand ourselves, the way we interpret the world and the way we treat others.(citation)
Posted 7/26/11

DomFortress wrote:


ginkou-san wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


ginkou-san wrote:


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.
I think it's more about being so insensitive with their own vulnerabilities, they told white lies of "perfection" and "superiority" just to pretend that they care.


in the case i told you, it is where the person who told the white lie is not wrong (he's only trying to help the other, anyways good intentions), where the person who is told the white lie is the one who misunderstood.
then the paradox of insensitive and sensitive can be said at the same time in this case, where the person who misunderstood is insensitive with their own vulnerabilities, and being sensitive to just point people that they pity the guy.

....i don't know if that makes sense... i was kind of 'bubbly', couldn't write it through sorry.
However pity isn't the same as genuine compassion.

But compassion, from my vantage point, has a problem. As essential as it is across our traditions, as real as so many of us know it to be in particular lives, the word "compassion" is hollowed out in our culture, and it is suspect in my field of journalism. It's seen as a squishy kumbaya thing. Or it's seen as potentially depressing. Karen Armstrong has told what I think is an iconic story of giving a speech in Holland and, after the fact, the word "compassion" was translated as pity.

Now compassion, when it enters the news, too often comes in the form of feel-good feature pieces or sidebars about heroic people you could never be like or happy endings or examples of self-sacrifice that would seem to be too good to be true most of the time. Our cultural imagination about compassion has been deadened by idealistic images. And so what I'd like to do this morning for the next few minutes is perform a linguistic resurrection. And I hope you'll come with me on my basic premise that words matter, that they shape the way we understand ourselves, the way we interpret the world and the way we treat others.(citation)


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
u guys are hypocrites
its part of being human.
now.
i summarized everything in almost 4 sentences ;D <33333
Posted 7/26/11

lce_Cubet25 wrote:



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
u guys are hypocrites
its part of being human.
now.
i summarized everything in almost 4 sentences ;D <33333
How so? Without yourself overgeneralizing with grandiosity, how's your claim even true? Just what's so contradicting with my statement that makes me a hypocrite?
Posted 7/26/11

lce_Cubet25 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


lce_Cubet25 wrote:



AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
u guys are hypocrites
its part of being human.
now.
i summarized everything in almost 4 sentences ;D <33333
How so? Without yourself overgeneralizing with grandiosity, how's your claim even true? Just what's so contradicting with my statement that makes me a hypocrite?


im not talking about ur stupid statement im talking about ur LIFE
you're telling me u never contradicted urself? bullshiiiiiitttt
But my life wasn't the topic of debate, while you're only rebuking my person with your overgeneralizing blanket statement, but not my statement. Therefore not only that your prejudice is irrelevant, you're also disrespecting me as a person, while you're projecting a false sense of superiority complex with your anonymity. Thus you're making yourself a hypocrite with your malicious intent, when you're shaming and blaming others who you perceive to be just like yourself.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/26/11 , edited 7/26/11


Well, please define 'hypocrite', provide proof that they are hypocrites, and that hypocrisy is something inherent in the human condition, otherwise, your statement is just as valid as me saying, 'Anyone who isn't a Gooblstooni is a Joosrlsl'.
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / library
Offline
Posted 7/27/11


that's true. ... even though many people have theories and knowledge, only few have the ability (or......the ultimate word is enlightenment) to take 'the true' 'what is considered right and beneficial' actions.
in the end, people who only think about how they are thinking smartly are obvious hypocrites. (me.)
media..... that's sort of other business, but that really change the society...
Posted 7/27/11

longfenglim wrote:



Well, please define 'hypocrite', provide proof that they are hypocrites, and that hypocrisy is something inherent in the human condition, otherwise, your statement is just as valid as me saying, 'Anyone who isn't a Gooblstooni is a Joosrlsl'.


there you go you just verified my statement <3
and go read OP's statement too while ur at it too will you?
im not about to go read or get to know him to answer exactly how he is one
maybe u can do that since u wanna know so bad
Posted 7/27/11 , edited 7/27/11

ginkou-san wrote:



that's true. ... even though many people have theories and knowledge, only few have the ability (or......the ultimate word is enlightenment) to take 'the true' 'what is considered right and beneficial' actions.
in the end, people who only think about how they are thinking smartly are obvious hypocrites. (me.)
media..... that's sort of other business, but that really change the society...
In more ways than you would imagine, when "The Medium is the Message", our social environment is collectively dictated by our cultures.

