Jump to content

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

It certainly seems like hypocrisy to me.  Example: Flying all over the earth on your private jet while speaking out against excessive carbon emissions is an example of this type of hypocrisy. 

I prefer my advocates for social change to live like Mohandas K. Gandhi.  For his faults, Gandhi was at least a true believer and lived like the people he advocated for, though he had the ability to live like a wealthy man.  Sadly, Gandhi statues in multiple locations have been vandalized by anarchists in recent weeks.

One of my wife's law school classmates is a white, Jewish woman. She's well off; she owns three homes, two of which she rents (at market average). 

She believes very strongly in helping her community. She and her husband live in what most people would perceive to be an all-African American neighborhood in Atlanta.  She was a year out from completing her PhD when she dropped out of her doctoral program and went to work with Atlanta Legal Aid. Despite graduating with honors from one of the best law schools in the country, she makes what I'm guessing is a modest income, working for a non-profit, helping people like a blind 85 year old African American woman who was pressured into selling her home by a real estate developer, under false pretenses.

Edited by Le duke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thing is you are right...this whole thread has been about exactly that...when is it okay to say one thing but not another...or when is it okay to use circular logic or no logic at all...when is it okay to personally attack someone but say it isn't okay because they retaliated...when is it okay to use science but not emotion and vice versa...….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

It certainly seems like hypocrisy to me.  Example: Flying all over the earth on your private jet while speaking out against excessive carbon emissions is an example of this type of hypocrisy. 

I prefer my advocates for social change to live like Mohandas K. Gandhi.  For his faults, Gandhi was at least a true believer and lived like the people he advocated for, though he had the ability to live like a wealthy man.  Sadly, Gandhi statues in multiple locations have been vandalized by anarchists in recent weeks.

It is possible to advocate for *policies* while not living an ascetic lifestyle.  FDR was a wealthy man and had a matching lifestyle, but he created programs that benefitted the poor.  Flying all over the world is not the problem:  policies that support fossil fuel use are the problem.  Change the policies, and individual usage will have less effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dman115 said:

Thanks for making my points in your response.  But I will comment on the above, no one will convince me that I am "attacking" another's right to protest because I disagree with the form and/or timing of said protest. I think everyone on here can agree that while it is ones right to protest...and I will ALWAYS defend a person's right to protest...there may or may not be consequences for it.  Just as it is our right to freedom of speech, there may or may not be consequences to it.

People criticized Civil Rights advocates for the same thing. That it just wasn't the right time, with the war in Vietnam raging. I mean, how dare they protest, when Americans are dying overseas for their "freedom"?

Here's the thing: it's never going to be the "right" time. What is the "right" time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dman115 said:

Funny thing is you are right...this whole thread has been about exactly that...when is it okay to say one thing but not another...or when is it okay to use circular logic or no logic at all...when is it okay to personally attack someone but say it isn't okay because they retaliated...when is it okay to use science but not emotion and vice versa...….

logic should drive the convo. Its only okay to attack someone personally when they have made themselves the focal point of discussion, ie. I am just so smart, and none of you can understand this so you are wrong. Its okay to use science when it is defendable and its okay to use emotion when we are discussing how events make us feel. IDK, that's just an attempt to answer to real questions about discourse. Unfortunately most do not care about a reasonably fair discourse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I don't disagree at all with you russle...it is just hard to turn that around and be able to see when one's self is doing the exact things you claim others do.  I am sure I do it...check that...I KNOW I do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AHamilton said:

It certainly seems like hypocrisy to me.  Example: Flying all over the earth on your private jet while speaking out against excessive carbon emissions is an example of this type of hypocrisy. 

I prefer my advocates for social change to live like Mohandas K. Gandhi.  For his faults, Gandhi was at least a true believer and lived like the people he advocated for, though he had the ability to live like a wealthy man.  Sadly, Gandhi statues in multiple locations have been vandalized by anarchists in recent weeks.

If Gandhi had worn modern clothing, would that have made his positions on helping the poor wrong? This is just an attempt to delegitimize the position without addressing the actual substance because it's hard to address the substance without looking like the bad guy. Helping the poor > not helping the poor. Wearing nice shoes doesn't change that.

