And here is the poll that I forgot...

[SEVERUSMAX]

....to include in the "Hypocrisy" thread.

 

[zeb1094]

....to include in the "Hypocrisy" thread.

And seems to have not included here either.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And seems to have not included here either.

Check it again.

 

[Pure]

I'm afraid

I cant pick one of those, Sev. The wording is a wee bit tendentious.

I will say that it's blameworthy to avail yourself of someone's protection, and also condemn them, BUT -- this supposes that the someone is properly carrying out their lawful duties as a policeman or soldier.

PS It is also blameworthy for anyone to automatically condemn those resisting authority or its armed contingents, unless you have previously demonstrated the legitimacy of the authority, of its present projects, and the propriety of the actions of the armed units.

To criticize, resist, or even work to topple a ruler does not, in itself render one unpatriotic.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I cant pick one of those, Sev. The wording is a wee bit tendentious.

I will say that it's blameworthy to avail yourself of someone's protection, and also condemn them, BUT -- this supposes that the someone is properly carrying out their lawful duties as a policeman or soldier.

PS It is also blameworthy for anyone to automatically condemn those resisting authority or its armed contingents, unless you have previously demonstrated the legitimacy of the authority, of its present projects, and the propriety of the actions of the armed units.

To criticize, resist, or even work to topple a ruler does not, in itself render one unpatriotic.

I never said it was. There are plenty of governments, existing today, that I would gladly topple. Luckily for them, I am not one of their countrymen.

 

[3113]

Poll is too loaded in its wording, Sev. Tsk. Tsk.

I'll give you an example:
"My boyfriend protects me from being gang-raped. So it's hypocritical of me to condemn him for beating the shit out of me....."

I really think you should not have posted this poll.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Your other thread has already gone to the hidden-meaning and I'll tackle that one later. I'd like to start with the abstract.

The question is: Is it hypocrisy to condemn someone's protection?

The answer is no.

Now before the flame, we are talking abstract.

If someone does not ask for another's protection than they can certainly be angry about it without hypocrisy. Imagine here as an example the age-old cliche of bad guy approaching good guy or good guy approaching bad guy and second good guy takes out the bad guy and the first good guy says "I had 'em" or some such what. Unasked for protection can be unwanted and responding poorly can be a consequence even though most would think this silly on the offending part (note also for this section we assume the protection is benign).
Refusal can be a matter of "honour" (in the sense of avoiding hypocrisy) or a belief that one should take care of their own problems. Thus benign protection if unasked for can be refused and condemned without any fear of hypocrisy because they didn't ask for it and then dismiss it.

And so this illuminates one factor, which is for it to be hypocritical one must ask for protection and then decry it.

So if one asks for protection (and again we are remaining in microcosm) and then decries it they are hypocritical. Yes? No. In the case where someone asks for protection and it turns out to be malign or with heavier collateral than they were willing to tolerate and then states that they would no longer like to have said protection and would like to deal with the threats on their own, they are not hypocritical and can lambast. They thought it would be best, the protection killed their mom and cat, they decided to fight the Girl Scout Ninjas on their own. If the protection then says, no, you need to keep us on, the protectee is condemning protection he hasn't asked for again. He is not hypocritical.

However, the case with more pride is that where the protection moves off and the person is once again in control of their protection. He can bad-mouth as much as possible without hypocrisy. It becomes a different story of course if one bad-mouths protection if one has a habit of always asking for protection from the same malign protection forces when danger strikes. A possible semantic case could be made that they are not a hypocrite if they bitch only in between danger spells when they have no protection, but in the spirit of the thing they are likely hypocrites.

Before the "ah ha" though, one must point out that it isn't hypocrisy if those being protected malignly dismay of the METHOD of their protection. If the protectee said, thanks for keeping me safe from the zombie hordes, but must you rape kittens while you do it, one may feel that the protectee is ungrateful, but he certaintly wouldn't be a hypocrite unless he specifically asked for carte blanche protection. If the protectee said, "Use any means to save me from the zombie horde, I don't care, save me, save me" it would be a different story. At that point (if kitten raping was actually a key component of a zombie-defeating plan of course), the protectee asked for it and has the choice of either being a hypocrite, shutting up about the kitten rape, or remove himself of said protection. (Of course this also brings up the case of kitten rape not being a part of a zombie-defeating plan and thus again was not asked for and thus is not hypocritical of one to avail oneself of).