McLuhan defines medium for us as well. Right at the beginning of Understanding Media, he tells us that a medium is "any extension of ourselves." Classically, he suggests that a hammer extends our arm and that the wheel extends our legs and feet. Each enables us to do more than our bodies could do on their own. Similarly, the medium of language extends our thoughts from within our mind out to others. Indeed, since our thoughts are the result of our individual sensory experience, speech is an "outering" of our senses - we could consider it as a form of reversing senses - whereas usually our senses bring the world into our minds, speech takes our sensorially-shaped minds out to the world.

But McLuhan always thought of a medium in the sense of a growing medium, like the fertile potting soil into which a seed is planted, or the agar in a Petri dish. In other words, a medium - this extension of our body or senses or mind - is anything from which a change emerges. And since some sort of change emerges from everything we conceive or create, all of our inventions, innovations, ideas and ideals are McLuhan media.

Thus we have the meaning of "the medium is the message:" We can know the nature and characteristics of anything we conceive or create (medium) by virtue of the changes - often unnoticed and non-obvious changes - that they effect (message.) McLuhan warns us that we are often distracted by the content of a medium (which, in almost all cases, is another distinct medium in itself.) He writes, "it is only too typical that the "content" of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium." And it is the character of the medium that is its potency or effect - its message. In other words, "This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves - result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology."

Why is this understanding of "the medium is the message" particularly useful? We tend to notice changes - even slight changes (that unfortunately we often tend to discount in significance.) "The medium is the message" tells us that noticing change in our societal or cultural ground conditions indicates the presence of a new message, that is, the effects of a new medium. With this early warning, we can set out to characterize and identify the new medium before it becomes obvious to everyone - a process that often takes years or even decades. And if we discover that the new medium brings along effects that might be detrimental to our society or culture, we have the opportunity to influence the development and evolution of the new innovation before the effects becomes pervasive. As McLuhan reminds us, "Control over change would seem to consist in moving not with it but ahead of it. Anticipation gives the power to deflect and control force."(citation)
Furthermore, it can very well be the social environmental ends all to our genetic expressions, thus our temperament/attitude/personality.

CONAN: You argue in the book - and you've presented it here - how obviously, you know, this shows how relationships can affect our brain and our cells. You talked about the monkey's arm, if you will.

Dr. GOLEMAN: Yes.

CONAN: How does it affect our DNA?

Dr. GOLEMAN: Well, this is rather surprising. It turns out that they're documenting now that at least two effects from social interactions to genes. And the surprise for most people is that how you turn out behaviorally is not just determined by the genes you're born with; more critical is whether they express themselves or not. Many genes we have never express themselves. We may as well not have them.

And genes are designed to be acted on by the environment. This is a new understanding called epigenetics. And newer still is social epigenetics, that certain genes, particularly for social behavior, are designed to be acted on by relationships. So if you have parents who are empathetic, responsive, who pay attention to you and know how you're feeling and act accordingly, help you recover from distress, it actually seems to affect the gene expression for your resilience. Resilience means how quickly you recover when you get upset from stress. So that's one pathway that's being identified.

Another has to do with people who are under unremitting stress, who are the only person caring for a severely disabled family member, for example. And they've found there a shortening in what's called a tele-mirror(ph) genes. The tele-mirror is the tail(ph) that shows how many times more this gene can divide after which it ceases to function. So it seems to show an impact from social stress to the life of certain genes. So this suggests a very profound level at which relationships can affect us, which is quite a surprise. I was surprised when I found out about it.(citation)
Because we're approaching to that social disconnection among the cyber-space really fast.

So the important question, I think, is not this debate over whether the Internet is going to help the good guys more than the bad guys. Of course, it's going to empower whoever is most skilled at using the technology and best understands the Internet in comparison with whoever their adversary is. The most urgent question we need to be asking today is how do we make sure that the Internet evolves in a citizen-centric manner. Because I think all of you will agree that the only legitimate purpose of government is to serve citizens. And I would argue that the only legitimate purpose of technology is to improve our lives, not to manipulate or enslave us.