If a rich man devotes his time and money to the redistribution of resources, including his own, to the poor, that doesn't make him a hypocrite. He's sacrificing his own bottom line for the betterment of others. It's the opposite of hypocrisy. 

Edited by uncle bernard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

If Gandhi had worn modern clothing, would that have made his positions on helping the poor wrong? This is just an attempt to delegitimize the position without addressing the actual substance because it's hard to address the substance without looking like the bad guy. Helping the poor > not helping the poor. Wearing nice shoes doesn't change that.

If a rich man devotes his time and money to the redistribution of resources, including his own, to the poor, that doesn't make him a hypocrite. He's sacrificing his own bottom line for the betterment of others. It's the opposite of hypocrisy. 

So, you are doubting the Mathatma's methods?

He fought for justice in modern garb and in traditional garb.  He found it to be more effective while he was living like the people he was struggling for.  That is right, he lived like the people he struggled for.  He lived in a simple dwelling, made his own clothes, and lived the live of an impoverished Indian.  

He was able to unite India and peacefully force the British Empire out though non-violent, non-cooperation.  

Gandhi had his flaws, but he wasn't a limousine liberal going home to live in his mansion and drink Dom after a 250 mile march to the sea.  He felt this was more effective, and who are you to doubt his methods?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AHamilton said:

So, you are doubting the Mathatma's methods?

He fought for justice in modern garb and in traditional garb.  He found it to be more effective while he was living like the people he was struggling for.  That is right, he lived like the people he struggled for.  He lived in a simple dwelling, made his own clothes, and lived the live of an impoverished Indian.  

He was able to unite India and peacefully force the British Empire out though non-violent, non-cooperation.  

Gandhi had his flaws, but he wasn't a limousine liberal going home to live in his mansion and drink Dom after a 250 mile march to the sea.  He felt this was more effective, and who are you to doubt his methods?

Either you're not following the argument very well or you're blatantly shifting the goal posts. Nobody was critiquing Gandhi. The point is that the justness of his cause was independent of his own personal actions. If he hadn't lived as an ascetic, it still would have been a good thing to help the poor and oppose British imperialism.

Also "He was able to unite India and peacefully force the British Empire out though non-violent, non-cooperation" is a ridiculous over-simplification of Indian history lol.

Somebody else in the thread brought up FDR and he's a perfect example. He came from a very wealthy family, but no president passed more legislation to help the poor than he did. He didn't have to renounce his worldly possessions to redistribute wealth to the poor and pass labor laws. Maybe that would have made him cooler in your eyes, but it didn't matter whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a gross over-simplification of FDR.  Didn't even mention his plan to pack the Supreme Court with his buddies.  So altuistic!  C'mon man! You have to try harder than that!

13 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Either you're not following the argument very well or you're blatantly shifting the goal posts. Nobody was critiquing Gandhi. The point is that the justness of his cause was independent of his own personal actions. If he hadn't lived as an ascetic, it still would have been a good thing to help the poor and oppose British imperialism.

Also "He was able to unite India and peacefully force the British Empire out though non-violent, non-cooperation" is a ridiculous over-simplification of Indian history lol.

Somebody else in the thread brought up FDR and he's a perfect example. He came from a very wealthy family, but no president passed more legislation to help the poor than he did. He didn't have to renounce his worldly possessions to redistribute wealth to the poor and pass labor laws. Maybe that would have made him cooler in your eyes, but it didn't matter whatsoever.

Such a gross over-simplification of FDR! Come on , man! You didn't even mention his attempt to violate constitutional principles and pack the Supreme Court with his buddies! He was more about consolidating his power and not giving it up, hence his failure to recognize Washingtonian precedents regarding term limits.  You have to try harder than that, Sparky!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Either you're not following the argument very well or you're blatantly shifting the goal posts. Nobody was critiquing Gandhi. The point is that the justness of his cause was independent of his own personal actions. If he hadn't lived as an ascetic, it still would have been a good thing to help the poor and oppose British imperialism.

