Hyprocisy

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 66
#31
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
ok. he is irrelevant to this discussion. He didn't do anything. Video made it look like he did. 

He is relevant because of the main topic being discussed, but yes, he did nothing wrong.

The problem is that most of the criticism is stupid. The right can't really refute the arguments she makes, so they attack her personally. 

I haven't watched her extensively, but I know that a lot of climate change discussion is fear mongering. Some is correct, such as the world heating up, but other aspects are either fabricated or exaggerated.

I agree that the criticism Nick got turned out to be unwarranted. I do not condone that. But you are using 1 injustice done to nick to justify a different injustice done to Greta. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? If you actually thought attacking them was wrong you wouldn't be ok with the personal attacks on Greta. 

I am not okay with either. The whole forum topic is showing the hypocrisy of the left-wing, especially the media. They attacked Nick with little regard for his young age and the fact that he did nothing. They then flip out when anyone criticizes this gal. I don't think that Greta should be attacked personally. She can be criticized in terms of her ideas because she willingly put herself in the spotlight, but I don't think children should be personally attacked.
#32
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
I haven't watched her extensively, but I know that a lot of climate change discussion is fear mongering. Some is correct, such as the world heating up, but other aspects are either fabricated or exaggerated.
So virtually all climate scientists agree. All the models say pretty much the same things. They aren't fear mongering. They are warning the world what is coming. We are already feeling it and it is getting worse. It is going to continue unless we change course drastically and very soon. 

I am not okay with either. The whole forum topic is showing the hypocrisy of the left-wing, especially the media. They attacked Nick with little regard for his young age and the fact that he did nothing. They then flip out when anyone criticizes this gal.
The difference is what they are "accused" of. Nick looked like he was triggering violence at a protest. I agree that wasn't the case, but it looked like it was. Greta has never been accused of anything at all. She peacefully calls for action to save the world. The attacks against her are mostly personal when she hasn't done anything and everyone knows that.

The difference is when the left found out nick didn't do anything wrong they stopped. The right knows Greta hasn't done anything wrong and they still keep on attacking. 
#33
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
So virtually all climate scientists agree. All the models say pretty much the same things. They aren't fear mongering. They are warning the world what is coming. We are already feeling it and it is getting worse. It is going to continue unless we change course drastically and very soon. 

"Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research."

Will the world end in 12 years like cortez is saying?

The difference is what they are "accused" of. Nick looked like he was triggering violence at a protest. I agree that wasn't the case, but it looked like it was. Greta has never been accused of anything at all. She peacefully calls for action to save the world. The attacks against her are mostly personal when she hasn't done anything and everyone knows that.

The difference is when the left found out nick didn't do anything wrong they stopped. The right knows Greta hasn't done anything wrong and they still keep on attacking. 
The damage was already done when they stopped attacking Nick. They permanently damaged his image. You don't see this kind of coordinated media attack from the right wing. She was told to "chill". Not very vicious in comparison.

But honestly, why did your side pick a young teenage girl with mental disabilities to talk about a highly scientific issue? Was the plan to shield your position from criticism? 
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Will the world end in 12 years like cortez is saying?

97% of academic Democrats warned us in 2016 that the world would end immediately as well.

Maybe THEIR world is gone perhaps.
#35
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Sounds like fear mongering to trick people into creating a giant government that will "protect them".
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
#37
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
I like how all of those videos have links to global warming on Wikipedia. Nice priming, YouTube.
#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WaterPhoenix
The word bribery is purposefully omitted in the articles of impeachment. Guess why.

#39
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
What they’re doing is historically unprecedented.

#40
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The difference is what they are "accused" of. Nick looked like he was triggering violence at a protest. I agree that wasn't the case, but it looked like it was. Greta has never been accused of anything at all. She peacefully calls for action to save the world. The attacks against her are mostly personal when she hasn't done anything and everyone knows that. 

