Poor Grasp of the Meaning of Hypocrisy

It is my opinion, which is often flawed, that to support reformative incarceration for convicted murderers while also advocating late term and partial birth abortion is hypocritical. Also, authoring and passing legislation that prevents the use and even production of available energy resources and then claiming the rise in gasoline to be "another failed policy of the current administration" also meets the test for hypocrisy.

Do these meet your definition of that label? Just curious as to how close or distant my logic is.

Glenn

The second one is easier, as it basically amounts to saying "we should do everything we can to get cheap energy" then doing the opposite, so I would agree that it is a hypocritical position.

The second gets more difficult, as those who argue for allowing abortion don't see it as murder, or at least they argue that way. Provided they truly don't see it as murder, it isn't hypocritical, as they think they are not allowing murder by allowing abortion.

Of course, there are huge logical problems with the position, as I argued elsewhere, but looking at it strictly, provided they don't truly believe a baby is alive prior to being fully expelled form the mother (though I am not sure how many truly believe a baby isn't alive when a single toe remains inside) then they aren't hypocritical. They may have very contradictory beliefs, but may not be hypocrites.

But, as I said, the logic is rather bizarre. A premature baby born at 6 months is alive, but a gestating baby at 8 months is not seems a hard argument to make.

And, of course, the argument that "it is just a clump of cells" is a difficult argument to make when the brain and nerves form well before the end of the first trimester, when almost all abortion groups argue abortion should be allowed. (I also wonder about those who claim a gestating baby can't feel pain, as at one time in the past that was the argument for not providing analgesic relief to infants, that children under 1 yr or 6 mos couldn't feel pain, which any parent can tell you is just absurd.)

So, to cut myself short. The second is hypocritical, the first is likely not, though it is filled with many logical problems. (and could be hypocritical if they do not truly believe what they say they do, but telling what someone truly believes is a difficult task.)

Actually, the second may not be hypocritical in one very specific sense.

If the left were saying "We think oil should be expensive, but Bush does not, so the current high prices show the failure of the administration by their own definition."

In that case, it would not be hypocritical. But I have never heard anyone on the left honestly admit they were for high gas prices. They may talk about how high prices help force us to use alternate energy, but when pressed, they have to say they still want low prices, as they are scared of losing votes.

Also, I don't think any politician in office today is sophisticated enough to make that argument, that they disagree with Bush's goals, but by his own terms he is failing. They tend to argue that he is failing by their terms, and that is it, nothing as even modestly complex as the argument I made above.

(Politicians on both sides horribly underestimate the intelligence of the voter and so they always oversimplify, scared a complicated argument will drive off voters. Then again, when a politicians does try to present complex arguments [ eg. Phil Gramm in the 80's] they tend to lose, so maybe underestimating voters isn't such a bad tactic.)

They are all "just words" (so sayeth Councilman Obama)
Words are only a vehicle to express feelings, and (Liberals) feelings change, so the meaning of the (Liberals) words must change also, don't they?

You're onto something there. The left argues that words don't mean what they seem to mean, so they are excused form the consequences of their statements.

They claim that there is no fixed morality, so they cannot be hypocrites, as they stand for nothing.

They constantly tell us we cannot judge them as they stand for nothing definite.

But then I have to ask, if they don't believe in anything specific, why should we elect them? How will we know what they will do once in office? If they don't believe in anything in particular, what makes them better than some random man off the street? At least we know what the random man believes, while the left tells us they cannot be relied upon to do the same thing two days in a row.

Their position makes very little sense if you take them literally.

Now you sir, are on to something. Without a position to be held accountable for, we might as well elect a yellow dog. At least we know the dog will stand on all four legs most of the time and on three legs every so often.

It is one of those questions that bothered me. Just like the question of how people can be too stupid to runt heir own lives, but then can be trusted to elect those who will lead them.