(11-14-2017 06:07 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:56 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I won't disagree with you statement but you also have to consider that conservatives have ALWAYS claimed the moral high ground so they should be held to a higher standard.

Higher standard? As in asking 14 year old on a date is worse then raping an actress?

Man, I need some liberal get out of jail free cards.

(11-14-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Liberals have always ( if you believe what we read on this forum) been the segment of society who embraces the gays and the lezbos and transvestites.

Also embraces feminism, how'z thatta workin' out with all these sexual assault and pedophilia allegations?

(11-14-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The conservatives however are supposed to be God fearing people who believe in marriage and the Bible and prayer in schools.

Not me. But, point made.

(11-14-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So when they get their hands dirty, it's always going to be more scandalist.

Considering generic "conservative / religious' values I'll admit that there is a fair bit of schadenfreude when the local pastor is caught diddling the alter boy, but it doesn't make it worse then when casting directors bed underage actresses. And now, that liberal Hollywood dirty laundry is being aired and it is just as bad.

Let me be clear. These crimes, if they are in fact true, are terrible on both sides.

I'm talking only about the optics.

Not all conservatives are God fearing people so they should not be held to a higher standing.
Not all people who claim to be God-fearing actually are
All people, whether God-fearing or not mess up
Not all conservatives are homophobic, racist or Islamaphobic (sp)
Rapists/pedophiles are scum whether they are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat

We have too strong of a tendency to paint groups of people with such a broad brush today, that dialogue and the sharing of honest accurate information has become impossible. And we are all worse off because of it.

People love to hold Christians to a standard of having to be perfect and justify it by pointing to their religion.

But the bible teaches just the opposite, that ALL men are sinners, Christians included. The difference is believers actually admit and confess their sins, and actively struggle to remove sins from their lives. But NO ONE is without sin. NO ONE.

Now that does not excuse or hide from people who are proven to be gross hypocrites, but secularists love to practice their own form of bigotry and lay these things at the feet of all believers while holding them to absurd and unfair standards. Particularly if they are politically conservative.

This may be the single most common fallacy used by both sides.

(11-14-2017 08:53 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Let's define 'X' as a bad act that cannot be justified by stating it had to happen as a matter of life or death. Person A did X. Person B also did X. Person C is outraged against person A, but ignores the fact that Person B also committed X. It is reasonable to question why Person C is upset at Person A but not at Person B. In a logically consistent world, both Person A and Person B should be scorned. However, if one is scorned but the other is excused...then that should be called out.

The fallacy in your example is that Person D, the unmentioned person in your example isn't actually scorning Person A. Person D is actually using Person B to try to keep Person C from scorning Person A.

Maybe Person B needs to be scorned. But trying to group them together serves no purpose other than acting as a stalling tactic.

What's worse about your situation is not that Person B did X, Person B is accused of Y, and there may be no equivalency between X and Y. Or maybe Person B actually was scorned aplenty by Person C, but Person B isn't needed to be a focus because the news about Person A is fresh and Person A hasn't be adequately scorned. Or maybe Person A is currently relevant because they are doing something that will affect the public so this information is pertinent to their role or potential role and Person B is not in a role that is currently relevant because they have already left their job and had a scandal.

What's the worst is when Person A has done X but Person A's supporters don't want to believe it so Person D accepts any flimsy evidence against Person B, but ignores hard evidence against Person A, but are more than willing to focus on Person B because they just don't want to or are unable to confront the fact Person A may have done X.

So they talk about Person B exclusively.

(11-15-2017 09:12 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  The fallacy in your example is that Person D, the unmentioned person in your example isn't actually scorning Person A. Person D is actually using Person B to try to keep Person C from scorning Person A.

In some cases, yes. And in those cases, person D is in the wrong, as you note.

But in many cases, person D is scorning both person A and person B, and questioning why person C is scorning only person A but not person B. Anyone who does not scorn both person A and person B is wrong, so long as both act X and act Y (to use your terminology) are verified.

As far as differentiating between act X and act Y, as long as both are reprehensible and both are verified, then the fact that they are not exactly the same act is pretty much irrelevant.

(11-15-2017 09:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 09:12 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  The fallacy in your example is that Person D, the unmentioned person in your example isn't actually scorning Person A. Person D is actually using Person B to try to keep Person C from scorning Person A.

In some cases, yes. And in those cases, person D is in the wrong, as you note.

But in many cases, person D is scorning both person A and person B, and questioning why person C is scorning only person A but not person B. Anyone who does not scorn both person A and person B is wrong, so long as both act X and act Y (to use your terminology) are verified.

As far as differentiating between act X and act Y, as long as both are reprehensible and both are verified, then the fact that they are not exactly the same act is pretty much irrelevant.

oh the algebra!..my head is spinning.

(11-14-2017 09:05 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 06:07 PM)Jacque Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 12:02 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 11:56 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(11-14-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I won't disagree with you statement but you also have to consider that conservatives have ALWAYS claimed the moral high ground so they should be held to a higher standard.

Higher standard? As in asking 14 year old on a date is worse then raping an actress?

Man, I need some liberal get out of jail free cards.

(11-14-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Liberals have always ( if you believe what we read on this forum) been the segment of society who embraces the gays and the lezbos and transvestites.