The difference is when the left found out nick didn't do anything wrong they stopped. The right knows Greta hasn't done anything wrong and they still keep on attacking. 
<br>
Lmao the double standard is amazing. Sandman did nothing yet media was quick to jump on him. Greta goes to political summits and criticizes world leaders on climate. There’s a difference. She’s spoiled. He’s not.
#41
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
It is. The founding fathers never expected the Congress to completely discount and dismiss the other 2 branches of government as this Congress has. 

An impeachment without any semblance of respect for the courts or the law or for the presumption of innocence. A Congress that believes obstructing the will of the Congress in a 3 system government consisting of checks and balances is an impeachable offense. 

Unprecedented tyranny of Congress.
#42
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly. Going to the courts is not obstruction of Congress. It’s called going to the third and final coequal branch to resolve conflict between the other way. That’s how it has historically been done.

As for Abuse of power, that’s subjective and has no constitutional backing.

Its a sham that will endanger the 31 Democrats in Trump won districts (1 of whom is becoming a Republican).
#43
WaterPhoenix
WaterPhoenix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,094
3
3
10
WaterPhoenix's avatar
WaterPhoenix
3
3
10
-->
@Greyparrot
mhm

#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Its a sham that will endanger the 31 Democrats in Trump won districts (1 of whom is becoming a Republican).
Technically only 30 will be losing their seats then.
#45
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
The damage was already done when they stopped attacking Nick. They permanently damaged his image.
I didn't say what happened to nick was right. it wasn't. But when the left wing media realized their mistake they stopped. That at least shows some level morality. Right wing media knows Greta has done nothing wrong and they are attacking her. That shows 0 morality. 

You don't see this kind of coordinated media attack from the right wing. She was told to "chill". Not very vicious in comparison.
What? Are you serious? They are smearing her all over the right wing media. The president himself is insulting her. 
#46
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
the double standard is amazing. Sandman did nothing yet media was quick to jump on him. Greta goes to political summits and criticizes world leaders on climate. There’s a difference. She’s spoiled. He’s not.
Nick looked like he was instigating violence at a protest. So the media denounced him for violence. i agree they acted without all the facts. But they were denouncing violence. Greta is trying to get the world to actually listen about a massive impending threat. She is not advocating for violence. She is completely peaceful. She has done nothing wrong. The right are attacking her personally. 

I agree there is a double standard. You want to point to what happened to nick as bad (which it was) and then point to what is happening to Greta (which is just as bad) and don't care. It is you who has the double standard. 

And also, she is advocating for a cause that effects the entire world. That is literally a selfless act. 
#47
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
I didn't say what happened to nick was right. it wasn't. But when the left wing media realized their mistake they stopped. That at least shows some level morality. Right wing media knows Greta has done nothing wrong and they are attacking her. That shows 0 morality. 

The left wing media didn't apologize as far as I know. They never do, like the ABC Syria thing. They just cover it up after it is too late. They only stopped because everyone found out that it was a hoax most likely.

I don't know a lot about the  attacks on her. I don't know if the attacks are personal or substantive, so I can't make a judgement on what is going on with her. Telling her to calm down was immature, but not nasty like labeling a teenager as a racist. (I know you agree that it was wrong, I am just juxtaposing).

I agree there is a double standard. You want to point to what happened to nick as bad (which it was) and then point to what is happening to Greta (which is just as bad) and don't care. It is you who has the double standard. 

Never said I don't care. I specifically said to not personally attack children, but attacking what she says is 100% on the table.

And also, she is advocating for a cause that effects the entire world. That is literally a selfless act. 

We don't know her motives. Maybe she likes the attention that this climate alarmism brings. Her parents are activists from what I understand, so it looks like they are using her for their political goals. 
#48
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
The left wing media didn't apologize as far as I know. 
who exactly has to apologize for you to consider "the media" as apologizing? You know there are alot of people in that group right?

They only stopped because everyone found out that it was a hoax most likely.
That is exactly my point. they found out he hadn't done what he was accused of and they stopped. 

