[lolololitics]America not greatest country ever?

[SlayerDragon]

Yeah that's not funny at all. My sister was raped by a bicycle.

 

[haarg]

Well maybe she shouldn't wear such aerodynamic clothing.

 

[Hadmar]

Memes are destroying the country.

 

[Trynant]

Memes are destroying the country.

lol,,

 

[Sir_Brizz]

[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61Qv_8cFFbQ[/m]

 

[213]

What is wrong with unemployment? You do realize that people pay into it, and the employer matches that. Since the Gov is taking it, people should get it back, what they put in to it at least.

By "people" you mean myself included. Now have I ever collected a day of it in my life? No, I have not.

I saw hypocrisy.

I called it out.

Sarcasm seems to be a knee jerk reaction used my people who know they are dead wrong. Everybody started trolling all of a sudden,.. something must have hit a nerve around here.

It answered.

 

[Zer0]

<SkoldVonHumpen> it stirs cum into your butt, not unlike a gay penis

 

[kiff]

holy Uli Jon Roth (german hendrix of the 70's) @ t=40 s

[m]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDNXCIQyd04[/m]

 

[phil]

I am against Unemployment, Social Security and for the most part food stamps as a FORCED tax. However, since we are FORCED to pay into them, we should get our monies worth. Make it an optional tax, not a forced one. They also need to make it easier for the people that actually deserve the money to get it. My mother inlaw was fired for bull**** reasons, but could not get unemployment, despite having paid in to it for 35 years.

Kind of like the fact that the gov increase the gas tax here to improve roads, but then they don't improve them and instead decide to build $615 million in bicycle lanes and improvements for bicycles. They then bitch and moan that they need more money for roads. At least they made an IPhone app for reporting pot holes.

Nothing in this collection of words make a vocal conservative taking unemployment any less hypocritical. You may as well have written a essay on the migration patterns of Canadian Geese and it would have been as much on topic. Now would you like to be intellectually honest or can I point and laugh some more?

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Perhaps you'd like to specify how it's hypocritical to be critical of a service that you use? I guess you've never complained about a fast food restaurant you've eaten at or a grocery store you've shopped at? This isn't hypocritical at all.

 

[dragonfliet]

What? You didn't get the memo that if you disagree with something you shouldn't take advantage of it, even if you are being forced to pay for it?!?!

While there is common sense to your argument, and I understand the point, it removes any sense of righteousness of the argument; it is a rhetorically weak standpoint. Those that are truly ideologically against something will choose to suffer rather than to partake in it. Ie: do you respect a vegetarian who claims that meat is murder, but if presented with no vegetarian options will choose to compromise their beliefs and eat meat rather than suffer from the inconvenience of skipping?

In other words, if you are not willing to suffer for your beliefs, then they are beliefs only lightly held in a superficial way. I do not begrudge a person making use of services they disagree with due to necessity and also to the fact that they have already been enrolled in it against their will, but for anyone to claim that they are truly against it is compromised to a massive degree. It is understandable hypocrisy (and we are all hypocrites about something at some time in our lives), but it is hypocrisy nonetheless.

~Jason

edit:

Perhaps you'd like to specify how it's hypocritical to be critical of a service that you use? I guess you've never complained about a fast food restaurant you've eaten at or a grocery store you've shopped at? This isn't hypocritical at all.

There is a difference between saying that the food isn't that great and still eating it and saying that fast food is a demon in our society that needs to be exorcised and still frequenting Wendys. The argument against these socialist issues isn't that they aren't great and need improved, but rather they need to be completely removed.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

While there is common sense to your argument, and I understand the point, it removes any sense of righteousness of the argument; it is a rhetorically weak standpoint. Those that are truly ideologically against something will choose to suffer rather than to partake in it. Ie: do you respect a vegetarian who claims that meat is murder, but if presented with no vegetarian options will choose to compromise their beliefs and eat meat rather than suffer from the inconvenience of skipping?

In other words, if you are not willing to suffer for your beliefs, then they are beliefs only lightly held in a superficial way. I do not begrudge a person making use of services they disagree with due to necessity and also to the fact that they have already been enrolled in it against their will, but for anyone to claim that they are truly against it is compromised to a massive degree. It is understandable hypocrisy (and we are all hypocrites about something at some time in our lives), but it is hypocrisy nonetheless.

I simply disagree. This is like saying if you were forced to pay $10 a month for a loaf of bread that was delivered to your door, you should not eat the bread out of principle if you disagree with spending the $10. It's a ridiculous position to take. The vegetarian situation just does not compare here, since vegetarians choose their lifestyle. They obviously wouldn't be vegetarians if they were okay with eating meat. So, yes, being outspokenly against using something and then using it would indeed be hypocrisy.

