Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

This should be merged

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with deceit, the occult, etc. --LiteratiChamp 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the characters they play a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in The Bunker he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? PortlyMort 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? Karajou 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:

"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"

That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. Karajou 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

It seems that stuff like that belongs in this article more than what characters they play do. Though one should be hesitant to classify as a hypocrite anyone who is critical of reliance on oil and who drives a car. It is very difficult for most people to get by without some sort of car, and impossible for them not to consume oil in some form. Owning a car while being an advocate for alternative energy isn't really hypocritical unless the car is a Hummer or some other such gas-guzzler. As for PETA, their anti-meat stance is pretty well documented. They stressed the dolphins because people are much more sympathetic to the plight of dolphins than to the tuna they put in their sandwiches. And it sort of worked, there were tuna boycotts, at least for a time. PortlyMort 14:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

The point of this is to illustrate the fact that many of these people refuse to practice what they preach. I've never accepted the passes these people give themselves to justify what they do while condemning others for the same things. If, for example, the man who drives the gas miser protests the man driving the gas guzzler, by what pass does the man in the gas miser get? He's still polluting; it may be less pollution, but it's still pollution. And PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill; they picked dolphins (which are cute) over tuna (which are tasty); both are still animals. Karajou 07:39, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not buying this argument. By merely existing one is going to contribute some pollution to the environment. I suppose the most ecological sound action a person can take is to kill himself and take as many people as possible with him, in an environmentally friendly manner (ie no nuking). Are we to believe that the only people who have a right to take a stand against pollution are mass murderer/suicides? Anyone who takes a stand against pollution and makes a conserted effort to meaningfully reduce the pollution he causes is not a hypocrite (note I say reduce, not eliminate, which would be impossible). Now, whether Al Gore really does as much as he should is somewhat doubtful. Is a person critical of loss of American jobs to China and such countries a hypcrite if they at some point in their life buy a good made in China (and it must be nearly impossible not to these days)? Is a conservative critical of Disney's "gay friendly" policies a hypocrite if at some point in their lives they spend $1 on something made by one of Disney's many subsidiaries? You also say "PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill", but PETA has never endorsed the killing of tuna. I'd bet you can find some hypocracy within the organiztion (and certainly among some of its members), but that's not an example. They made an issue of the dolphins because they knew it was an issue that registered with people. And since their drive to make everyone a vegetarian is doomed to failure, they picked a battle they thought they could win. Is a Christian charity that helps victims of poverty in India hypocritical for not doing the same for people in Namibia? Are they "picking and choosing" which people to save and which to let die? There are plenty of hypocrites out there, why use such bad examples? PortlyMort 15:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --9820 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree. There have been conservatives who have behaved in a hypocritical manner, much to the dismay of the country. I can give two examples of US Congressman, both of which are charged with making (and obeying) the laws on the books, and both of which broke those laws. One, Duke Cunningham of San Diego, was sent to the slammer for bribery, and the other (I forgot his name), a South Dakota representative, was given ten years for manslaughter because he felt he could speed on the highway when he ran down someone on a motorcycle. Karajou 07:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the movie quotes. They just plain were not relevent. It's a stupid as saying "Cloony supports stealing cause he wsa in oceans 11". Tesfan 11:51, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I also removed the following, because if you do not count the silly movie quotes, then there is no hypocrisy:

The quotes were put back. Karajou 12:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Why? Tesfan 12:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The answer to "why" is clearly listed above. Karajou 12:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting

Karajou, I was drafting a short edit when you protected the page; It's intellectually dishonest to claim Al Gore is hypocrtical in his energy use if you fail to mention his practicing carbon offsetting. Suggesting that he's hypocritical for attacking Big Oil and promoting fighting global warming while he still uses jets and has a large house is simply a strawman. If you'd really like, I will gladly enumerate some reasons why. However, in the meantime, I strongly advise you re-draft the criticism of Al Gore to mention his carbon offsetting. You can disagree that this practice is of the same value as the pollution he creates with his activity, but you can't simply dismiss it entirely. Stryker 12:34, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Explain carbon offsetting Karajou 12:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Carbon offsetting is the principle that you can augment behavior that pollutes the atmosphere by adopting and expressly practicing behaviors that reduce pollution. For instance, growing up, my family would plant trees and help rebuild forested areas, and many other people will do this because each tree will statistically reduce a certain amount of CO2 in the air over a period of time. Many wealthier people will also help fund the development of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar farms, which also help offset the carbon dioxide emissions they produce.