So what one asks for in protection and what one decries say whether or not one is hypocritical? Yes, but it doesn't cover all the cases or even most cases of hypocrisy. It doesn't even cover the most direct hypocrisies. This is an indirect hypocrisy more in tune with stupidity or cowardliness.

Other hypocrisies of protection involve morality. Decrying what one does in a critical moment and then doing the same yourself is a hypocrisy, though one most would have the good sense to feel sheepish about. Decrying the employment of certain protection (say the mafia) and then turning to them when the going gets tough is hypocritical though again one which most would feel sheepish about. Indeed it can escape most ideas of hypocrisy if one never could imagine doing the act before hand.

More daunting hypocrisies on protection have to do with attitudes towards it.

Here we will advance to the idea of war or police forces. Now, army protection is a complex thing, because we all benefit from it, but no one specifically asked for it. Nonetheless there is no way to avail oneself of it and still retain the other benefits of living in the nation with the army. Ditto for police forces. Ditto on how they are used in between the times when they are used for defense or how they are used in addition to their role as a deterrent. Since they are not asked for, one can hardly be blamed of hypocrisy if they feel they do not want the protection and would be fully willing to deal with the consequences of having no protection if that were the case. Say a man decries the military's existance in his country, but would be happy and ready to defend his home or die if the rest of the country and its military disappeared and pan-galactic cocktail waitresses started invading. He is not a hypocrite; he has merely not been availed of the opportunity to stand for his beliefs. He will still choke under the existence of unasked for protection and his forced reliance on it will be an unfortunate affront which will lean him unwantedly towards hypocrisy or at the least a failure to live up to his values. It will not be a comfortable lack of hypocrisy.

Ditto for those who believe their unasked for protection has their worst interests at hand. An urban black or a New Orleans survivor may be wary about protection forces that neither seem to be protecting them from lawlessness and danger, but also seem to be adding to it with their racism. Their forced shackling would grate even more because the unwanted protection is both non-protective and malign. It would not be hypocritical of them to just want anarchy again AS LONG AS THEY WERE WILLING TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

That aside, we have worked up to hypocrisy is demanding or relying on protection and decrying it without being willing to face not having the protection...in one case. Again there are other hypocrises.

In military support, there are far grosser hypocrisies committed because protection is merely the defensive component of a military.

For instance, in military support there is the hypocrisy of decrying another's willingness to complete a duty you would not. In the example of service in the military there are fierce supporters of military who are overly keen on others serving while refusing said service themselves. Others are keen on expanding wars for non-defensive non-protective purposes and decrying those who refuse to support or participate despite not participating. These are gross hypocrisies especially when they decry willingness when they lack will.




And this of course foreshadows the question. There have been coverings of the hypocrisy of decrying protection, but what of the hypocrisies possible in support. If one supports protection and is keen on running the protection ragged with keeping them safe and possibly more, but refuses to offer the same can be a hypocrisy. If one demands help, expects help from one's neighbors and decries those who do not help and then refuses to help after one's expectations, one is a hypocrite. The abstract leads to that.







Overall, my thoughts on the matter really in discussion are better summarized on the other thread and I'll pop over for that. In abstract though, those who whine about the burden of having a military (not on how they are deployed) yet would be unwilling to deal with life if the military were eaten by space hamsters are hypocrites. Similarily those who say we waste money on police officers, yet expect a police officer to rush to their aid when cannibal midgets rob their homes are hypocrites. Those who demand that everyone support the War against Kumquats and yet refuse to serve and protect are hypocrites. Those who decry those who employ telekinetic walruses to protect them from meteorites but then hire them when the meteorites start dropping are hypocrites. And so goes the march of the hypocrite. Though truth be told we all do stuff that's hypocritical from time to time unless we're really good and it's all in how you deal and how you react when you discover you've done something hypocritical. Do you learn, do you atone, do you change your attitude? Or do you scream louder this time with catchier slogans? That's what really separates those with moxie from those who just plain suck.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Oh. For my vote I put down Loup Gnu. Half-man, half-gnu. Fear it.