Get other people/groups to expose the to you apparent hypocrises in their discourse!!

[Buck Birdseed]

You know, we all use language so differently, and come from so different backgrounds. One of the many things this results in is the fact that we all see many things we percieve as hypocricy in other people's ideologies, critical theories or whatever, but that probably make perfect sense to them, using their language, their definitions and their terms.

So, in order to futher human understanding and hopefully to avoid these accusations elsewhere in the near future, here's a little game.

Rules:

I start off by posting what I consider to be a hypocritical position which I percieve is held by some person/group. This may be any type of hypocricy, personal, political, social, critical, you name it.

A person who considers him/herself a member of said group will attempt to explain in one paragraph either why my perception of their position is erroneous, or why it is not hypocritical. That person will also post a position he/she thinks is held by another group of any description, as per above.

There will be no futher debating in this thread. Please start separate threads to debate any issue futher. If you feel any answer is unsatisfactory you may give a one-pragraph answer of your own. However, this does not entitle you to propose a hypocricy, only the first respondent may do so.

No personal attacks. Keep it clean.

Although I'd quite like to start off with something music-related, I can't think of anything, so I'll stick to a good old one to get us started.

Pro-Interventionist Right-Wing Americans: You claim you want to depose Castro, the Cuban dictator, because of the human-rights-abusing, non-democratic nature of his government. However, several key US allies like Uzbekistan and Saudia Arabia have as bad if not worse records in these areas. If it's actually the case that you want to depose Fidel Castro because Cuba is not a US ally and destablises the region, it seems hypocritical to keep on claiming that you're doing it to safeguard Cuban democracy, does it not?

[Inverse Icarus]

did you want the game to end before anyone could respond?

[David Floyd]

Oooh fun game...come on, rightwingers, respond to THAT one

[Goingonit]

You claim you want to depose Castro, the Cuban dictator, because of the human-rights-abusing, non-democratic nature of his government. However, several key US allies like Uzbekistan and Saudia Arabia have as bad if not worse records in these areas. If it's actually the case that you want to depose Fidel Castro because Cuba is not a US ally and destablises the region, it seems hypocritical to keep on claiming that you're doing it to safeguard Cuban democracy, does it not?

I think that some right-wingers also want to eventually overthrow Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, but there's a limit to the number of countries you can overthrow at once.

[Graag]

Cuba is closer and has a history of conniving with Rusia.

[JohnT]

How's this for a brilliant rebuttal?

"You claim you want to depose Castro, the Cuban dictator, because of the human-rights-abusing, non-democratic nature of his government. However, several key US allies like Uzbekistan and Saudia Arabia have as bad if not worse records in these areas. If it's actually the case that you want to depose Fidel Castro because Cuba is not a US ally and destablises the region, it seems hypocritical to keep on claiming that you're doing it to safeguard Cuban democracy, does it not?"

We do? How can you safeguard something that doesn't exist?

Anyway, I thought we were doing it to grab undeveloped oceanfront property.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Graag
Cuba is closer and has a history of conniving with Rusia.

Yeah, thats pretty much it.

Cuba is alot closer to home, so it potentially having a regional destabalization effect would have a much more real impact to the United States.

And of course, in my opinion, the US wants regime change in saudi arabia and Uzbekistan as well, but its just like civ. If you want to eventually take down three countries, you do it one at a time, not all at once.

[David Floyd]

You guys are missing the point, I think. The point seems to be to make one rebuttal, not to debate it, and to post your own view of someone else's hypocrisy

[GeneralTacticus]

Do we have to wait for someone to rebut before bringing up another example?

[Graag]

No talking without first putting up your hand!

[Shi Huangdi]

Fine, I'll bite.

"Pro-Interventionist Right-Wing Americans: You claim you want to depose Castro, the Cuban dictator, because of the human-rights-abusing, non-democratic nature of his government. However, several key US allies like Uzbekistan and Saudia Arabia have as bad if not worse records in these areas. If it's actually the case that you want to depose Fidel Castro because Cuba is not a US ally and destablises the region, it seems hypocritical to keep on claiming that you're doing it to safeguard Cuban democracy, does it not?"

The humans-right-abusing, non-democratic nature of the Cuban government is justification to oppose his regime. The United States would also be moreall justified in opposing the governments of Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. However, it is not in US interests to do so. In some cases it can be highly benefical to support non-democratic regimes. We should support Saudia Arabia because we don't want a pro-Al Qaeda government to take power there, and we should support Uzbekistan because they have been a strong ally in the war on terrorism and is strategically located next to Afghanistan. In a similar vein, we perhaps would have had moral justification to try to undermine the Soviet Union in WWII, but instead it was better to ally with the Soviet Union in that case because Hitler and Tojo were running rampant around the world. Just because you have the justification to do something doesn't mean you should.