There is a difference between saying that the food isn't that great and still eating it and saying that fast food is a demon in our society that needs to be exorcised and still frequenting Wendys. The argument against these socialist issues isn't that they aren't great and need improved, but rather they need to be completely removed.

Perhaps. I was wrong to compare this situation to fast food in the first place, since the two scenarios are not very close. I don't see how it is hypocritical, though, to use something you pay for even if you think you shouldn't be paying for it. If you think car insurance is a crock, are you supposed to not utilize it when the occasion comes around out of principle, or should you use it since you are already being forced to pay for it?

Nobody here is claiming that they don't use Social Security for x reasons and in the same breath admitting to using Social Security or in private using Social Security (i.e. hypocrisy). We're talking about people disliking something they have to pay for, wishing they didn't have to pay for it, but using it because they already paid for it. Where is the hypocrisy?

 

[dragonfliet]

Nobody here is claiming that they don't use Social Security for x reasons and in the same breath admitting to using Social Security or in private using Social Security (i.e. hypocrisy). We're talking about people disliking something they have to pay for, wishing they didn't have to pay for it, but using it because they already paid for it. Where is the hypocrisy?

I'll just focus on this since it is the most relevant point. There is a difference in saying, for instance, that you feel that the social systems are not effectively handled and need drastic improvement and the argument that socialist systems are undermining our government and need to be completely removed. If you feel that socialist support systems are bleeding our country, then you should not be taking part of that.

It isn't like the money within that will go away if you don't take your part. It is being drained by people taking advantage of it. For instance, people that are morally opposed to liberal nature of the public school system will not enroll their children in said school system, but will instead arrange for homeschool/private school, despite having already paid for said public school.

Any supposed moral opposition while still partaking of the fruits of what you supposedly are against deprives your argument of worth. Again, I understand where you are coming from and yeah, it makes financial sense to compromise your integrity, but if it IS a compromise of integrity--which is why charitable organizations refuse donations for moral/ethical reasons from certain groups they oppose.

~Jason

 

[Zer0]

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I'll just focus on this since it is the most relevant point. There is a difference in saying, for instance, that you feel that the social systems are not effectively handled and need drastic improvement and the argument that socialist systems are undermining our government and need to be completely removed. If you feel that socialist support systems are bleeding our country, then you should not be taking part of that.

It isn't like the money within that will go away if you don't take your part. It is being drained by people taking advantage of it. For instance, people that are morally opposed to liberal nature of the public school system will not enroll their children in said school system, but will instead arrange for homeschool/private school, despite having already paid for said public school.

Any supposed moral opposition while still partaking of the fruits of what you supposedly are against deprives your argument of worth. Again, I understand where you are coming from and yeah, it makes financial sense to compromise your integrity, but if it IS a compromise of integrity--which is why charitable organizations refuse donations for moral/ethical reasons from certain groups they oppose.

We'll just have to agree to disagree with each other on this one, because I don't think you could be more wrong. I also feel like it diminishes the fact that people are concerned about this stuff to practically ignore them if they are so-called "hypocrites" (even though they are not being hypocritical).

Your public school example falls apart when you consider the fact that lots of people are unhappy with public schools who send their children there for a variety of reasons. Why do you think some people are so interested in private school vouchers?

The fact that people are bleeding the system is frustrating, but the fact that money you earn is being allotted to said system literally entitles you to use it if you want to (or need to in the case of some programs). There is nothing wrong with utilizing a service you pay for even if you are critical of it. In my hometown the city runs the electricity utilities. Lots of people are extremely critical of the city for doing this, but that doesn't preclude them from using the service (it's all that is available) and doesn't reduce their integrity or make them hypocrites for using it. The primary problem here is that you're treating a social issue as if it is a philosophical issue, which it's not. It doesn't change who you are to eat the $10 bread just because you're annoyed you have to pay for it and would rather not. It doesn't say anything about your integrity if you hate paying so much for car insurance that you never use if you actually use it once you need it.

 

[dragonfliet]

We'll just have to agree to disagree with each other on this one, because I don't think you could be more wrong. I also feel like it diminishes the fact that people are concerned about this stuff to practically ignore them if they are so-called "hypocrites" (even though they are not being hypocritical).

Your public school example falls apart when you consider the fact that lots of people are unhappy with public schools who send their children there for a variety of reasons. Why do you think some people are so interested in private school vouchers?

