Society/Culture Are you an ethical hypocrite?

[kranky al]

Buffy has forgiven me for jumping off my vegetarian diet, which I persisted with for several years. I treat her extra well as penance. I dropped the diet because at my age, late 50s, i was dropping muscle mass severely and skin was drooping all over the show. Back to lean meat, I am much stronger and alert, and don't suffer any digestive issues at all. The vegie diet was much tougher on the innards.

I was years ago advised to feed my kids meat to assist brain development. I see this is still advised by many health authorities. Meat is chockers with essential vits and minerals, in a tasty neat package, easily digestible, and the lack of it at early ages, and perhaps in later ones, may inhibit health.

It's worth noting Buffy is also a meat eater, how hypocrital of her to point the paw at me.

To be a healthy vegan you have to at least have half a brain.

Compounding vegetables to achieve the correct nutrition isnt as easy as just eating meat and 3 veg.

 

[kranky al]

You have confused consuemrism with wanting an iphone.

you are also mistaken in that everyone hates consumerism. collectors and hoarders clearly dont hate it. Nor do those obsessed with clothes And purchasing status symbols.

Meh i sell my old one and get the new one. When they die altogether apple recycles them

 

[i like ram-man]

its just people's capacity to fail their own standards

How can you live up to you from a year ago’s expectations?

 

[Gough]

How can you live up to you from a year ago’s expectations?

Set low expectations and you'll never disappoint.

 

[Crankyhawk]

i am openly hypocritical at times

Comes with being a human being

Inconsistency is natural. Assessment of ones actions should be on the balance of the actions taken over time (with appropriate weightings for benefit/ harm done)

 

[Seeds]

I could not live with myself if i thought i was an ethical hypocrite. How does the op sleep at night? He wont try to fix his hypocrisy. He just wants to live with it. This would shake me to my core.

 

[Pessimistic]

Stickin to your guns is one thing, but where you make decisions for others, your family for example, if you dislike that money can buy better education, should you deny the opportunity for your kids if you can afford it?

 

[hiking]

Stickin to your guns is one thing, but where you make decisions for others, your family for example, if you dislike that money can buy better education, should you deny the opportunity for your kids if you can afford it?

If you can afford the most expensive education for your family, then you have choices all over the financial spectrum. If the school you think would get the highest results just happens to be extremely expensive, then I think you go with that choice if you can justifiably pay for it.

 

[Pessimistic]

If you can afford the most expensive education for your family, then you have choices all over the financial spectrum. If the school you think would get the highest results just happens to be extremely expensive, then I think you go with that choice if you can justifiably pay for it.

problem is you never really know, and the schools in question know this. It would be better if the private options just came in as senior level, year 9 or 10. At least the child could hve some input. I used to say you could present the child with a decent rental property at 18 for the investment, but the education would be poorer. But at least if your child marries and splits with their partner, the education can’t be divvied up

Some parents of private school kids are so cashed up choosing a school is like choosing a golf club membership, bit there again at many parent s evenings there were plenty of parents with ,not smart, clothes like me (my choice btw)

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I've come in for some ethical hypocrisy of my own just now. I'm not a tennis fan at all and I don't care about any of the players plus I usually think people who play on the ethnic spelling of names to come up with insults for them is extremely low-grade humour.

But Novak Jock Itch, hey? Been granted a side-step around our health concerns so he can get his monied arse into the tennis open. Well he can go f*ck himself.

Yeah yeah...

 

[Upgrayedd]

Yeah absolutely.


I try not to be. But I'm way to empathetic. Good example is I believe everyone should get the jab, That workplaces have a right to keep their workplaces safe, covid free ect. But I do feel bad for people who are going to lose a job because they don't want the Jab

I do admire some people who can stick to convictions and be pretty balanced and keep consistency in their viewpoint. I have a mate whos a liberterian, Believes police/hospitals should be privately funded, I think thats nuts, but I do admire that he has the same line of thinking down everything. Thinks Lyonhelm is a ******* ect,

 

[Seeds]

I've come in for some ethical hypocrisy of my own just now. I'm not a tennis fan at all and I don't care about any of the players plus I usually think people who play on the ethnic spelling of names to come up with insults for them is extremely low-grade humour.