Simply put, celebrities such as Gore simply cannot avoid some of the emissiosn they produce. He is obligated to speak at certain forums, and there is no way he can make those speeches if he doesn't fly. To my knowledge, however, he doesn't usually use commercial airliners, preferring smaller, cleaner private jets. As for his house, the statistics on its energy usage are usually derived from stock figures on how much it costs to heat, cool, and light a house of the size. To my knowledge, again, he offsets these by not heating/cooling the entire building, using newer LED and other light teechnologies to reduce that energy usage, and also supplements the energy with renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. This is all in addition to buying Carbon Credits, funding re-forestation, and funding the development of renewable energy sources. Stryker 12:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I figured carbon offsetting would be just another pass. Man drives a car 10 hours a day, feels bad he's polluting, gets a tree, plants it in the ground. Does he reduce his driving to five hours a day, thereby reducing the pollution, or is he going to rely on that tree to "off-set" the carbon he continues to generate? Give us all a break, Stryker. If you really and seriously don't want to pollute, toss away your car keys and never drive again. Tell Gore to stay off the plane. Tell your next-door neighbor to toss his cigarette butts in the garbage can and not on the street. Karajou 12:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Just a side note to add: contrary to popular conception, planting a tree does not actually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A material balance over the life and death of a tree shows that the net change in CO₂ must be 0, otherwise conservation of mass is violated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate :) Jazzman831 13:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

So you're just going to denigrate him like that? Listen to yourself and think about what you're saying. Some pollution is unavoidable; if you're in the position that Gore is in, that's especially so. I highly doubt he could reduce his carbon emissions any moreso than he's done already. Tell Gore to stay off the plane? I could tell you to turn off the computer to reduce the energy that you're consuming. Obviously, it's an unavoidable energy and carbon expense.

I'm at a loss why my fellow Conservatives are so vehmently opposed towards the environmental movement. Is it because it was fathered during the Progressive Movement? If so, then that's a pretty cruddy reason. With the exception of groups that take it WAY too far (I would never support those groups that encourage people to become vegans or BS like that; it accomplishes nothing), the environmental movement benefits everyone. Cleaner air improves health; anyone who lived in LA and has moved elsewhere in the country can attest to that. Investing in energy efficient lightbulbs and appliances helps save money; my monthly electrical bills over the past two years can attest to that.

Carbon Crediting and Offsetting is something that was established under the Kyoto Protocol as a means to curb global greenhouse gas emissions while attempting to cut back on the economic impact that those limits would impose on industrial nations. It's obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best system that's been devised to date. Just because you don't see the sense in it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; this decade's insane ENSO conditions and odd climate anomalies should speak for themselves.

If you don't want to participate in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, then fine; the rest of us won't mind doing a bit extra to cover your expenses. But don't assassinate those who are trying to come up with practical ways to solve this problem. We don't need to fear Gore - he's not running for President! Stryker 13:08, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for bringing up Kyoto, and the obligations of the signatory countries, specifically Spain. Just a few very short years ago, an oil tanker sent a mayday, yet Spain, a member of Kyoto, refused to tow the ship into port. Why? They didn't want to pollute their harbor with a little oil. So they let the ship sink at sea, which sent a lot of oil on their beaches. That's an example of hypocrisy their: stating they won't pollute, yet refusing to stop pollution when they had the chance. Thanks for reminding me to include it in the article! Karajou 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Couple of points/comments

I certainly agree that liberals can be hypocrites (and just as much so as any other person) but I have to say that some of these examples are weak. There are good examples of liberal hypocrites (like rich Senator Kennedy who campaigns for raising the minimum wage for the poor while guiltlessly taking money from those same people in the form of a government salary) but we need to be very careful about those examples we choose to highlight. People view these sorts of pages with an extra critical eye and use them as evidence against us if they aren't good enough.

• Currently, the examples of George Cloony and Mark Wahlburg don't actually show any hypocracy. There must be two actions to show hypocracy and both of those examples show one action. If you think they are hypocrites because of the movies they are in (and this is a very, very weak argument) at least show an example of a movie where they endorsed guns.
• The O'Donnel, Brady, and Gore examples are excellent. And frightening. But they clearly demonstrate how those individuals are being hypocritical.
• If something "speaks for itself" then it shouldn't be very hard to just say it on the article. Without investing time into analyzing the links myself, I have no idea how Kerry is being hypocritical. And if I wanted to do my own research, I wouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopedia!
• Finally, a suggestion: could Greenpeace's insistance on safe, clean, domestic fuel, while at the same time railing against our cleanest, safest and most energy efficient fuel source (nuclear energy) be considered hypocritical?

In Greenpeace's case, it is their specific protest against oil drilling by sailing their vessels to oil drilling platforms at sea. The vessels they use are powered by the same oil and/or gas being produced by those platforms. Think about it. Do you go to the corner gas station and protest them, yet still expect to fill your tank up while your there? Karajou 13:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

No no, I agree with the picture, and I find it rather funny. I was just saying that I additionally find it hypocritical of them to boycott the only practical solution to their problem. Jazzman831 13:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

"Do As I Say (Not As I Do)"

National Review had an article on Peter Schewizer's book, "Do As I Say( Not As I Do)", which documents hypocrisy by liberals. He shows alot of liberal hyprocrisy in this article. For instance, on Nancy Pelosi's union policy, he states:

"Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this."

He also shows hypocrisy in a lot of other liberals like Michael Moore, Hillery Clinton, Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, etc. You might want to check out this article. Hope this helps, --Tash 13:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, it does help. I also have Al Franken's assitance via a book titled Pants on Fire. Feel free to add in! Karajou 13:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

More on Clooney and Wahlberg

The following information should be added to the sections on George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Clooney says that he is against war, but starred in the movie Three Kings where he played a soldier fighting in the Gulf War. Anti-gun zealot Mark Wahlberg also starred in this same film.--Conservateur 15:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Movies aren't real. *sigh* --Bucklesman 20:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)