Also "He was able to unite India and peacefully force the British Empire out though non-violent, non-cooperation" is a ridiculous over-simplification of Indian history lol.

Somebody else in the thread brought up FDR and he's a perfect example. He came from a very wealthy family, but no president passed more legislation to help the poor than he did. He didn't have to renounce his worldly possessions to redistribute wealth to the poor and pass labor laws. Maybe that would have made him cooler in your eyes, but it didn't matter whatsoever.

... and before hitting up wikipedia, how is this a gross oversimplification of Indian history?  Gross?  I could explain Indian history a lot better, but I was trying to keep it short.

Bernard loves hypocrites... thats all there is to it. Walk the walk, son. 

... and is there a reason why you are dismissing the Mahatma's methods, but prefer FDR? Would you prefer the Mahatma look more like Leonardo DiCaprio?  I don't get where you are coming from, but it makes me quite uncomfortable.

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

What a gross over-simplification of FDR.  Didn't even mention his plan to pack the Supreme Court with his buddies.  So altuistic!  C'mon man! You have to try harder than that!

Such a gross over-simplification of FDR! Come on , man! You didn't even mention his attempt to violate constitutional principles and pack the Supreme Court with his buddies! He was more about consolidating his power and not giving it up, hence his failure to recognize Washingtonian precedents regarding term limits.  You have to try harder than that, Sparky!

You love shifting the goal posts and putting words in others' mouths. I'll try to break this down very simply for you: 

You made a comment that helping the poor while being personally rich is hypocritical.

I, and others, pointed out that you don't actually have to be poor to help the poor and not be a hypocrite. Advocating for policy that takes money away from you and gives it to the poor is the opposite of hypocrisy. It's living your values. Hypocrisy would be saying you believe the poor should be helped, but advocating against policies that would help them, but hurt your bottom line.

You then pointed out that Gandhi lived as an ascetic and that made him not a hypocrite.

I then pointed out that whether or not Gandhi lived as an ascetic has nothing to do with whether his cause was just. It would have still been great if he wore better clothes.

I then added FDR as a more concrete example to try to help you understand this concept. FDR was personally rich, but enacted policies that redistributed resources, including his own, to the poor. That's not hypocritical. That's acting on his values. Your disagreements with his political tactics have nothing to do with this example because the example is meant to show how a rich man can help the poor without being a hypocrite. Whether you think he was a good president is irrelevant. 

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AHamilton said:

... and before hitting up wikipedia, how is this a gross oversimplification of Indian history?  Gross?  I could explain Indian history a lot better, but I was trying to keep it short.

Bernard loves hypocrites... thats all there is to it. Walk the walk, son. 

... and is there a reason why you are dismissing the Mahatma's methods, but prefer FDR? Would you prefer the Mahatma look more like Leonardo DiCaprio?  I don't get where you are coming from, but it makes me quite uncomfortable.

Please point to where I dismissed Gandhi. 

(And it's a gross oversimplification because there was a century of violent anti-imperial struggle that preceded and happened alongside Gandhi as well as the post-WWII conditions that greatly weakened the British Empire and made maintaining control over India unfeasible. Gandhi was an amazing revolutionary figure and the greatest leader of that cause, but to say he did it all erases the sacrifices of the millions who died setting the groundwork that he built from. I think he'd say the same thing.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AHamilton said:

... and before hitting up wikipedia, how is this a gross oversimplification of Indian history?  Gross?  I could explain Indian history a lot better, but I was trying to keep it short.

Bernard loves hypocrites... thats all there is to it. Walk the walk, son. 

... and is there a reason why you are dismissing the Mahatma's methods, but prefer FDR? Would you prefer the Mahatma look more like Leonardo DiCaprio?  I don't get where you are coming from, but it makes me quite uncomfortable.

The reason you go to examples like Gandhi is because he sets an impossible standard for all other advocates of social change. Not everybody who wants to improve society has the ability to live up the actions of a world-historical figure like Gandhi. But setting him as the standard gives you an easy way of avoiding the substance of this debate. "Oh you want to help the poor? Why don't you give them all of YOUR money?" and "Oh you want to raise taxes on the 1%? Why don't you pay extra taxes yourself?"

