The Opposition Thread


So… she doesn’t actually believe politics and shopping should be separate.

I mean… this isn’t normal, but her example isn’t exactly abnormal, especially depending on how one defines an “abortion-rights group”.

This whole discussion is just silly anyway.

You shouldn’t let politics influence your shopping. It’s okay for me to do it for this other political reason though cause my political opinion is more valid than yours because it’s mine.

It’s like Sean Hannity bitching about peaceful protests against the President… when he literally hosted protests against the previous President. It’s the same thing. He doesn’t become less of a hypocrite because he says his opinions and views are valid and yours aren’t when you’re doing the same exact thing, just for different reasons.


She should, except when that conflicts with principles that are more important.

I mean, why is this so complicated? Our own law is hierarchical. State law has to be followed, except when it conflicts with the Constitution. Then it’s thrown out.

That doesn’t mean that laws are hypocritical. They are valid, except when they are superceded by something more important.

I don’t think Taylor would object if you generally keep politics and shopping separate, but make an exception for abortion.

You seem to want to define hypocrisy as “allowing exceptions to your general principles”. But that’s not hypocrisy, in fact it’s often necessary in moral reasoning.


We’re just talking past each other and derailing.

Let’s just let it die.


In that case how would anyone define hypocrisy?

Or is it something we call others? I mean that as a serious question. Has it changed to be something we call others but don’t really mean anything because we cannot even define it.


If you denounce someone who follows your example, then you are a hypocrite.

Crucially, your example is what you actually do. Not how people interpret your behavior, because that interpretation could be mistaken (like in this case).

So if your example is to avoid boycotts except when they involve abortion, then you are a hypocrite if you denounce people who avoid boycotts except when they involve abortion.


Dear god, but not if it’s say Global Warming right… i say that cause I know a few people here on this board, the planet still being around, is clearly at the top if not their top priority.


If people like Taylor don’t make an exception for global warming, that doesn’t mean they are hypocrites. It simply means they are misguided. At least, in my opinion.


This is one of the dumbest conversations ever had.

And Donald Trump talks to human beings every day.


And yet you can’t resist adding to it.


Taylor and yourself need to make an exception for anything someone else deems important… it’s not your job to decide what’s important to someone else. Which means you can’t decide when it’s okay separate shopping from politics or not. You can only decide if that’s an okay response in democratic society, and you both already have whether you want to admit it or not.


Interesting definition.

In that case, hypocrisy is not defined by what you do. But what we think people say and think. By this definition, it is highly probably that nobody would be defined as a hypocrite because we would never know for sure what people think. And we can all change our minds.

In this case: “It’s bad to boycott. Except when it fits my causes.” would never be hypocritical.

Quite interesting. I actually never see it this way.


It’s easy to find examples. For instance, there are adulterous televangelists who denounce adultery, gay legislators who denounce homosexuality, etc.


I would think actually no if we use that definition. If I’m a gay legislator in a monogamous relationship, I can still denounce gays in general. Or whatever reason. I can be in an affair because of “love” but denounce others who commits adultery for lust.

As a hyperbole (to illustrate the point carried to it’s logical conclusion), if I’m a gay in an incentious relationship with my sibling, I can almost denounce all gays. Because the reason I am gay is that I grew up and deeply love my sibling but no one else have that same reason I have.


I don’t think that works. If you denounce gays in general, then you are denouncing monogamous gays too (because monogamous gays is a subset of all gays). Which means you are denouncing your own behavior, regardless of monogamy.

Instead, if I’m a gay legislator in a monogamous relationship, I can specifically denounce gays who are not in a monogamous relationship. That would exclude my own behavior, and therefore is not hypocritical.


[quote=“Nesrie, post:1139, topic:127656”]
Which means you can’t decide when it’s okay separate shopping from politics or not.[/quote]

What do you mean I can’t decide? I already have decided!

I’ve decided it’s okay in most circumstances, but not in specific cases. And what other people think is completely irrelevant to how I shop.

What makes you think I can’t act on that decision?


But isnt that people do? For example “Boycott is bad in general except when you boycott for my reasons.”

The typical denouncation is pronounced on all cases except our own special case(s). What you are suggesting is quite contrary to how people operate.


“Boycott is bad in general except when you boycott for my reasons.” is the same as “I specifically denounce gays who are not in a monogamous relationship”. It is a loophole, which is not the same thing as hypocrisy.

All the cards are on the table. They are walking the talk, even if it’s an odd path to take.

On the contrary, it’s exactly how people normally operate. That’s why we are so astonished by those who manage to live by very inflexible rules, like always telling the truth. In practice, we prefer a degree of moral flexibility.


“I specifically denounce gays who are not in a monogamous relationship”.

Yup. I think it holds to the definition. But nobody talks like this.

And for that reason you cannot just judge anyone who speaks generally because you dont know the specific reasons thay have for doing the same things they denounce.

So when we encounter an adulterous evangelist condemning adultery, we cannot call him out as an hypocrite. Nor can we call a gay legislator for condemning gays.

Using the definition. Only conscious hypocrites who knowingly violate their rationale exist as hypocrites. But in actual fact, nobody would violate their rationale because people change their minds when it suits them. All the time.


I don’t think we are using the same definition of hypocrisy. Like I suggested earlier, it is a mistake to try to infer the specific reasons for a behavior, because it’s usually impossible.

So instead, you compare the behavior itself to the public opinion expressed on that behavior. If you say “Adultery is bad”, then you are a hypocrite if you (unapologetically) engage in any adultery. The reason is irrelevant. Any internal dialogue or justification is equally irrelevant. Behavior, and the public statements regarding the behavior, tell us all we need to know.


I’m using your definition of hypocrisy. But I’m not sure why you seem to deny the logical conclusion.

What I’m saying is that the definition you use will disallow anyone calling anybody a hypocrite, unless you are omniscient. The only hypocrites will be self-admitting hypocrites.

I’m totally ok with it. Definitions are just how we frame our world views.