Telling her to calm down was immature, but not nasty like labeling a teenager as a racist. (I know you agree that it was wrong, I am just juxtaposing).
the difference is there was evidence that nick was a racist. It was later proven to be inaccurate, but there was grounds to think that. (media should have checked more before attacking, i'm not defending that)

But greta hasn't done anything but call for people to fight climate change, which we all know is happening. Engaging in juvenile and personal attacks on her for that shows that the right doesn't care about morality, they just want an enemy to point at to distract people. 

Never said I don't care. I specifically said to not personally attack children, but attacking what she says is 100% on the table.
I totally agree. But I haven't seen anyone attack the substance of her point. I have seen people attack her intelligence, her looks, her maturity, her "anger problems" etc. 

We don't know her motives. Maybe she likes the attention that this climate alarmism brings. Her parents are activists from what I understand, so it looks like they are using her for their political goals. 
Even if her motives were bad (which there is no evidence for), she is advocating for fighting something that most people understand is a real threat, climate change. We are already starting to feel it's effects and it is only getting worse. 
#49
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
who exactly has to apologize for you to consider "the media" as apologizing? You know there are alot of people in that group right?

Whoever was reporting on false assumptions. Journalists, especially in non-opinion pieces, should need to have pretty good evidence before bashing a kid.

That is exactly my point. they found out he hadn't done what he was accused of and they stopped. 
Why did they report the way they did on something that they didn't even understand. Wearing a MAGA hat isn't a crime, but to them, it was.

the difference is there was evidence that nick was a racist. It was later proven to be inaccurate, but there was grounds to think that. (media should have checked more before attacking, i'm not defending that)

But greta hasn't done anything but call for people to fight climate change, which we all know is happening. Engaging in juvenile and personal attacks on her for that shows that the right doesn't care about morality, they just want an enemy to point at to distract people. 
Well we both agree that what they did was disgusting and that they should have gotten evidence. Smiling at a yelling guy while wearing a MAGA hat isn't evidence of racism.

The climate is always changing. It has since we have had climates. The earth has been warming up since the last ice age. There are no extra serious storms than there used to be. She is an alarmist whose policy positions would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and she is basing what she says on evidence that is far from settled. She, of her own volition, is making herself a public figure. Nick had no intention of being thrown into national scrutiny.

I totally agree. But I haven't seen anyone attack the substance of her point. I have seen people attack her intelligence, her looks, her maturity, her "anger problems" etc. 

And those types of attacks are unacceptable.

Even if her motives were bad (which there is no evidence for), she is advocating for fighting something that most people understand is a real threat, climate change. We are already starting to feel it's effects and it is only getting worse. 

I am still unconvinced of the 'incoming catastrophe". I would like to have some more renewable energy because I don't like pollution, but this call for massive government overreach seems more like a plot to increase the size of the government more than anything. Humans have adapted to climate change for their entire existence. How will this be any different?
#50
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Nick looked like he was instigating violence at a protest. So the media denounced him for violence. i agree they acted without all the facts. But they were denouncing violence. Greta is trying to get the world to actually listen about a massive impending threat. She is not advocating for violence. She is completely peaceful. She has done nothing wrong. The right are attacking her personally. 

I agree there is a double standard. You want to point to what happened to nick as bad (which it was) and then point to what is happening to Greta (which is just as bad) and don't care. It is you who has the double standard. 

And also, she is advocating for a cause that effects the entire world. That is literally a selfless act. 

Where are the apologies for Nick? Greta willingly is engaging in the political sphere and is open to criticism. And you thinking climate change is the biggest issue is your opinion. Difference between Nick and Greta is that Nick was caught in the political system while Greta was already a public figure in the political system.
#51
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Ukraine is in a war with Russia. They need that aid to defend themselves. Trump withheld it 
Obama withheld it. Not Trump. Why does reality not matter to lib dems?

...exchange for a smear job on his rival. 
Lie. Trump asked for an investigation, you interpret that as asking for a smear job, fine, but your biased interpretation is not reality.

Which is why Nancy is now withholding sending the articles to the Senate, and why Trump will be acquitted.