It's a ridiculous line of thinking. If I'm walking down the street and I give $10 to a homeless man, I'm not a hypocrite because I didn't hand over my banking information and tell him to have at it.

In summary, you are a living embodiment of this meme.

 

whnuvoh4od031.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

The reason you go to examples like Gandhi is because he sets an impossible standard for all other advocates of social change. Not everybody who wants to improve society has the ability to live up the actions of a world-historical figure like Gandhi. But setting him as the standard gives you an easy way of avoiding the substance of this debate. "Oh you want to help the poor? Why don't you give them all of YOUR money?" and "Oh you want to raise taxes on the 1%? Why don't you pay extra taxes yourself?"

It's a ridiculous line of thinking. If I'm walking down the street and I give $10 to a homeless man, I'm not a hypocrite because I didn't hand over my banking information and tell him to have at it.

In summary, you are a living embodiment of this meme.

 

whnuvoh4od031.jpg

There must be some other reason why you dismiss Gandhi but hold up FDR as a paragon of altruism.  Hmmmm.  What could that reason be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nom said:

@AHamilton - either your reading comprehension sucks .... or your desire to not acknowledge fair points that go counter to yours is off the charts.

I'm sure that bernie can stick up for himself and use memes to explain why he prefers American blue bloods over the Mahatma. It seems as if you are also ignoring the elephant in the room...

Edited by AHamilton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AHamilton said:

I'm sure that bernie can stick up for himself and use memes to explain why he prefers American blue bloods over the Mahatma. It seems as if you are also ignoring the elephant in the room...

Gandhi > FDR. Helping lead a revolutionary struggle to free a nation from brutal imperial rule > helping a nation recover from the great depression and redistributing power to the poor and working class. Both are good. Hope this clears things up for you. 

(Still waiting for you to point out where I dismissed Gandhi in any conceivable way btw)

Edited by uncle bernard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2020 at 4:18 PM, LJB said:

i pay no attention to any of the political garbage news that gets thrown out there... it is the same reason i will not watch "reality" TV or sitcoms... it is all for the absolute lowest common denominator...

so, this trump is racist crap i hear all the time doesn't really impress me... i view it just like i view the simpletons on this forum who have called beshada a racist, dupont a racist, me a racist... it is just simpletons shouting what they are told to shout when they are told to shout it...

the only thing i will say about trump is that he is wildly amusing from what i can tell and i do love the fact a reality TV star got elected as our president... if that does not prove to everyone that this is nothing but a fukn game i don't know what will...

 

The USA presidency has gotten increasingly gutless and meaningless as have politicians in general. Leadership is gone. Courage is gone. The next election, I'll bet, won't improve our lot.

The War we fight is universal and economic: the struggle against increasing debt; the increasing gap between have/have not; the shrinking/shrieking middle class, all made worse by automation, job expatriation, covid19 and solutionless crowds mass-marching  down the street to literally nowhere. 

The real problem is: We need a new economic model that is in tune with today's hi-tech capacity, not yesteryear's 18th Century, preindustrial model we directly inherited from scarcity economist, Thomas Malthus and, indirectly, Charles Darwin, who's "Origin of Species" theory concluded "survival of only the fittest." The combined influential result of these two guys, who lived around the same time, was the universally accepted and, to this day, academically taught --and enforced, idea of "not enough to go around, therefore it must be survival of the fittest, every man for himself(ish)."

USA racism began in the preindustrial South with the advent of slaves purchased to do the hardest work for their lazy masters. The cotton gin's invention was the first signal that animate slavery was on its way out. Agricultural engineering's inanimate slavery would gradually dominate the fields.

Politicians know next to nothing of science or technology. They make a lot of emotional speeches written by someone else, and are good at toasting/clinking with their champagne glasses. But the real work in progress is performed in quiet, cool labs by well-adjusted people who understand Nature. Unfortunately, the language of math and science is not as well understood as the language of political "science." Therein lies the rub: The former, difficult but very effective;  the latter, easy but popularly misleading/misdirecting, time and energy wasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...