The fact that people are bleeding the system is frustrating, but the fact that money you earn is being allotted to said system literally entitles you to use it if you want to (or need to in the case of some programs). There is nothing wrong with utilizing a service you pay for even if you are critical of it. In my hometown the city runs the electricity utilities. Lots of people are extremely critical of the city for doing this, but that doesn't preclude them from using the service (it's all that is available) and doesn't reduce their integrity or make them hypocrites for using it. The primary problem here is that you're treating a social issue as if it is a philosophical issue, which it's not. It doesn't change who you are to eat the $10 bread just because you're annoyed you have to pay for it and would rather not. It doesn't say anything about your integrity if you hate paying so much for car insurance that you never use if you actually use it once you need it.

Agreeing to disagree seems the only way we can conclude this. In my public school example there is a difference between saying that there are problems with the public school system and using it and of saying that the public school system needs to be completely eliminated and still using it. This is not a minor difference. If you preach about how a system should not exist and that it is destroying our country and yet you partake in it, you are a hypocrite. If you feel that the system is flawed and needs to be reworked, that is simply common sense. If you are not willing to sacrifice for your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak.

To use a founding fathers example: one of the rallying cries oft-quoted today is that of the unjust taxes of yore. It wasn't unjust because they was too high, it was unjust because of the way there were levied (the without representation part of the equation). The newly independent Americans paid significantly more in taxes than they did as a British colony, but it was worth the actual sacrifice for the philosophical question.

The difference is that of complaining about segregation on buses and actually not riding on them out of protest. The difference is saying you want the country to be integrated and being willing to take the fire hydrant. While yes, it was impractical of my father to refuse unemployment when he was laid off, it made him a man of integrity to actually make good on his philosophical stance when he could have used the money. So yes, if you have paid into unemployment, you are entitled to its benefits, but if you claim that you are against the entire system, your argument only holds actual weight if, when the time comes that you CAN make use of it, you DON'T.

I'm not saying that people that complain and still take part are bad people (they aren't) or that I respect them less as people (I don't) or that I am somehow immune from committing hypocritical acts (I am not), but they are hypocrites if they believe the system is fundamentally wrong yet they actively reap its benefits when they could simply refuse.

~Jason

 

[Peavey]

Memes are destroying the country.

That's not funny at all. My sister was raped by memes.

 

[Zxanphorian]

Ad nauseam arguments are destroying the country.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

If you preach about how a system should not exist and that it is destroying our country and yet you partake in it, you are a hypocrite.

Except that is wrong. The definition of a hypocrisy is saying you will not do something and then doing it (or proclaiming to not do something and then doing it anyway). All of these examples you've given are of a person unhappy with the existence of something and still using it. It doesn't fit into the definition of hypocrisy at all.

If you are not willing to sacrifice for your beliefs, then your beliefs are weak.

We're not talking about philosophical issues that require "belief". We're talking about social issues which polarize opinion.

To use a founding fathers example: one of the rallying cries oft-quoted today is that of the unjust taxes of yore. It wasn't unjust because they was too high, it was unjust because of the way there were levied (the without representation part of the equation). The newly independent Americans paid significantly more in taxes than they did as a British colony, but it was worth the actual sacrifice for the philosophical question.

How does this apply? Taxation without representation was wrong. They may have sacrificed to form this country and paid more taxes. Examples of sacrifice are great, but they weren't being forced to pay for something that were unhappy with or wanted to eliminate and then made use of its services.

The difference is that of complaining about segregation on buses and actually not riding on them out of protest. The difference is saying you want the country to be integrated and being willing to take the fire hydrant.

Once again, I don't see how these two issues can be compared.

To rein in your example, this is more like saying that the public transportation industry in your area should be eliminated but riding the bus to work every day. There is no hypocrisy there.

While yes, it was impractical of my father to refuse unemployment when he was laid off, it made him a man of integrity to actually make good on his philosophical stance when he could have used the money. So yes, if you have paid into unemployment, you are entitled to its benefits, but if you claim that you are against the entire system, your argument only holds actual weight if, when the time comes that you CAN make use of it, you DON'T.

This is really the rub, I suppose. I simply disagree that refusing to take part in social programs that you've already paid for and that are already available to you is anything but completely self-defeating. The weight of your argument ought to be contained in the validity of your points, not whether you've participated in the things you're complaining about or not.

 

[kiff]

good lord...

it's like saying someone is a hypocrite for buying food when they think food prices are too high. or property taxes are too high, but they drive on public roads.