But Novak Jock Itch, hey? Been granted a side-step around our health concerns so he can get his monied arse into the tennis open. Well he can go f*ck himself.

Yeah yeah...

Just do what most wokesters do to remove their rascist hypocrisy. Claim that its not racist to mock and discriminate against white people because they have power and people of other races dont. it doesnt matter that its not possible to discriminate unless you have power. Wokesters just ignore this point.


There hypocrisy solved.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Just do what most wokesters do to remove their rascist hypocrisy. Claim that its not racist to mock and discriminate against white people because they have power and people of other races dont. it doesnt matter that its not possible to discriminate unless you have power. Wokesters just ignore this point.


There hypocrisy solved.

Yeah. This idea that, as the dominant group throughout much of the world white people can only discriminate and can't ever be discriminated against, is a logical fallacy. Any ethno-religious group can discriminate against any other, and for any reason. None of it is healthy or fair in the least, but each of us has that capability.

 

[Gethelred]

Just do what most wokesters do to remove their rascist hypocrisy. Claim that its not racist to mock and discriminate against white people because they have power and people of other races dont. it doesnt matter that its not possible to discriminate unless you have power. Wokesters just ignore this point.


There hypocrisy solved.

Do you think that this might have something to do with a difference in how they're defining racism versus how you are? Do you think that, were you to actually discuss things with them, you might find that you don't disagree with them?

Do you think you could get through said conversation without tying yourself in a knot, Seeds?

If you bothered to maintain a consistent definition of what racism is yourself you might find less to argue about, which is why you don't maintain consistent definitions.

 

[Seeds]

Do you think that this might have something to do with a difference in how they're defining racism versus how you are? Do you think that, were you to actually discuss things with them, you might find that you don't disagree with them?

Do you think you could get through said conversation without tying yourself in a knot, Seeds?

If you bothered to maintain a consistent definition of what racism is yourself you might find less to argue about, which is why you don't maintain consistent definitions.

I have always had a consistent definition. Its discrimination based on race. Thats not only my definition but its the original definition.

the wokes definition of racism appears to be discrimination based on race if the discriminator is from a position of power. They then assume that white people have a position of power and non white people dont so non white people cant be racist.

However, their assumptions about who is in positions of power are wrong. Anyone who has the ability to discriminate is in a position of power. A non white shop owner who decides he wants to not hire whites is in a position of power over hiring in his shop. The very act of being able to discriminate can only occur from a position of power. So the caveat woke people apply to the definition is incorrectly applied by them leading to an incorrect conclusion.


please feel free to point out where you think I'm wrong though.

 

[Gethelred]

I have always had a consistent definition. Its discrimination based on race. Thats not only my definition but its the original definition.

The definition of racism - indeed, all definitions - has shifted over time.

Where once racism referred to the belief in one races superiority, that instead is racial bigotry. According to the people you're talking about, racism refers to the social, economic structures that have evolved due to that racial bigotry.

Do you see why it could be considered useful to separate bigotry and racism, if only to ensure precision of language?

the wokes definition of racism appears to be discrimination based on race if the discriminator is from a position of power. They then assume that white people have a position of power and non white people dont so non white people cant be racist.

People who discriminate on the basis of race are bigots. People who perpetuate the social and economic structures designed to perpetuate these racially bigoted beliefs and outcomes are racists.

Do you see why that is a useful distinction to make?

The problem lies in the fact that people like using the accusation of racism, regardless of whether it fits or not.