Also embraces feminism, how'z thatta workin' out with all these sexual assault and pedophilia allegations?

(11-14-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  The conservatives however are supposed to be God fearing people who believe in marriage and the Bible and prayer in schools.

Not me. But, point made.

(11-14-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So when they get their hands dirty, it's always going to be more scandalist.

Considering generic "conservative / religious' values I'll admit that there is a fair bit of schadenfreude when the local pastor is caught diddling the alter boy, but it doesn't make it worse then when casting directors bed underage actresses. And now, that liberal Hollywood dirty laundry is being aired and it is just as bad.

Let me be clear. These crimes, if they are in fact true, are terrible on both sides.

I'm talking only about the optics.

Not all conservatives are God fearing people so they should not be held to a higher standing.
Not all people who claim to be God-fearing actually are
All people, whether God-fearing or not mess up
Not all conservatives are homophobic, racist or Islamaphobic (sp)
Rapists/pedophiles are scum whether they are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat

We have too strong of a tendency to paint groups of people with such a broad brush today, that dialogue and the sharing of honest accurate information has become impossible. And we are all worse off because of it.

People love to hold Christians to a standard of having to be perfect and justify it by pointing to their religion.

But the bible teaches just the opposite, that ALL men are sinners, Christians included. The difference is believers actually admit and confess their sins, and actively struggle to remove sins from their lives. But NO ONE is without sin. NO ONE.

Now that does not excuse or hide from people who are proven to be gross hypocrites, but secularists love to practice their own form of bigotry and lay these things at the feet of all believers while holding them to absurd and unfair standards. Particularly if they are politically conservative.

I think the problem with some Christians and some Republicans for that matter is that they think because of their beliefs, that they can judge other people and say that is a sin and that is sin etc. etc.

Maybe it is a sin to be gay. As a Catholic, I certainly believe that. I don't go around however telling people that they are sinning and I certainly don't push laws that attempt people from trying to sin.

I also believe that abortion is a sin but again, I don't go around trying to make laws banning women from Planned Parenthood or force them to see an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion.

This is what I see is the BIG difference between Conservatives and Liberals and it is the reason why conservatives get more flak when they get exposed as sinners.

(11-15-2017 10:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I think the problem with some Christians and some Republicans for that matter is that they think because of their beliefs, that they can judge other people and say that is a sin and that is sin etc. etc.

Can A Muslim tell me what is halal?
Can A Jew tell me what is kosher?
Then why could a Christian not tell you what is a Sin?

Quote:Maybe it is a sin to be gay.

It is, it's in the bible several times (old and new testament).

Quote:As a Catholic, I certainly believe that. I don't go around however telling people that they are sinning

I'm not for beating down doors and throwing bibles at people but if someone who you love is living in unrepentant sin and you say nothing? Then I don't think you love them.

Quote:and I certainly don't push laws that attempt people from trying to sin.

What if the sin is not baking a cake for someones wedding? That's a sin in the doctrine of progressives.

Quote:I also believe that abortion is a sin but again,

Why is it a sin? Because you believe an unborn child is a living human?

Quote:I don't go around trying to make laws banning women from Planned Parenthood or force them to see an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion.

Then you knowingly ignore babies getting killed... That's on you.

"Whataboutism" is composed of 50% hypocrisy and 50% sheer moral cowardice.

(11-15-2017 12:08 PM)EagleX Wrote:  "Whataboutism" is composed of 50% hypocrisy and 50% sheer moral cowardice.

There is some cya in there too

(11-15-2017 11:11 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 10:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  I think the problem with some Christians and some Republicans for that matter is that they think because of their beliefs, that they can judge other people and say that is a sin and that is sin etc. etc.

Can A Muslim tell me what is halal?
Can A Jew tell me what is kosher?
Then why could a Christian not tell you what is a Sin?

Quote:Maybe it is a sin to be gay.

It is, it's in the bible several times (old and new testament).

Quote:As a Catholic, I certainly believe that. I don't go around however telling people that they are sinning

I'm not for beating down doors and throwing bibles at people but if someone who you love is living in unrepentant sin and you say nothing? Then I don't think you love them.

Quote:and I certainly don't push laws that attempt people from trying to sin.

What if the sin is not baking a cake for someones wedding? That's a sin in the doctrine of progressives.

Quote:I also believe that abortion is a sin but again,

Why is it a sin? Because you believe an unborn child is a living human?

Quote:I don't go around trying to make laws banning women from Planned Parenthood or force them to see an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion.

Then you knowingly ignore babies getting killed... That's on you.

Halal and Kosher are much more variable than you might think. Different countries and different certification agencies have different rules.

(11-15-2017 01:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Halal and Kosher are much more variable than you might think. Different countries and different certification agencies have different rules.

Point went over your head, I think...

(11-15-2017 12:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(11-15-2017 12:08 PM)EagleX Wrote:  "Whataboutism" is composed of 50% hypocrisy and 50% sheer moral cowardice.

There is some cya in there too

abiding to standard stinkfist principles, I refuse to learn whateverism about whataboutism......

one day, I'm just gonna toss it in ad-hoc-ism just to see what the reaction level draws.....I'm already assuming it'll rank right there with ze "dumpster fire" thingy(s)