Luckily, reality doesn't change when liberals ignore it.
#52
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Obama withheld it. Not Trump. Why does reality not matter to lib dems?
<br>
The reality is that Trump did initially withhold aid. I'm not sure if Obama did or did not as well. On the other-hand whether he did or did not is irrelevant to whether Trump did himself.

Lie. Trump asked for an investigation, you interpret that as asking for a smear job, fine, but your biased interpretation is not reality.
The interpretation that it was a smear job is fairly reasonable given the facts. Here's an interesting exercise for you: are you able to describe the specific facts of this incident that have led people such as HistoryBuff into thinking that it was a smear job yourself?
#53
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@bmdrocks21
Whoever was reporting on false assumptions. Journalists, especially in non-opinion pieces, should need to have pretty good evidence before bashing a kid.
humans are fallible, they make mistakes. They saw a video that showed something. They reported on it. They were wrong. When they realized they were wrong they stopped. The attacks on Greta don't even pretend that she has done something wrong, they are just personal attacks. 

Why did they report the way they did on something that they didn't even understand. Wearing a MAGA hat isn't a crime, but to them, it was.
They thought they did understand. They had a video of it. They didn't attack him for the hat. they attacked because it looked like he was instigating violence. 

The climate is always changing. It has since we have had climates. The earth has been warming up since the last ice age.
True. The climate shifts very slowly all the time. That is not the issue. The climate is shifting much quickly than it ever has. And it started during the industrial revolution when we started polluting. 

There are no extra serious storms than there used to be.
yes there are. Where i live we have had floods worse than we have had in decades back to back. Storms are getting worse and more frequent. 

She is an alarmist whose policy positions would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and she is basing what she says on evidence that is far from settled. She, of her own volition, is making herself a public figure. Nick had no intention of being thrown into national scrutiny.
And if people were attacking her policy positions i would have no issue. But they aren't. The people attacking her have little to no evidence that she is wrong, so they attack her personally. That is morally reprehensible. 

I totally agree. But I haven't seen anyone attack the substance of her point. I have seen people attack her intelligence, her looks, her maturity, her "anger problems" etc. 

And those types of attacks are unacceptable.
I see you say that. But the president is one of the people doing it. I am guessing you haven't decided to vote democrat, so that is just a talking point. You will accept him, and others, doing terrible things. 

I am still unconvinced of the 'incoming catastrophe". I would like to have some more renewable energy because I don't like pollution, but this call for massive government overreach seems more like a plot to increase the size of the government more than anything.
That would be a conspiracy theory. 

Humans have adapted to climate change for their entire existence. How will this be any different?
Previous shifts in climate have caused mass starvation and death. Humans are extremely reliant on things happening as we expect them to. Even minor changes could kill millions of people. And we are causing it to happen much faster. There is very good cause to be concerned. 
#54
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
The reality is that Trump did initially withhold aid.
True. As he was charged by law to make sure the taxpayers hard earned money was not wasted.

I'm not sure if Obama did or did not as well.
Obama never gave them the aid in lethal weapons they needed. Trump did. That's why it is so disgusting to hear democrats cry now about how desperate Ukraine was under the boot of Russia. Why didn't Obama give them the defensive weaponry they needed? But Trump, who did give them the aid, is accused of what Obama did!

On the other-hand whether he did or did not is irrelevant to whether Trump did himself.
It is very relevant. Trump did not withhold aid, Obama did. And it is Obama administration flunkies accusing Trump of doing what Obama did.

The interpretation that it was a smear job is fairly reasonable given the facts.
Nonsense. The Senate and half the country have seen the same "facts" and do not agree. Add that to the fact that every democrat has assumed Trump was guilty since 2016 and we know "the facts" had nothing to do with their interpretation.

Here's an interesting exercise for you: are you able to describe the specific facts of this incident that have led people such as HistoryBuff into thinking that it was a smear job yourself?
Sure. TDS. HistoryBuff is suffering from a bad case of TDS. He doesn't wish to answer questions, so he has blocked me.

The only people who dodge questions are the guilty. That is why courts of law can force a defendant to answer questions.