So the question is, we know how to hold government accountable. We don't necessarily always do it very well, but we have a sense of what the models are, politically and institutionally, to do that. How do you hold the sovereigns of cyberspace accountable to the public interest when most CEO's argue that their main obligation is to maximize shareholder profit?

And government regulation often isn't helping all that much. You have situations, for instance, in France where president Sarkozy tells the CEO's of Internet companies, "We're the only legitimate representatives of the public interest." But then he goes and champions laws like the infamous three strikes law that would disconnect citizens from the Internet for file sharing, which has been condemned by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression as being a disproportionate violation of citizens' right to communications, and has raised questions amongst civil society groups about whether some political representatives are more interested in preserving the interests of the entertainment industry than they are in defending the rights of their citizens. And here in the United Kingdom there's also concern over a law called the Digital Economy Act that's placing more onus on private intermediaries to police citizen behavior.

So what we need to recognize is that if we want to have a citizen-centric Internet in the future, we need a broader and more sustained Internet freedom movement. After all, companies didn't stop polluting groundwater as a matter of course, or employing 10 year-olds as a matter of course, just because executives woke up one day and decided it was the right thing to do. It was the result of decades of sustained activism, shareholder advocacy and consumer advocacy. Similarly, governments don't enact intelligent environmental and labor laws just because politicians wake up one day. It's the result of very sustained and prolonged political activism that you get the right regulations, and that you get the right corporate behavior. We need to make the same approach with the Internet.

We also are going to need political innovation. 800 years ago, approximately, the barons of England decided that the divine right of kings was no longer working for them so well, and they forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, which recognized that even the king who claimed to have divine rule still had to abide by a basic set of rules. This set off a cycle of what we can call political innovation, which led eventually to the idea of consent of the governed -- which was implemented for the first time by that radical revolutionary government in America across the pond. So now we need to figure out how to build consent of the networked.(citation)
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/28/11

lce_Cubet25 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Well, please define 'hypocrite', provide proof that they are hypocrites, and that hypocrisy is something inherent in the human condition, otherwise, your statement is just as valid as me saying, 'Anyone who isn't a Gooblstooni is a Joosrlsl'.


there you go you just verified my statement <3
and go read OP's statement too while ur at it too will you?
im not about to go read or get to know him to answer exactly how he is one
maybe u can do that since u wanna know so bad


Well, actually, I already had a discussion on that particular subject with the OP- and it is all there for you to see. Now, I don't particularly care if they are hypocrites and, even if I were, I would never go out of my way to verify their hypocrisy, which is why I refrain from throwing around that word at anyone and everyone, you, on the other hand, are pleased to say that all men are hypocrites, without giving a solid definition of what is and is not hypocrisy and any solid evidence that it is part of 'being human'.

First, let us observe the definition of hypocrisy, as defined by the dictionaries:


hypocrisy- n.
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
-OED

Hypocrisy- n.
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.
-Merriam Webster


Next, let's observe if they fall into this category:

DomFortress, and ginkou-san, as far as I am aware, do not seem to be 'practising the art of claiming to have a higher standard or more noble belief than is the case'- if they were, I wouldn't know, I have not ever met them, nor have I the ability to read minds.

Then, let's try to apply that definition to the whole race of humans:

If DomFortress and Ginkou-san are not hypocrites- at least, cannot be verified to be hypocrites, and they are humans, then, it stand to reason, not every person is a hypocrite, and it is not something inherent in humankind.
Posted 7/28/11

longfenglim wrote:


lce_Cubet25 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Well, please define 'hypocrite', provide proof that they are hypocrites, and that hypocrisy is something inherent in the human condition, otherwise, your statement is just as valid as me saying, 'Anyone who isn't a Gooblstooni is a Joosrlsl'.


there you go you just verified my statement <3
and go read OP's statement too while ur at it too will you?
im not about to go read or get to know him to answer exactly how he is one
maybe u can do that since u wanna know so bad


Well, actually, I already had a discussion on that particular subject with the OP- and it is all there for you to see. Now, I don't particularly care if they are hypocrites and, even if I were, I would never go out of my way to verify their hypocrisy, which is why I refrain from throwing around that word at anyone and everyone, you, on the other hand, are pleased to say that all men are hypocrites, without giving a solid definition of what is and is not hypocrisy and any solid evidence that it is part of 'being human'.

