Your Argument Sucks

Actually, I do believe that being a hypocrite DOES make you wrong by default. As the definition states, a hypocrite is intrinsically a liar and is intending to deceive. Hypocrites cannot be perceived to have any ethical consistency and therefore cannot be trusted. Unless you have a standard of behavior to which you adhere, and to which you hold both yourself and others accountable, you cannot be trusted to keep your word. And trust is essential in relationships, whether on the personal or political level.

Thanks for writing up this blog. I can't agree more. I actually made the argument that hypocrisy does not imply that an argument is wrong a while ago though it was ignored. However, I think it will fall on deaf ears once more; the people that most commonly use hypocrisy to avoid real issues are simply using smear tactics to paint a certain alliance in a negative color. We would have more intellectually stimulating arguments if people could set aside petty differences but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

Actually, I do believe that being a hypocrite DOES make you wrong by default. As the definition states, a hypocrite is intrinsically a liar and is intending to deceive. Hypocrites cannot be perceived to have any ethical consistency and therefore cannot be trusted. Unless you have a standard of behavior to which you adhere, and to which you hold both yourself and others accountable, you cannot be trusted to keep your word. And trust is essential in relationships, whether on the personal or political level.

That is incorrect. The argument made by a hypocrite can be correct despite any actions taken to the contrary. Hypocrisy is similar to lying in the sense that the intentions of a hypocrite are deceitful. However, this says nothing about what the hypocrite says. To take an example, a teacher may tell his students that cheating is bad and then he may go and cheat on a test himself. In this case, you can argue that he was deceitful in his intent to maintain academic integrity. However, what he said, that cheating is bad, is still correct. Hypocrisy does not make his argument wrong.

And here I thought this was going to be about Hitler since CN got Godwin'd earlier.

I am disappoint.

Actually, I do believe that being a hypocrite DOES make you wrong by default. As the definition states, a hypocrite is intrinsically a liar and is intending to deceive. Hypocrites cannot be perceived to have any ethical consistency and therefore cannot be trusted. Unless you have a standard of behavior to which you adhere, and to which you hold both yourself and others accountable, you cannot be trusted to keep your word. And trust is essential in relationships, whether on the personal or political level.

Being untrustworthy is not equivalent to being wrong. And unless you're having an argument that pertains to their trustworthiness, bringing up hypocrisy is a roundabout ad hominem.

A public figure that speaks out against violence but hides a violent personal life away from the public eye is a hypocrite, but that does not render their words against violence moot.

e:f;b

If we are talking about an abstract discussion, then I will grant you that the personal integrity of the individual has no impact on the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the argument. However, in CN we are not dealing with abstract discussions. We are dealing with, in many cases, perceived credibility. In the case of the teacher who tells his student that cheating is bad, but who cheats himself, the teacher is in grave danger of losing his credibility if the student discovers that the teacher is a cheater. If that happens, the student will rightly question the validity of the instruction received from the teacher. In the case of CN, hypocrisy comes into play when alliances state that it is wrong for some other alliance to behave in a certain way, but then goes ahead and behaves in exactly the proscribed fashion. It becomes a "do as I say, not as I do" scenario. And that is not justifiable.

u r gune u not supost 2 b educate i am confuse :(

Things are only worth supporting when it furthers your own personal interests.

Regardless of what is right or wrong, to flip flop whenever it suits your needs is dishonorable and those who do it are childish and deserve only scorn.

(looking at you, VE and MK)

It's probably not as overused as the "M" word.

If you are acknowledging the fact that you're hypocrites, but claim that you are not in the wrong then that implies that the actions you used to so readily criticise NPO for were, in your opinion, actually in the right.

To get to such a point they are only two real possibilities, either you've changed you mind (convieniently whilst in power) and decided that rolling people without a CB is acceptable or you were just lying all along. Neither possibility makes you look very good.

If we are talking about an abstract discussion, then I will grant you that the personal integrity of the individual has no impact on the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the argument. However, in CN we are not dealing with abstract discussions. We are dealing with, in many cases, perceived credibility. In the case of the teacher who tells his student that cheating is bad, but who cheats himself, the teacher is in grave danger of losing his credibility if the student discovers that the teacher is a cheater. If that happens, the student will rightly question the validity of the instruction received from the teacher. In the case of CN, hypocrisy comes into play when alliances state that it is wrong for some other alliance to behave in a certain way, but then goes ahead and behaves in exactly the proscribed fashion. It becomes a "do as I say, not as I do" scenario. And that is not justifiable.

This is all well and good, but I'm not talking about credibility. I'm talking about using a word (hypocrisy) either in an incorrect sense, or to bypass real discussion. The bolded part of your comment is actually not hypocrisy. That's (at face value) a double standard which is different as there's no deception involved. A double standard still isn't a good thing but it gets the argument back on track, and doesn't make people immediately dismiss someone's argument like the label "hypocrite" does.

To give an actual example of the kind of thing I am trying to speak about:

In a thread I pointed out that changing one's mind is not the same as hypocrisy. Someone responded to that by saying they remember MK members calling people hypocrites for changing their minds. That is not a refutation of my statement, but it was presented as such. This is the kind of empty argument I find so disappointing.

If you are acknowledging the fact that you're hypocrites, but claim that you are not in the wrong then that implies that the actions you used to so readily criticise NPO for were, in your opinion, actually in the right.

To get to such a point they are only two real possibilities, either you've changed you mind (convieniently whilst in power) and decided that rolling people without a CB is acceptable or you were just lying all along. Neither possibility makes you look very good.

There is a reason that so far I have tried to keep politics out of this post and my responses here. Bad arguments can happen from both sides of the fence, and both irritate me just as much. Also I've never opposed any such thing myself so I'm quite safe from the label.

Later I'll be writing a blog post about how terrible the whole ongoing "just as bad/not as bad as the NPO" argument is, anyways.

Actually, the bolded part of my comment is the textbook definition of hypocrisy. As per Webster's dictionary:

hy·poc·ri·sy

noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\

plural hy·poc·ri·sies

Definition of HYPOCRISY

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

Examples of HYPOCRISY

1. When his private letters were made public, they revealed his hypocrisy.

2. the hypocrisy of people who say one thing but do another

3. Teenagers often have a keen awareness of their parents' hypocrisies.

Do you have any other argument?

--cut for length--

At best it would be ambiguous, as hypocrisy still needs some level of deceit. A man that preaches the virtues of sobriety while being constantly drunk is not a hypocrite if he doesn't hide that fact. You did not say whether or not the alliance is open about its double standard, so I'll give you that.

Now that we have thoroughly defined hypocrisy I have no other argument about that, but do you have anything more to say about the actual topic of this blog?