If any progressive democrat was not terrified to do so, I could ask him questions that would quickly show either his deceit or his delusion. Only questions.
#55
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
True. As he was charged by law to make sure the taxpayers hard earned money was not wasted.
However evidence has suggested that this was not his primary motivation in withholding aid

Obama never gave them the aid in lethal weapons they needed. Trump did. That's why it is so disgusting to hear democrats cry now about how desperate Ukraine was under the boot of Russia. Why didn't Obama give them the defensive weaponry they needed? But Trump, who did give them the aid, is accused of what Obama did!
It is very relevant. Trump did not withhold aid, Obama did. And it is Obama administration flunkies accusing Trump of doing what Obama did.
1. We can criticise what Obama did or did not do. This does not impact how we criticise what Trump did or did not do. 
2. The primary complaint is the manner in which aid was withheld from Ukraine. People would not be complaining if aid were delayed on the basis of the determination of corruption

Nonsense. The Senate and half the country have seen the same "facts" and do not agree. Add that to the fact that every democrat has assumed Trump was guilty since 2016 and we know "the facts" had nothing to do with their interpretation.
Well why don't you personally agree? Or rather, what were the facts of the Ukraine case that you think have led people to think that it was a smear job, and why are those people wrong about their interpretation of those facts?
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,002
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ethang5
#57
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
However evidence has suggested that this was not his primary motivation in withholding aid
Untrue. You are guessing at his motivation. You do not, and cannot know it. And no motivation can be a crime, just an action. And Ukraine got the funds without doing anything.

This does not impact how we criticise what Trump did or did not do. 
If you are one of the people saying what Obama did was OK but Trumps was a crime, I will dismiss you as someone hopelessly biased.

People would not be complaining if aid were delayed on the basis of the determination of corruption
Who's complaining? Only the lib dems, and they have been complaining since Jan 2016. Excuse me if we doubt your impartiality.

what were the facts of the Ukraine case that you think have led people to think that it was a smear job, and why are those people wrong about their interpretation of those facts?
This whole thing has nothing to do with Ukraine or a phone call. There are no "facts" that show a crime. Shiff claimed he had proof that Trump colluded. Where is it?

Polosi was sure Trump was guilty before she got the transcript of the phone call. Trump is innocent till proven guilty, he will not be convicted on your assumptions of his intentions.
#58
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Ikr? Lol
#59
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ethang5
Untrue. You are guessing at his motivation. You do not, and cannot know it. And no motivation can be a crime, just an action. And Ukraine got the funds without doing anything.
I don't think you understand the concept of evidence. Someone does not have to literally say "I did this" for us to know he did it.

If I'm trying to find the person who ate my cookie, the person who most likely ate it is the person whose breath smells of cookies, whose hands and mouth is covered in cookie crumbs, and the person who ten other people say did it.

If you are one of the people saying what Obama did was OK but Trumps was a crime, I will dismiss you as someone hopelessly biased.
I mean.. different actions are judged differently right? 

Who's complaining? Only the lib dems, and they have been complaining since Jan 2016. Excuse me if we doubt your impartiality.
There's nothing to be impartial about really. The objective facts of what he has done are plainly recorded for all to see.

This whole thing has nothing to do with Ukraine or a phone call. There are no "facts" that show a crime. Shiff claimed he had proof that Trump colluded. Where is it?
Polosi was sure Trump was guilty before she got the transcript of the phone call. Trump is innocent till proven guilty, he will not be convicted on your assumptions of his intentions.
I'm not asking you for why you think there isn't a crime. I'm asking you if you understand why other people think there is a crime and if you can list the facts that make them think so. Or in otherwords, are you a honest actor and are making fair judgments based upon reading and understanding the objective facts or are you a gibbering moron without any critical thinking skills?
#60
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@ethang5
Untrue. You are guessing at his motivation. You do not, and cannot know it. And no motivation can be a crime, just an action. And Ukraine got the funds without doing anything.
The burden of proof is actually larger. You need to have criminal intent AND commit a criminal action for it to be something that you can be prosecuted for.

It is called Mens Rea and Actus Reus.