First, let us observe the definition of hypocrisy, as defined by the dictionaries:


hypocrisy- n.
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
-OED

Hypocrisy- n.
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.
-Merriam Webster


Next, let's observe if they fall into this category:

DomFortress, and ginkou-san, as far as I am aware, do not seem to be 'practising the art of claiming to have a higher standard or more noble belief than is the case'- if they were, I wouldn't know, I have not ever met them, nor have I the ability to read minds.

Then, let's try to apply that definition to the whole race of humans:

If DomFortress and Ginkou-san are not hypocrites- at least, cannot be verified to be hypocrites, and they are humans, then, it stand to reason, not every person is a hypocrite, and it is not something inherent in humankind.


Lookit you putting words in my mouth MEN huh? did i ever say that? no i didnt so stfu
the fact they are here showing themselves as NOT hypocrites & then priding themselves in it is evidence enough
and u just contradicted urself dumbass lololol its funny
first its inherent
then its not
make up ur mind will you and go read OP
everyone's been a hypocryite at least once in thier lifes thats MY point
read will you? READ, im not talking about the staged statements here
Peace~
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / library
Offline
Posted 7/28/11

lce_Cubet25 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


lce_Cubet25 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Well, please define 'hypocrite', provide proof that they are hypocrites, and that hypocrisy is something inherent in the human condition, otherwise, your statement is just as valid as me saying, 'Anyone who isn't a Gooblstooni is a Joosrlsl'.


there you go you just verified my statement <3
and go read OP's statement too while ur at it too will you?
im not about to go read or get to know him to answer exactly how he is one
maybe u can do that since u wanna know so bad


Well, actually, I already had a discussion on that particular subject with the OP- and it is all there for you to see. Now, I don't particularly care if they are hypocrites and, even if I were, I would never go out of my way to verify their hypocrisy, which is why I refrain from throwing around that word at anyone and everyone, you, on the other hand, are pleased to say that all men are hypocrites, without giving a solid definition of what is and is not hypocrisy and any solid evidence that it is part of 'being human'.

First, let us observe the definition of hypocrisy, as defined by the dictionaries:


hypocrisy- n.
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
-OED

Hypocrisy- n.
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.
-Merriam Webster


Next, let's observe if they fall into this category:

DomFortress, and ginkou-san, as far as I am aware, do not seem to be 'practising the art of claiming to have a higher standard or more noble belief than is the case'- if they were, I wouldn't know, I have not ever met them, nor have I the ability to read minds.

Then, let's try to apply that definition to the whole race of humans:

If DomFortress and Ginkou-san are not hypocrites- at least, cannot be verified to be hypocrites, and they are humans, then, it stand to reason, not every person is a hypocrite, and it is not something inherent in humankind.


Lookit you putting words in my mouth MEN huh? did i ever say that? no i didnt so stfu
the fact they are here showing themselves as NOT hypocrites & then priding themselves in it is evidence enough
and u just contradicted urself dumbass lololol its funny
first its inherent
then its not
make up ur mind will you and go read OP
everyone's been a hypocryite at least once in thier lifes thats MY point
read will you? READ, im not talking about the staged statements here
Peace~


i did say im a hypocrite as im writing these posts, however what im writing is just my opinion based on my logic, my way of thinking =S
im not pointing at certain anyone whether they are hypocrites or not, if you'd read my posts.

if you don't agree with our posts (what you did in the first place) if you'd please verify your points, how our posts make you think that we're hypocrites, just through our words. what did you see in our opinions that makes you think that we're hypocrites?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 7/28/11


Yes, yes you did say that all men are hypocrites-

u guys are hypocrites
its part of being human.

But, beside that, you still have not offered any proof to your statement, then accuse me of hypocrisy- then you ramble on in some strange, half-formed monstrosity, written with a general indifference to both grammar and spelling, about how everyone has, at least once in their life, been a 'hypocryite'- which is a completely unverified statement, backed by no evidence, meaning your argument holds about as much weight as my previous statement, 'He who is not a Gooblstooni is a Joosrlsl'.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.