Republicans and Whores

[Duetopia]

GOP'ers that espouse family values, demonize homosexuals, and rail against liberals in Hollywood keep getting caught with people that are not their spouse in compromising situations.
What to do we do with them?

The same thing you do with christians who are not christ-like. I am an atheist, but I can understand the idea of a personal failing. I can understand how someone can have ideals and not live up to their own ideals by being too weak. But not living up to one's constructive values is not quite the same thing as having values which are destructive.

For example, I try to eat right. But sometimes, I still find myself eating junk. That's not quite the same as someone who eats junk all the time.

There's probably a difference between having a big mac and doing meth off a rent boy's ass.

Both are failures to live up to one's own ideals. It's just a matter of degree. I actually have no problem with hypocrites. If people want to set impossible moral standards for themselves, it's their business. I have a problem with them trying to set any moral standards for anyone else, but getting caught violating those moral standards simply doesn't change anything. It doesn't prove or disprove the fact that setting moral standards for others is idiotic. It's just unrelated.

I do have a problem with politicians using their position to espouse moral standard and pass legislation for us when they have no intention of following those standards themself. Then at the end of the day, they get down on their knees or talk to their pastor and lo and behold are forgiven or cured by God, then go right back to their hypocrisy.

And my argument is that they shouldn't set moral standards for everyone else even if they are willing to follow those standards themselves. It's just unrelated. They set a standard for themselves because they think it's good than set it for everyone else because they still think it's good. And then fail to follow it themselves. So what? Would it make any difference if they did follow it themselves? No. The only change would be to their lives. Why should I care? Catching someone on a hypocrisy is pointless. It just doesn't prove anything. Government is not in the business of writing self-help books. They are in the business of using brute force to enforce the most necessary rules in society. "Hypocrisy" is being used as if it were the strongest of accusations. It's not. The much stronger accusation is that they are wrong to intrude in others' personal lives. If they want to set impossible (or at least hard-to-follow) standards for themselves, I don't care. Nor do I care if they fail. And "I don't care" means that I don't to gloat when they fail, either.

[Barzan]

And my argument is that they shouldn't set moral standards for everyone else even if they are willing to follow those standards themselves. It's just unrelated. They set a standard for themselves because they think it's good than set it for everyone else because they still think it's good. And then fail to follow it themselves. So what? Would it make any difference if they did follow it themselves? No. The only change would be to their lives. Why should I care? Catching someone on a hypocrisy is pointless. It just doesn't prove anything. Government is not in the business of writing self-help books. They are in the business of using brute force to enforce the most necessary rules in society. "Hypocrisy" is being used as if it were the strongest of accusations. It's not. The much stronger accusation is that they are wrong to intrude in others' personal lives. If they want to set impossible (or at least hard-to-follow) standards for themselves, I don't care. Nor do I care if they fail. And "I don't care" means that I don't to gloat when they fail, either.

Even if one were to agree with you on the "hypocrisy doesn't matter because it'd still be wrong whether they 'walked their own talk' or not", you still have to that it's pretty ironic -- not to mention more than simply coincidental that the loudest and most obnoxious proponents of such "morality" aren't even capable of meeting their own standards. You'd expect them to at least follow their own laws -- or what they would try and make into laws. Doesn't their own inability to follow such absurd limits on private behaviour say how ridiculous the whole endeavour is?

[Cameroi]

wasn't so called family values something invented by the mafia?

i think politicians should stop being hypicrites and voters accept reality that they are all fallible humans and choose them for their possitions on real issues. and that includes not voting for those who obscure their possitions or sell them to the highest lobbiest bidder.

which leads to the obvious response to the title of the thread,

namely: "there's a difference?"

[Barzan]

wasn't so called family values something invented by the mafia?

i think politicians should stop being hypicrites and voters accept reality that they are all fallible humans and choose them for their possitions on real issues. and that includes not voting for those who obscure their possitions or sell them to the highest lobbiest bidder.

which leads to the obvious response to the title of the thread,

namely: "there's a difference?"

I think politicians should focus on addressing things that matter -- such as wars, fiscal policy, etc., and shut the hell up about things unrelated to rational public policy debate. Then again, such a thing doesn't exist. Perhaps if we only allowed those with a university degree the right of franchise then we'd get a higher calibre pool of political talent. No more populist and religious fanaticism.