However, their assumptions about who is in positions of power are wrong. Anyone who has the ability to discriminate is in a position of power. A non white shop owner who decides he wants to not hire non whites is in a position of power over hiring in his shop. The very act of being able to discriminate can only occur from a position of power. So the caveat woke people apply to the definition is incorrectly applied.

A person who engages in the behaviour above fulfills the definition of bigoted, as they are discriminating based on racial bigotry; this would also probably fall foul of anti-discrimination law, as it discriminates unlawfully (ie, it makes a distinction between people not on the basis of capability but on identity).

That person, because they are not perpetuating the social and economic structures which reinforce racist bigotry, is not being racist.

Just to be clear: this is not something I think, but a description of what the people you're decrying think. I think that this is a contested area, as when you seek to alter definitions for any reason you have dissenters for any reason, and this is a fraught area in the first place.

If you're asking me what I think, I appreciate precision of language even as I think the redefinition of a sociological term is unlikely to catch on without widespread approval.

 

[CM86]

The definition of racism - indeed, all definitions - has shifted over time.

Where once racism referred to the belief in one races superiority, that instead is racial bigotry. According to the people you're talking about, racism refers to the social, economic structures that have evolved due to that racial bigotry.

Do you see why it could be considered useful to separate bigotry and racism, if only to ensure precision of language?

People who discriminate on the basis of race are bigots. People who perpetuate the social and economic structures designed to perpetuate these racially bigoted beliefs and outcomes are racists.

Do you see why that is a useful distinction to make?

The problem lies in the fact that people like using the accusation of racism, regardless of whether it fits or not.


A person who engages in the behaviour above fulfills the definition of bigoted, as they are discriminating based on racial bigotry; this would also probably fall foul of anti-discrimination law, as it discriminates unlawfully (ie, it makes a distinction between people not on the basis of capability but on identity).

That person, because they are not perpetuating the social and economic structures which reinforce racist bigotry, is not being racist.

Just to be clear: this is not something I think, but a description of what the people you're decrying think. I think that this is a contested area, as when you seek to alter definitions for any reason you have dissenters for any reason, and this is a fraught area in the first place.

If you're asking me what I think, I appreciate precision of language even as I think the redefinition of a sociological term is unlikely to catch on without widespread approval.

Brilliant post, thank you. The most clear and concise explanation I've seen on this issue.

 

[the_interloper]

Yeah. This idea that, as the dominant group throughout much of the world white people can only discriminate and can't ever be discriminated against, is a logical fallacy. Any ethno-religious group can discriminate against any other, and for any reason. None of it is healthy or fair in the least, but each of us has that capability.

You'd think this would be obvious but a lot would disagree with you (and wrongly so imo)

 

[Seeds]

F**** ive just figured out im a ethical hypocrite.

i cant listen to michael jacksons "just beat it" anymore. I used to love that song.

why can i no longer listen to it without a feeling of disgust?

 

[Ben The Donkey]

I think you'd probably find that ethical considerations often fade into the background when faced with practical requirements.
Ethical values arose generally as a tool to facilitate social cohesion, and where they aren't (or are no longer) required to ensure that, they are discarded - but not quickly, as they become ingrained over time.
That's where hypocrisy comes into it. Killing animals for sport, as per several previous examples, is not a practical activity and no longer serves a purpose - whereas eating meat does.

When you come to the understanding that there is no such thing as absolute morality, you're on the right track.

 

[Pie eyed]

F**** ive just figured out im a ethical hypocrite.

i cant listen to michael jacksons "just beat it" anymore. I used to love that song.

why can i no longer listen to it without a feeling of disgust?

Great song.
I think your are over reacting because you feel you need to, to feel fulfilled, ethically.
Michael wanted you to love that song!
He and Sam Cooke both.

 

[Seeds]

Great song.
I think your are over reacting because you feel you need to, to feel fulfilled, ethically.
Michael wanted you to love that song!
He and Sam Cooke both.

Yeah but michael was a monster. so that doesnt help.